Multiple-step value-at-risk forecasts based on volatility-filtered MIDAS quantile regression: Evidence from major investment assets
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.18(3).2021.31
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2021, Issue #3, pp. 372-384
- Cited by
- 671 Views
-
166 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Forecasting multiple-step value-at-risk (VaR) consistently across asset classes is hindered by the limited sample size of low-frequency returns and the potential model misspecification when assuming identical return distributions over different holding periods. This paper hence investigates the predictive power for multi-step VaR of a framework that models separately the volatility component and the error term of the return distribution. The proposed model is illustrated with ten asset returns series including global stock markets, commodity futures, and currency exchange products. The estimation results confirm that the volatility-filter residuals demonstrate distinguished tail dynamics to that of the return series. The estimation results suggest that volatility-filtered residuals may have either negative or positive tail dependence, unlike the unanimous negative tail dependence in the return series. By comparing the proposed model to several alternative approaches, the results from both the formal and informal tests show that the specification under concern performs equivalently well if not better than its top competitors at the 2.5% and 5% risk level in terms of accuracy and validity. The proposed model also generates more consistent VaR forecasts under both the 5-step and 10-step setup than the MIDAS-Q model.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the editor and an anonymous referee. This research is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Award Number: 71501117). All remaining errors are our own.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)C22, G10, G21
-
References44
-
Tables5
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Out-of-sample forecasts of the 5-step and 10-step VaR for the FTSE100 index at the 2.5% risk level
-
- Table 1. Summary of testing results for the out-of-sample 5-step and 10-step VaR forecasts
- Table A1. Descriptive statistics of daily, 5-day, and 10-day returns
- Table A2. Estimation of the GARCH(1,1)-t components in the F-MIDAS-Q model
- Table A3. Parameter estimation of F-MIDAS-Q model under the 5-step holding period
- Table A4. Parameter estimation of F-MIDAS-Q model under the 10-step holding period
-
- Abad, P., Benito, S., & López, C. (2014). A comprehensive review of Value at Risk methodologies. Spanish Review of Financial Economics, 12(1), 15-32.
- Allen, D. E., & Singh, A. K. (2010). CAViaR and the Australian stock markets: An appetiser. SSRN.
- Andreou, E., Ghysels, E., & Kourtellos, A. (2010). Regression models with mixed sampling frequencies. Journal of Econometrics, 158(2), 246-261.
- Angelidis, T., Benos, A., & Degiannakis, S. (2004). The use of GARCH models in VaR estimation. Statistical Methodology, 1(1-2), 105-128.
- Baillie, R. T., Bollerslev, T., & Mikkelsen, H. O. (1996). Fractionally integrated generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 74(1), 3-30.
- Barone-Adesi, G., Giannopoulos, K., & Vosper, L. (1999). VaR without correlations for portfolios of derivative securities. Journal of Futures Markets, 19(5), 583-602.
- Barone-Adesi, G., Giannopoulos, K., & Vosper, L. (2002). Backtesting derivative portfolios with Filtered Historical Simulation (FHS). European Financial Management, 8(1), 31-58.
- Bekiros, S. D., & Georgoutsos, D. A. (2005). Estimation of Value-at-Risk by extreme value and conventional methods: A comparative evaluation of their predictive performance. Journal of International Financial Markets Institutions and Money, 15(3), 209-228.
- Bollerslev, T. P. (1986). Generalized conditional heteroscedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307-327.
- Bollerslev, T., Chou, R. Y., & Kroner, K. F. (1992). ARCH modeling in finance: A review of the theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Econometrics, 52(1-2), 5-59.
- Braun, P. A., Nelson, D. B., & Sunier, A. M. (1995). Good news, bad news, volatility, and betas. Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1575-1603.
- Brummelhuis, R., & Kaufmann, R. (2007). Time-scaling of value-at-risk in GARCH(1,1) and AR(1)–GARCH(1,1) processes. Journal of Risk, 9(4), 39-94.
- Caporin, M. (2008). Evaluating Value-at-Risk measures in presence of long memory conditional volatility. Journal of Risk, 10(3), 79-110.
- Chen, J., Hong, H., & Stein, J. C. (2001). Forecasting crashes: Trading volume, past returns, and conditional skewness in stock prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 61(3), 345-381.
- Christoffersen, P. F. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4), 841-862.
- Conrad, C., & Loch, K. (2015). Anticipating long-term stock market volatility. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 30(7), 1090-1114.
- Degiannakis, S., & Potamia, A. (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, 49, 176-190.
- Ding, Z., Granger, C. W. J., & Engle, R. F. (1993). A long memory property of stock market returns and a new model. Journal of Empirical Finance, 1(1), 83-106.
- Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987-1007.
- Engle, R. F., & Manganelli, S. (2004). CAViaR: Conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 22(4), 367-381.
- Engle, R. F., Ghysels, E., & Sohn, B. (2013). Stock market volatility and macroeconomic fundamentals. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3), 776-797.
- Fama, E. F. (1965). The behavior of stock-market prices. Journal of Business, 38(1), 34-105.
- Furió, D., & Climent, F. J. (2013). Extreme value theory versus traditional GARCH approaches applied to financial data: A comparative evaluation. Quantitative Finance, 13(1), 45-63.
- Ghysels, E. (2014). Conditional skewness with quantile regression models: SoFiE presidential address and a tribute to Hal White. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 12(4), 620-644.
- Ghysels, E., & Valkanov, R. (2012). Forecasting volatility with MIDAS. In Handbook of Volatility Models and Their Applications (pp. 383-401). John Wiley & Sons.
- Ghysels, E., Santa-Clara, P., & Valkanov, R. (2004). The MIDAS touch: Mixed data sampling regressions (Cirano Working Papers).
- Ghysels, E., Santa-Clara, P., & Valkanov, R. (2006). Predicting volatility: Getting the most out of return data sampled at different frequencies. Journal of Econometrics, 131(1-2), 59-95.
- Ghysels, E., Sinko, A., & Valkanov, R. (2007). MIDAS regressions: Further results and new directions. Econometric Reviews, 26(1), 53-90.
- Giot, P., & Laurent, S. (2003). Value-at-Risk for long and short trading positions. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(6), 641-663.
- Jian, Z., Zeng, Y., & Liu, X. (2016). A study on the overnight risk of CSI 300 stock index futures based on the CAViaR model. Chinese Management Science, 24(9), 1-10. (In Chinese).
- Karmakar, M. (2013). Estimation of tail-related risk measures in the Indian stock market: An extreme value approach. Review of Financial Economics, 22(3), 79-85.
- Kinateder, H. (2016). Basel II versus III: A Comparative Assessment of Minimum Capital Requirements for Internal Model Approaches. Journal of Risk, 18(3), 25-45.
- Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33-50.
- Koenker, R., & Park, B. J. (1996). An interior point algorithm for nonlinear quantile regression. Journal of Econometrics, 71(1-2), 265-283.
- Kuester, K., Mittnik, S., & Paolella, M. S. (2006). Value-at-Risk prediction: A comparison of alternative strategies. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 4(1), 53-89.
- Kupiec, P. (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models. The Journal of Derivatives, 3(2), 73-84.
- Lönnbark, C. (2016). Approximation methods for multiple period Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall prediction. Quantitative Finance, 16(6), 947-968.
- Lopez, J. A. (1996). Regulatory Evaluation of Value-at-Risk Model. SSRN.
- Lux, T., & Kaizoji, T. (2007). Forecasting volatility and volume in the Tokyo Stock Market: Long memory, fractality, and regime switching. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31(6), 1808-1843.
- Marcellino, M., Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (2006). A comparison of direct and iterated multistep AR methods for forecasting macroeconomic time series. Journal of Econometrics, 135(1-2), 499-526.
- McNeil, A. J., & Frey, R. (2000). Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: An extreme value approach. Journal of Empirical Finance, 7(3-4), 271-300.
- Patton, A. J. (2004). On the out-of-sample importance of skewness and asymmetric dependence for asset allocation. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 2(1), 130-168.
- So, M. K. P., & Wong, C. M. (2012). Estimation of multiple period expected shortfall and median shortfall for risk management. Quantitative Finance, 12(5), 739-754.
- Taylor, J. W. (2005). Generating volatility forecasts from Value at Risk estimates. Management Science, 51(5), 679-849.