IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecfa/1.html

Comparing Value-at-Risk Methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Luiz Renato Lima
  • Breno Pinheiro Néri

    (Graduate School of Economics Getúlio Vargas Foundation)

Abstract

We perform a Monte Carlo experimet to compare four different Value-at-Risk methodologies, RiskMetrics, Gaussian GARCH(1,1), Generalized Student-t APARCH(1,1), and ARCH(1) Quantile, under five different data generating processes. The ARCH(1) Quantile methodology does not assume any distribution for the returns, and this robustness is shown to avoid trajectories with too many violations. The number of violations tends to be higher in the non-robust methodologies when the distribution differs from the Gaussian one. We also perform an empirical exercise applying the four Value-at-Risk methodologies to daily return of the IBOVESPA (measured in dollar values) in a period of market turmoil (1996-2000), when happens the Korean crisis, the Russian crisis and the blast of the technology-stock market bubble. We display that, again, the ARCH(1) Quantile methodology dominates the non-robust methodologies, in the sense that it presents the least number of violations

Suggested Citation

  • Luiz Renato Lima & Breno Pinheiro Néri, 2006. "Comparing Value-at-Risk Methodologies," Computing in Economics and Finance 2006 1, Society for Computational Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecfa:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.fgv.br/aluno/bneri
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. A. Amendola & V. Candila, 2016. "Evaluation of volatility predictions in a VaR framework," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 695-709, May.
    2. Zhijie Xiao & Luiz Renato Lima, 2007. "Testing Covariance Stationarity," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 643-667.
    3. Allen, David E. & McAleer, Michael & Powell, Robert J. & Singh, Abhay K., 2017. "Volatility Spillovers from Australia's major trading partners across the GFC," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 159-175.
    4. Wagner Piazza Gaglianone & Luiz Renato Lima & Oliver Linton & Daniel R. Smith, 2011. "Evaluating Value-at-Risk Models via Quantile Regression," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 150-160, January.
    5. David E Allen & Michael McAleer & Robert J Powell & Abhay Kumar Singh, 2012. "Volatility spillovers from the US to Australia and China across the GFC," KIER Working Papers 838, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    6. 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.
    7. Allen, David E. & Amram, Ron & McAleer, Michael, 2013. "Volatility spillovers from the Chinese stock market to economic neighbours," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 238-257.
    8. Lima, Luiz Renato & Gaglianone, Wagner Piazza & Sampaio, Raquel M.B., 2008. "Debt ceiling and fiscal sustainability in Brazil: A quantile autoregression approach," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 313-335, June.
    9. Aymen BEN REJEB & Ousama BEN SALHA & Jaleleddine BEN REJEB, 2012. "Value-at-Risk Analysis for the Tunisian Currency Market: A Comparative Study," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 2(2), pages 110-125.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    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:sce:scecfa:1. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.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.