12.07.2015 Views

"Frontmatter". In: Analysis of Financial Time Series

"Frontmatter". In: Analysis of Financial Time Series

"Frontmatter". In: Analysis of Financial Time Series

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

100 CONDITIONAL HETEROSCEDASTIC MODELSwhere the estimated degrees <strong>of</strong> freedom is 6.51. Standard errors <strong>of</strong> the estimatesin Eq. (3.20) are close to those in Eq. (3.19). The standard error <strong>of</strong> the estimateddegrees <strong>of</strong> freedom is 1.49. Consequently, we cannot reject the hypothesis <strong>of</strong> using astandardized Student-t distribution with 5 degrees <strong>of</strong> freedom at the 5% significancelevel.3.4.2 Forecasting EvaluationSince the volatility <strong>of</strong> an asset return is not directly observable, comparing the forecastingperformance <strong>of</strong> different volatility models is a challenge to data analysts. <strong>In</strong>the literature, some researchers use out-<strong>of</strong>-sample forecasts and compare the volatilityforecasts σh 2(l) with the shock a2 h+lin the forecasting sample to assess the forecastingperformance <strong>of</strong> a volatility model. This approach <strong>of</strong>ten finds a low correlationcoefficient between ah+l 2 and σ h 2 (l). However,suchafinding is not surprisingbecause ah+l 2 alone is not an adequate measure <strong>of</strong> the volatility at time index h + l.Consider the 1-step ahead forecasts. From a statistical point <strong>of</strong> view, E(ah+1 2 | F h)= σh+1 2 so that a2 h+1 is a consistent estimate <strong>of</strong> σ h+1 2 . But it is not an accurate estimate<strong>of</strong> σh+1 2 because a single observation <strong>of</strong> a random variable with a known meanvalue cannot provide an accurate estimate <strong>of</strong> its variance. Consequently, such anapproach to evaluate forecasting performance <strong>of</strong> volatility models is strictly speakingnot proper. For more information concerning forecasting evaluation <strong>of</strong> GARCHmodels, readers are referred to Andersen and Bollerslev (1998).3.5 THE INTEGRATED GARCH MODELIf the AR polynomial <strong>of</strong> the GARCH representation in Eq. (3.14) has a unit root, thenwe have an IGARCH model. Thus, IGARCH models are unit-root GARCH models.Similar to ARIMA models, a key feature <strong>of</strong> IGARCH models is that the impact <strong>of</strong>past squared shocks η t−i = at−i 2 − σ t−i 2 for i > 0ona2 t is persistent.An IGARCH(1, 1) model can be written asa t = σ t ɛ t , σ 2t = α 0 + β 1 σ 2t−1 + (1 − β 1)a 2 t−1 ,where {ɛ t } is defined as before and 1 >β 1 > 0. For the monthly excess returns <strong>of</strong>S&P 500 index, an estimated IGARCH(1, 1) model isr t = 0.0067 + a t ,a t = σ t ɛ tσ 2t = 0.000119 + 0.8059σ 2t−1 + 0.1941a2 t−1 ,where the standard errors <strong>of</strong> the estimates in the volatility equation are 0.0017,0.000013, and 0.0144, respectively. The parameter estimates are close to those <strong>of</strong>the GARCH(1, 1) model shown before, but there is a major difference between the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!