IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2021-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effectiveness of Value-at-Risk models in various volatility regimes

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksander Schiffers

    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences)

  • Marcin Chlebus

    (University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences)

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion, what is the most efficient approach to Value-at-Risk estimation. Subsequent studies and meta-analyzes show that there is no scientific consensus in this field and the necessity of further research is frequently underlined. In this study, authors try to assess the comparative performance of models used for Value-at-Risk estimations in changing market volatility regimes. The models considered are: the Historical Simulation, the Risk Metrics®, the GARCH(1,1)-n, the GARCH(1,1)-t, the GARCH(1,1)-st, the GARCH(1,1)-QML. GARCH models are additionally enriched with additional, exogenous regressors in the form of lagged commodity futures contracts returns. The analysis is conducted on a set of utility sector stock indices from six developed countries across the globe: WIG Energia (Poland), Dow Jones Utilities Average (USA), CAC Utilities (France), Tokyo SE Topix-17 Power & Gas (Japan), S&P ASX 200 Utilities (Australia), and DAX All Utilities (Germany). Three samples of different characteristics are distinguished from the last 10 years of data and one of them covers the upsurge in market volatility caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. In order to evaluate the VaR forecasts performance of each model, conditional/unconditional coverage tests of Kupiec and Christoffersen, Dynamic Quantile test, and Diebold-Marino test were used. Empirical results of the study indicate that in the volatile market periods, overall quality of forecasts deteriorates for all models to a varying degree. However, the GARCH(1,1)-st with external regressors is considered the most efficient and robust model due to its ability to capture stylized facts of data distribution. Exogenous variables are worth considering but their contribution to performance improvement may be model and market dependent.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksander Schiffers & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "The effectiveness of Value-at-Risk models in various volatility regimes," Working Papers 2021-28, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2021-28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/download_file/1131/0
    File Function: First version, 2021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Fleming & Barbara Ostdiek & Robert E. Whaley, 1995. "Predicting stock market volatility: A new measure," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 265-302, May.
    2. Abad, Pilar & Benito, Sonia, 2013. "A detailed comparison of value at risk estimates," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 258-276.
    3. Richardson, Matthew & Smith, Tom, 1993. "A Test for Multivariate Normality in Stock Returns," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(2), pages 295-321, April.
    4. Dimos S. Kambouroudis & David G. McMillan, 2016. "Does VIX or volume improve GARCH volatility forecasts?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(13), pages 1210-1228, March.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Angelidis, Timotheos & Benos, Alexandros & Degiannakis, Stavros, 2004. "The Use of GARCH Models in VaR Estimation," MPRA Paper 96332, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Kim, Bong-Han & Kim, Hyeongwoo & Lee, Bong-Soo, 2015. "Spillover effects of the U.S. financial crisis on financial markets in emerging Asian countries," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 192-210.
    9. Heejoon Han & Dennis Kristensen, 2014. "Asymptotic Theory for the QMLE in GARCH-X Models With Stationary and Nonstationary Covariates," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 416-429, July.
    10. Donald Geman & H'elyette Geman & Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2014. "Tail Risk Constraints and Maximum Entropy," Papers 1412.7647, arXiv.org.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.).
    13. Mateusz Buczyński & Marcin Chlebus, . "Old-fashioned parametric models are still the best: a comparison of value-at-risk approaches in several volatility states," Journal of Risk Model Validation, Journal of Risk Model Validation.
    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. Pourkhanali, Armin & Tafakori, Laleh & Bee, Marco, 2023. "Forecasting Value-at-Risk using functional volatility incorporating an exogenous effect," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Wilson Calmon & Eduardo Ferioli & Davi Lettieri & Johann Soares & Adrian Pizzinga, 2021. "An Extensive Comparison of Some Well‐Established Value at Risk Methods," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 89(1), pages 148-166, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Mateusz Buczyński & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "GARCHNet - Value-at-Risk forecasting with novel approach to GARCH models based on neural networks," Working Papers 2021-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Emrah Altun, 2019. "Two-sided exponential–geometric distribution: inference and volatility modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 1215-1245, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Chrétien, Stéphane & Coggins, Frank, 2010. "Performance and conservatism of monthly FHS VaR: An international investigation," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 323-333, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Wu, Qi & Yan, Xing, 2019. "Capturing deep tail risk via sequential learning of quantile dynamics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. de Araújo, André da Silva & Garcia, Maria Teresa Medeiros, 2013. "Risk contagion in the north-western and southern European stock markets," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-34.
    12. 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.
    13. Lucas, André & Zhang, Xin, 2016. "Score-driven exponentially weighted moving averages and Value-at-Risk forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 293-302.
    14. Song, Shijia & Li, Handong, 2022. "Predicting VaR for China's stock market: A score-driven model based on normal inverse Gaussian distribution," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Benjamin R. Auer & Benjamin Mögel, 2016. "How Accurate are Modern Value-at-Risk Estimators Derived from Extreme Value Theory?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6288, CESifo.
    17. Mateusz Buczynski & Marcin Chlebus, 2024. "GARCHNet: Value-at-Risk Forecasting with GARCH Models Based on Neural Networks," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 63(5), pages 1949-1979, May.
    18. Donggyu Kim & Minseog Oh & Yazhen Wang, 2022. "Conditional quantile analysis for realized GARCH models," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(4), pages 640-665, July.
    19. Degiannakis, Stavros & Potamia, Artemis, 2017. "Multiple-days-ahead value-at-risk and expected shortfall forecasting for stock indices, commodities and exchange rates: Inter-day versus intra-day data," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 176-190.
    20. Bayer, Sebastian, 2018. "Combining Value-at-Risk forecasts using penalized quantile regressions," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-77.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk management; market risk; Value-at-risk; GARCH; Historical Simulation; Risk Metrics®; risk modelling; benchmark; model quality assessment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
    • 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
    • C58 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Financial Econometrics
    • G15 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - International Financial Markets
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    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:war:wpaper:2021-28. 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: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.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.