Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

GARCH-X(1, 1) model allowing a non-linear function of the variance to follow an AR(1) process

  • Received : 2022.09.16
  • Accepted : 2023.01.24
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

GARCH-X(1, 1) model specifies that conditional variance follows an AR(1) process and includes a past exogenous variable. This study proposes a new class from that model by allowing a more general (non-linear) variance function to follow an AR(1) process. The functions applied to the variance equation include exponential, Tukey's ladder, and Yeo-Johnson transformations. In the framework of normal and student-t distributions for return errors, the empirical analysis focuses on two stock indices data in developed countries (FTSE100 and SP500) over the daily period from January 2000 to December 2020. This study uses 10-minute realized volatility as the exogenous component. The parameters of considered models are estimated using the adaptive random walk metropolis method in the Monte Carlo Markov chain algorithm and implemented in the Matlab program. The 95% highest posterior density intervals show that the three transformations are significant for the GARCHX(1, 1) model. In general, based on the Akaike information criterion, the GARCH-X(1, 1) model that has return errors with student-t distribution and variance transformed by Tukey's ladder function provides the best data fit. In forecasting value-at-risk with the 95% confidence level, the Christoffersen's independence test suggest that non-linear models is the most suitable for modeling return data, especially model with the Tukey's ladder transformation.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This publication resulted (in part) from research supported by: (1)The Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia for the 2022 fiscal year under Contract Number 158/E5/PG.02.00.PT/2022, 001/LL6/PB/AK.04/2022 and (2)Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana under Contract Number 171/SPK-PDKN/PR V/5/2022.

References

  1. Andrieu C and Thoms J (2008). A tutorial on adaptive MCMC, Statistics and Computing, 18, 343-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-008-9110-y
  2. Andersen TG, Bollerslev T, Diebold FX, and Labys P (2001). The distribution of realized exchange rate volatility, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 42-55, Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1198/016214501750332965
  3. Atchade YF and Rosenthal JS (2005). On adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, Bernoulli, 11, 815-828, Available from: https://doi.org/10.3150/bj/1130077595
  4. Box GEP and Cox DR (1964). An analysis of transformations, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26, 211-252, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964. tb00553.x
  5. Braione M and Scholtes N (2016). Forecasting value-at-risk under different distributional assumptions, Econometrics, 4, 1-27, Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics4010003
  6. Chaudhary R, Bakhshi P, and Gupta H (2020). Volatility in international stock markets: An empirical study during COVID-19, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13, 1-17, Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/jrfm13090208
  7. Choi SY and Yoon JH. (2020). Modeling and risk analysis using parametric distributions with an application in equity-linked securities, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 1-20, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9763065
  8. Christoffersen PF (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts, International Economic Review, 39, 841-862, Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2527341
  9. Engle R (2002). New frontiers for ARCH models, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 17, 425-446, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.683
  10. Engle RF and Patton AJ (2001). What good is a volatility model?, Quantitative Finance, 1, 237-245, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088/1469-7688/1/2/305
  11. Floros C, Gkillas K, Konstantatos C, and Tsagkanos A (2020). Realized measures to explain volatility changes over time, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13, 1-19, Available from:https://doi.org/ 10.3390/jrfm13060125
  12. Gunay S (2015). Markov regime switching GARCH model and volatility modeling for oil returns, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5, 979-985.
  13. Han H (2015). Asymptotic properties of GARCH-X processes, Journal of Financial Econometrics, 13, 188-221, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbt023
  14. Hansen PR, Huang Z, and Shek HH (2012). Realized GARCH: A joint model for returns and realized measures of volatility, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 27, 877-906, Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1002/jae.1234
  15. Hansen PR and Huang Z (2016). Exponential GARCH modeling with realized measures of volatility, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 34, 269-287, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2015.1038543
  16. Hansen PR and Lunde A (2005). A forecast comparison of volatility models: Does anything beat a GARCH(1, 1)?, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 873-889, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.800
  17. John JA and Draper NR (1980). An alternative family of transformations, Applied Statistics, 29, 190-197. https://doi.org/10.2307/2986305
  18. Lampart T and Sbalzarini I (2012). Implementation and performance comparison of an ensemble sampler with affine invariance, Technical report of the MOSAIC group, Institute of Theoretical Computer Science.
  19. Le H, Pham U, Nguyen P, and Pham TB (2020). Improvement on Monte Carlo estimation of HPD intervals, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 49, 2164-2180, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2018.1513141
  20. Liu LY, Patton AJ, and Sheppard K (2015). Does anything beat 5-minute RV? A comparison of realized measures across multiple asset classes, Journal of Econometrics, 187, 293-311, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.02.008
  21. Mahajan V, Thakan S, and Malik A (2022). Modeling and forecasting the volatility of NIFTY 50 using GARCH and RNN models, Economies, 10, 1-20, Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/economies 10050102
  22. Manly BFJ (1976). Exponential data transformations, The Statistician, 25, 37-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/2988129
  23. Namugaya J, Weke PGO, and Charles WM (2014). Modelling volatility of stock returns: Is GARCH (1, 1) enough?, International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 16, 216-223.
  24. Nugroho DB, Mahatma T, and Pratomo Y (2021). Applying the non-linear transformation families to the lagged-variance of EGARCH and GJR models, IAENG International Journal of Applied Mathematics, 51, 908-919.
  25. Nugroho DB (2018). Comparative analysis of three MCMC methods for estimating GARCH models, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 403, 1-7, Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1757-899X/403/1/012061
  26. Portet S (2020). A primer on model selection using the Akaike information criterion, Infectious Disease Modelling, 5, 111-128, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IDM.2019.12.010
  27. Ramachandran KM and Tsokos CP (2021). Mathematical Statistics with Applications in R (3rd ed), Academic Press, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/C2012-0-07341-3
  28. Rosenthal JS (2011). Optimal proposal distributions and adaptive MCMC. In S Brooks, A Gelman, GL Jones, and XL Meng (Eds), Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (pp. 93-112), Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
  29. Sampid MG, Hasim HM, and Dai H (2018). Refining value-at-risk estimates using a Bayesian Markov-switching GJR-GARCH copula-EVT model, PLoS ONE, 13, e0198753, Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0198753
  30. Tukey JW (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  31. van Ravenzwaaij D, Cassey P, and Brown SD (2018). A simple introduction to Markov chain MonteCarlo sampling, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 143-154, Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13423-016-1015-8
  32. Xu S (2017). A VaR assuming student-t distribution not significantly different from a VaR assuming normal distribution, Risk Management, 19, 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-017-0017-9
  33. Yang XS (2019). Introduction to Algorithms for Data Mining and Machine Learning, Academic Press, London.
  34. Yeo IK and Johnson R (2000). A new family of power transformations to improve normality or symmetry, Biometrika, 87, 954-959. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/87.4.954