A Comparison of the Runs Test for Volatility Forecastability and the LM Test for GARCH Using Aggregated Returns
Christoffersen and Diebold (2000) have introduced a runs test for forecastable volatility in aggregated returns. In this note, we compare the size and power of their runs test and the more conventional LM test for GARCH by Monte Carlo simulation. When the true daily process is GARCH, EGARCH, or stochastic volatility, the LM test has better power than the runs test for the moderate-horizon returns considered by Christoffersen and Diebold. For long-horizon returns, however, the tests have very similar power. We also consider a qualitative threshold GARCH model. For this process, we find that the runs test has greater power than the LM test. Theresults support the use of the runs test with aggregated returns.
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 26 (2007)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/LECR20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/LECR20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:emetrv:v:26:y:2007:i:5:p:557-566. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.