IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mil/wpdepa/2002-008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing conditional variance models: Theory and empirical evidence

Author

Listed:
  • P. Girardello
  • Orietta Nicolis
  • Giovanni Tondini

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify which model, between the two classes of conditionalvariance models, GARCH and SV, provide the best goodness of fit in order to describestylized facts of financial time series returns. Our strategy consists in choosing threedifferent formulations for each class, i. e. , the standard model, the fat-tailed model, andthe asymmetric model. After comparing these models on a theoretical ground, we fit themto daily returns of market indices and carry out diagnostic tests to identify the model whichprovide the best goodness-of-fit and the best adequacy to some specific qualitative featuresof financial returns, such as heavy-tails, squared returns autocorrelations, and returnsvariances asymmetry. At last, we find that in most of the cases the SV models dominate theGARCH models. In particular, while the GARCH-t formulation fits outliers better thanstandard SV and SV-t, it shows a whole goodness of fit inferior to these latter; asymmetricmodels (EGARCH and SV asymmetric) are not as good as the previous ones in describingfat tails, but are very adequate in approximating squared returns ACFs; the asymmetricSV model is superior than EGARCH in capturing heavy tails and autocorrelations, butthe latter is preferable in describing the asymmetric e ect when this is particularly strong.

Suggested Citation

  • P. Girardello & Orietta Nicolis & Giovanni Tondini, 2002. "Comparing conditional variance models: Theory and empirical evidence," Departmental Working Papers 2002-008, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
  • Handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2002-008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.demm.unimi.it/tl_files/wp/2002/DEMM-2002_008wp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2002-008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: DEMM Working Papers (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.