IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Are RiskMetrics forecasts good enough? Evidence from 31 stock markets

  • McMillan, David G.
  • Kambouroudis, Dimos
Registered author(s):

    Academic research has highlighted the inherent flaws within the RiskMetrics model and demonstrated the superiority of the GARCH approach in-sample. However, these results do not necessarily extend to forecasting performance. This paper seeks answer to the question of whether RiskMetrics volatility forecasts are adequate in comparison to those obtained from GARCH models. To answer the question stock index data is taken from 31 international markets and subjected to two exercises, a straightforward volatility forecasting exercise and a Value-at-Risk exceptions forecasting competition. Our results provide some simple answers to the above question. When forecasting volatility of the G7 stock markets the APARCH model, in particular, provides superior forecasts that are significantly different from the RiskMetrics models in over half the cases. This result also extends to the European markets with the APARCH model typically preferred. For the Asian markets the RiskMetrics model performs well, and is only significantly dominated by the GARCH models for one market, although there is evidence that the APARCH model provides a better forecast for the larger Asian markets. Regarding the Value-at-Risk exercise, when forecasting the 1% VaR the RiskMetrics model does a poor job and is typically the worst performing model, again the APARCH model does well. However, forecasting the 5% VaR then the RiskMetrics model does provide an adequate performance. In short, the RiskMetrics model only performs well in forecasting the volatility of small emerging markets and for broader VaR measures.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal International Review of Financial Analysis.

    Volume (Year): 18 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 3 (June)
    Pages: 117-124

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:finana:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:117-124
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Robert Engle & Simone Manganelli, 2000. "CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value at Risk by Regression Quantiles," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0841, Econometric Society.
    2. Philippe Jorion, 1996. "Risk and Turnover in the Foreign Exchange Market," NBER Chapters, in: The Microstructure of Foreign Exchange Markets, pages 19-40 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Schwert, G William, 1990. "Stock Volatility and the Crash of '87," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(1), pages 77-102.
    4. Alan E. H. Speight & David G. McMillan, 2004. "Daily volatility forecasts: reassessing the performance of GARCH models," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 449-460.
    5. Ding, Zhuanxin & Granger, Clive W. J. & Engle, Robert F., 1993. "A long memory property of stock market returns and a new model," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 83-106, June.
    6. Davidson, James, 2004. "Moment and Memory Properties of Linear Conditional Heteroscedasticity Models, and a New Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 16-29, January.
    7. Nelson, Daniel B, 1991. "Conditional Heteroskedasticity in Asset Returns: A New Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 347-70, March.
    8. Pagan, Adrian R. & Schwert, G. William, 1990. "Alternative models for conditional stock volatility," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1-2), pages 267-290.
    9. Asger Lunde & Peter R. Hansen, 2005. "A forecast comparison of volatility models: does anything beat a GARCH(1,1)?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(7), pages 873-889.
    10. Andersen, Torben G & Bollerslev, Tim, 1998. "Answering the Skeptics: Yes, Standard Volatility Models Do Provide Accurate Forecasts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 885-905, November.
    11. Halbert White, 2000. "A Reality Check for Data Snooping," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1097-1126, September.
    12. So, Mike K.P. & Yu, Philip L.H., 2006. "Empirical analysis of GARCH models in value at risk estimation," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 180-197, April.
    13. Bollerslev, Tim & Chou, Ray Y. & Kroner, Kenneth F., 1992. "ARCH modeling in finance : A review of the theory and empirical evidence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1-2), pages 5-59.
    14. David McMillan & Alan Speight & Owain Apgwilym, 2000. "Forecasting UK stock market volatility," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 435-448.
    15. Jacob A. Mincer & Victor Zarnowitz, 1969. "The Evaluation of Economic Forecasts," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Forecasts and Expectations: Analysis of Forecasting Behavior and Performance, pages 3-46 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Yock Y. Chong & David F. Hendry, 1986. "Econometric Evaluation of Linear Macro-Economic Models," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 671-690.
    17. Brailsford, Timothy J. & Faff, Robert W., 1996. "An evaluation of volatility forecasting techniques," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 419-438, April.
    18. Hansen, Peter Reinhard, 2005. "A Test for Superior Predictive Ability," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 23, pages 365-380, October.
    19. Jorion, Philippe, 1995. " Predicting Volatility in the Foreign Exchange Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(2), pages 507-28, June.
    20. Bera, Anil K & Higgins, Matthew L, 1993. " ARCH Models: Properties, Estimation and Testing," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), pages 305-66, December.
    21. Andersen, Torben G. & Bollerslev, Tim & Lange, Steve, 1999. "Forecasting financial market volatility: Sample frequency vis-a-vis forecast horizon," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 6(5), pages 457-477, December.
    22. Baillie, Richard T. & Bollerslev, Tim & Mikkelsen, Hans Ole, 1996. "Fractionally integrated generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 3-30, September.
    23. Akgiray, Vedat, 1989. "Conditional Heteroscedasticity in Time Series of Stock Returns: Evidence and Forecasts," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(1), pages 55-80, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:finana:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:117-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.