IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2021-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

HCR & HCR-GARCH – novel statistical learning models for Value at Risk estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Woźniak

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Marcin Chlebus

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

Abstract

Market risk researchers agree that an ideal model for Value at Risk (VaR) estimation does not exist, different models performance strongly depends on current economic circumstances. Under the conditions of sudden volatility increase, such as during the global economic crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, no classical VaR model worked properly even for the group of the largest market indices. Therefore, the aim of the article is to present and formally test three novel statistical learning models for VaR estimation: HCR, HCR-GARCH and HCR-QML-GARCH, which, by considering additional volatility term (due to time context and statistical moments), should be able to perform well in times of market turbulence. In the benchmark procedure we compare the 1% and 2.5% one-day-ahead VaR forecasts obtained with the above models against the estimates of classical methods like: Historical Simulation, KDE, Modified Cornish-Fisher Expansion, GARCH(1,1) with varied distributions, RiskMetrics™, EVT and QML-GARCH. Four periods that vary in terms of market volatility: 2006-9, 2008-11, 2014-17 and mid-2016 to mid-2020 for six different stock market indexes: DAX, WIG 20, MOEX, S&P 500, Nikkei and SHC are selected. Models quality is tested from two perspectives: fulfilling regulatory requirements and forecasting adequateness. Obtained results show that HCR-GARCH outperforms other models during periods of sudden increased volatility in the markets. At the same time, HCR-QML-GARCH liberalizes the conservative estimates of HCR-GARCH and allows its use under moderate volatility, without any major loss of quality in times of crisis.

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Woźniak & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "HCR & HCR-GARCH – novel statistical learning models for Value at Risk estimation," Working Papers 2021-10, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2021-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/6464/
    File Function: First version, 2021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marius Lux & Wolfgang Karl Härdle & Stefan Lessmann, 2020. "Data driven value-at-risk forecasting using a SVR-GARCH-KDE hybrid," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 947-981, September.
    2. Bali, Turan G. & Mo, Hengyong & Tang, Yi, 2008. "The role of autoregressive conditional skewness and kurtosis in the estimation of conditional VaR," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-282, February.
    3. Patton, Andrew J. & Ziegel, Johanna F. & Chen, Rui, 2019. "Dynamic semiparametric models for expected shortfall (and Value-at-Risk)," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 388-413.
    4. Jarek Duda & Ma{l}gorzata Snarska, 2018. "Modeling joint probability distribution of yield curve parameters," Papers 1807.11743, arXiv.org.
    5. Robert F. Engle & Simone Manganelli, 2004. "CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value at Risk by Regression Quantiles," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 367-381, October.
    6. Wang, Chuan-Sheng & Zhao, Zhibiao, 2016. "Conditional Value-at-Risk: Semiparametric estimation and inference," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 86-103.
    7. Christoffersen, Peter F, 1998. "Evaluating Interval Forecasts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 841-862, November.
    8. James W. Taylor, 2019. "Forecasting Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Using a Semiparametric Approach Based on the Asymmetric Laplace Distribution," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 121-133, January.
    9. Alexander Arimond & Damian Borth & Andreas Hoepner & Michael Klawunn & Stefan Weisheit, 2020. "Neural Networks and Value at Risk," Papers 2005.01686, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    10. Bollerslev, Tim, 1986. "Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 307-327, April.
    11. Lu Yang & Shigeyuki Hamori, 2020. "Forecasts of Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in the Crude Oil Market: A Wavelet-Based Semiparametric Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-27, July.
    12. Avdulaj Krenar & Barunik Jozef, 2017. "A semiparametric nonlinear quantile regression model for financial returns," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 81-97, February.
    13. Nick Costanzino & Michael Curran, 2018. "A Simple Traffic Light Approach to Backtesting Expected Shortfall," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, January.
    14. Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell & Uryasev, Stanislav, 2002. "Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1443-1471, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerlach, Richard & Wang, Chao, 2020. "Semi-parametric dynamic asymmetric Laplace models for tail risk forecasting, incorporating realized measures," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 489-506.
    2. Timo Dimitriadis & Xiaochun Liu & Julie Schnaitmann, 2020. "Encompassing Tests for Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Multi-Step Forecasts based on Inference on the Boundary," Papers 2009.07341, arXiv.org.
    3. Chao Wang & Richard Gerlach, 2019. "Semi-parametric Realized Nonlinear Conditional Autoregressive Expectile and Expected Shortfall," Papers 1906.09961, arXiv.org.
    4. David Happersberger & Harald Lohre & Ingmar Nolte, 2020. "Estimating portfolio risk for tail risk protection strategies," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 26(4), pages 1107-1146, September.
    5. Gery Geenens & Richard Dunn, 2017. "A nonparametric copula approach to conditional Value-at-Risk," Papers 1712.05527, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    6. Alex Huang, 2013. "Value at risk estimation by quantile regression and kernel estimator," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 225-251, August.
    7. Qifa Xu & Lu Chen & Cuixia Jiang & Yezheng Liu, 2022. "Forecasting expected shortfall and value at risk with a joint elicitable mixed data sampling model," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 407-421, April.
    8. Dimitriadis, Timo & Schnaitmann, Julie, 2021. "Forecast encompassing tests for the expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 604-621.
    9. Santos, Douglas G. & Candido, Osvaldo & Tófoli, Paula V., 2022. "Forecasting risk measures using intraday and overnight information," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    10. Wu, Qi & Yan, Xing, 2019. "Capturing deep tail risk via sequential learning of quantile dynamics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Lang, Korbinian & Auer, Benjamin R., 2020. "The economic and financial properties of crude oil: A review," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    12. Giuseppe Storti & Chao Wang, 2023. "Modeling uncertainty in financial tail risk: A forecast combination and weighted quantile approach," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(7), pages 1648-1663, November.
    13. Rita Pimentel & Morten Risstad & Sjur Westgaard, 2022. "Predicting interest rate distributions using PCA & quantile regression," Digital Finance, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 291-311, December.
    14. Chen, Cathy W.S. & Hsu, Hsiao-Yun & Watanabe, Toshiaki, 2023. "Tail risk forecasting of realized volatility CAViaR models," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    15. Wilson Calmon & Eduardo Ferioli & Davi Lettieri & Johann Soares & Adrian Pizzinga, 2021. "An Extensive Comparison of Some Well‐Established Value at Risk Methods," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 89(1), pages 148-166, April.
    16. Marc Hallin & Carlos Trucíos, 2020. "Forecasting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in Large Portfolios: a General Dynamic Factor Approach," Working Papers ECARES 2020-50, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Cheng, Wan-Hsiu & Hung, Jui-Cheng, 2011. "Skewness and leptokurtosis in GARCH-typed VaR estimation of petroleum and metal asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 160-173, January.
    18. Alex YiHou Huang, 2010. "An optimization process in Value‐at‐Risk estimation," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 109-116, August.
    19. Storti, Giuseppe & Wang, Chao, 2022. "Nonparametric expected shortfall forecasting incorporating weighted quantiles," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 224-239.
    20. Zhengkun Li & Minh-Ngoc Tran & Chao Wang & Richard Gerlach & Junbin Gao, 2020. "A Bayesian Long Short-Term Memory Model for Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Joint Forecasting," Papers 2001.08374, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Value at Risk; Hierarchical Correlation Reconstruction; GARCH; Standardized Residuals;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • C58 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Financial Econometrics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:war:wpaper:2021-10. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.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.