IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Extreme risk measures for REITs: a comparison among alternative methods

Listed author(s):
  • Jian Zhou

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), traditionally known as an asset of low volatility, have been undergoing a period of unprecedentedly high volatility due to the current financial crisis. This has increased the need to search for appropriate methods to cope with extreme risks. This study aims to meet this need by comparing the performances of several commonly used methods in predicting the conditional Value at Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES) for REITs. Our competing methods cover all three broad categories (i.e. nonparametric, parametric and semiparametric) classified by Manganelli and Engle (2004) and display a varying degree of complexity. Overall, our results show that the trio of EGARCH skewed t (EGARCH, Exponential Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedacity), GARCH t , and GARCH EVT (EVT, Extreme Value Theory) provide the most reliable forecasts among all methods considered. Their good performance, with only a few exceptions, holds up for a variety of quantiles and is robust to the size of the moving window used to make the forecasts. We also find that GARCH normal and RiskMetrics of J.P. Morgan are the worst performers. Filtered Historical Simulation (FHS) models fall somewhere in between.

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: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Financial Economics.

Volume (Year): 22 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
Pages: 113-126

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:apfiec:v:22:y:2012:i:2:p:113-126
DOI: 10.1080/09603107.2011.605752
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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:taf:apfiec:v:22:y:2012:i:2:p:113-126. 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: (Michael McNulty)

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.