IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/finiqu/v14y2018i2p67-82n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Semi-Parametric and Benchmark Value-At-Risk Models in Several Time Periods with Different Volatility Levels

Author

Listed:
  • Buczyński Mateusz

    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1734-9287.)

  • Chlebus Marcin

    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Department of Quantitative Finance, Warsaw, Poland, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9149-1065.)

Abstract

In the literature, there is no consensus as to which Value-at-Risk forecasting model is the best for measuring market risk in banks. In the study an analysis of Value-at-Risk forecasting model quality over varying economic stability periods for main indices from stock exchanges was conducted. The VaR forecasts from GARCH(1,1), GARCH-t(1,1), GARCH-st(1,1), QML-GARCH(1,1), CAViaR and historical simulation models in periods with contrasting volatility trends (increasing, constantly high and decreasing) for countries economically developed (the USA – S&P 500, Germany - DAX and Japan – Nikkei 225) and economically developing (China – SSE COMP, Poland – WIG20 and Turkey – XU100) were compared. The data samples used in the analysis were selected from the period 01.01.1999 – 24.03.2017. To assess the VaR forecast quality: excess ratio, Basel traffic light test, coverage tests (Kupiec test, Christoffersen test), Dynamic Quantile test, cost functions and Diebold-Marino test were used. Obtained results show that the quality of Value-at-Risk forecasts for the models varies depending on a volatility trend. However, GARCH-st (1,1) and QML-GARCH(1,1) were found to be the most robust models in the different volatility periods. The results show as well that the CAViaR model forecasts were less appropriate in the increasing volatility period. Moreover, no significant differences for the VaR forecast quality were found for the developed and developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Buczyński Mateusz & Chlebus Marcin, 2018. "Comparison of Semi-Parametric and Benchmark Value-At-Risk Models in Several Time Periods with Different Volatility Levels," Financial Internet Quarterly (formerly e-Finanse), Sciendo, vol. 14(2), pages 67-82, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:vrs:finiqu:v:14:y:2018:i:2:p:67-82:n:7
    DOI: 10.2478/fiqf-2018-0013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/fiqf-2018-0013
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/fiqf-2018-0013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Engle, 2004. "Risk and Volatility: Econometric Models and Financial Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 405-420, June.
    2. Paul H. Kupiec, 1995. "Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    3. Julio César Alonso & Mauricio Alejandro Arcos, 2006. "Cuatro hechos estilizados de las series de rendimientos: Una ilustración para Colombia," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, August.
    4. Su, Jung-Bin & Hung, Jui-Cheng, 2011. "Empirical analysis of jump dynamics, heavy-tails and skewness on value-at-risk estimation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1117-1130, May.
    5. Bollerslev, Tim, 1986. "Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 307-327, April.
    6. Michael McAleer & Juan-Angel Jimenez-Martin & Teodosio Pérez-Amaral, 0000. "Has the Basel II Accord Encouraged Risk Management during the 2008-09 Financial Crisis?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-039/4, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    8. Engle, Robert F. & Manganelli, Simone, 2001. "Value at risk models in finance," Working Paper Series 75, European Central Bank.
    9. Engle, Robert F & Manganelli, Simone, 1999. "CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value at Risk by Regression Quantiles," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt06m3d6nv, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    10. Bollerslev, Tim, 1987. "A Conditionally Heteroskedastic Time Series Model for Speculative Prices and Rates of Return," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(3), pages 542-547, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Robert Engle, 2001. "GARCH 101: The Use of ARCH/GARCH Models in Applied Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 157-168, Fall.
    13. 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.
    14. Angelidis, Timotheos & Benos, Alexandros & Degiannakis, Stavros, 2004. "The Use of GARCH Models in VaR Estimation," MPRA Paper 96332, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Susan Thomas & Mandira Sarma & Ajay Shah, 2003. "Selection of Value-at-Risk models," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 337-358.
    16. Engle, Robert F, 1982. "Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 987-1007, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Szymon Lis & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "Comparison of the accuracy in VaR forecasting for commodities using different methods of combining forecasts," Working Papers 2021-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.

    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. Mateusz Buczyński & Marcin Chlebus, 2017. "Is CAViaR model really so good in Value at Risk forecasting? Evidence from evaluation of a quality of Value-at-Risk forecasts obtained based on the: GARCH(1,1), GARCH-t(1,1), GARCH-st(1,1), QML-GARCH(," Working Papers 2017-29, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Torben G. Andersen & Tim Bollerslev & Peter F. Christoffersen & Francis X. Diebold, 2005. "Volatility Forecasting," PIER Working Paper Archive 05-011, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. Andersen, Torben G. & Bollerslev, Tim & Christoffersen, Peter F. & Diebold, Francis X., 2006. "Volatility and Correlation Forecasting," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 15, pages 777-878, Elsevier.
    4. Carol Alexander & Emese Lazar & Silvia Stanescu, 2011. "Analytic Approximations to GARCH Aggregated Returns Distributions with Applications to VaR and ETL," ICMA Centre Discussion Papers in Finance icma-dp2011-08, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    5. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Zekokh, Timur, 2019. "Modelling volatility of cryptocurrencies using Markov-Switching GARCH models," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 143-155.
    6. Louzis, Dimitrios P. & Xanthopoulos-Sisinis, Spyros & Refenes, Apostolos P., 2011. "Are realized volatility models good candidates for alternative Value at Risk prediction strategies?," MPRA Paper 30364, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Emrah Altun, 2019. "Two-sided exponential–geometric distribution: inference and volatility modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 1215-1245, September.
    8. Nieto, María Rosa & Ruiz Ortega, Esther, 2008. "Measuring financial risk : comparison of alternative procedures to estimate VaR and ES," DES - Working Papers. Statistics and Econometrics. WS ws087326, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Estadística.
    9. Stavros Degiannakis & Pamela Dent & Christos Floros, 2014. "A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach to Forecasting Multi-period Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall Using the FIGARCH-skT Specification," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(1), pages 71-102, January.
    10. Nieto, Maria Rosa & Ruiz, Esther, 2016. "Frontiers in VaR forecasting and backtesting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 475-501.
    11. Karol Kielak & Robert Ślepaczuk, 2020. "Value-at-risk — the comparison of state-of-the-art models on various assets," Working Papers 2020-28, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Chen, Cathy W.S. & Gerlach, Richard & Hwang, Bruce B.K. & McAleer, Michael, 2012. "Forecasting Value-at-Risk using nonlinear regression quantiles and the intra-day range," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 557-574.
    13. Szubzda Filip & Chlebus Marcin, 2019. "Comparison of Block Maxima and Peaks Over Threshold Value-at-Risk models for market risk in various economic conditions," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 6(53), pages 70-85, January.
    14. Ñíguez, Trino-Manuel & Perote, Javier, 2017. "Moments expansion densities for quantifying financial risk," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 53-69.
    15. Marcin Chlebus, 2016. "Can Lognormal, Weibull or Gamma Distributions Improve the EWS-GARCH Value-at-Risk Forecasts?," FindEcon Chapters: Forecasting Financial Markets and Economic Decision-Making, in: Magdalena Osińska (ed.), Statistical Review, vol. 63, 2016, 3, edition 1, volume 63, chapter 4, pages 329-350, University of Lodz.
    16. 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).
    17. Tim Bollerslev, 2008. "Glossary to ARCH (GARCH)," CREATES Research Papers 2008-49, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    18. 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.
    19. Trino-Manuel Ñíguez & Javier Perote, 2012. "Forecasting Heavy-Tailed Densities with Positive Edgeworth and Gram-Charlier Expansions," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 74(4), pages 600-627, August.
    20. Stavroyiannis, S. & Makris, I. & Nikolaidis, V. & Zarangas, L., 2012. "Econometric modeling and value-at-risk using the Pearson type-IV distribution," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 10-17.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Value-at-Risk; CAViaR; GARCH; combined forecasts; quality assessment; risk management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    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:vrs:finiqu:v:14:y:2018:i:2:p:67-82:n:7. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.