GARCH models in value at risk estimation: empirical evidence from the Montenegrin stock exchange

被引:11
作者
Smolovic, Julija Cerovic [1 ]
Lipovina-Bozovic, Milena [1 ]
Vujosevic, Sasa [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Montenegro, Fac Econ, Quantitat Econ, Podgorica, Montenegro
[2] Univ Montenegro, Fac Econ, Math & Informat, Podgorica, Montenegro
来源
ECONOMIC RESEARCH-EKONOMSKA ISTRAZIVANJA | 2017年 / 30卷 / 01期
关键词
Value at risk (VaR); fat tails; GARCH models; Kupiec test; Christoffersen test; Pearson's Q test; VALUE-AT-RISK; EMERGING MARKETS; PERFORMANCE; VARIANCE;
D O I
10.1080/1331677X.2017.1305773
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article considers the adequacy of generalised autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model use in measuring risk in the Montenegrin emerging market before and during the global financial crisis. In particular, the purpose of the article is to investigate whether GARCH models are accurate in the evaluation of value at risk (VaR) in emerging stock markets such as the Montenegrin market. The daily return of the Montenegrin stock market index MONEX is analysed for the period January 2004-February 2014. The motivation for this research is the desire to approach quantifying and managing risk in Montenegro more thoroughly, using methodology that has not been used for emerging markets so far. Our backtesting results showed that none of the eight models passed the Kupiec test with 95% of confidence level, while only the ARMA (autoregressive moving-average model) (1,2)-N GARCH model did not pass the Kupiec test with a confidence level of 99%. The results of the Christoffersen test revealed three models (ARMA(1,2)-TS GARCH(1,1) with a Student-t distribution of residuals, the ARMA(1,2)-T GARCH(1,1) model with a Student-t distribution of residuals, and ARMA(1,2)-EGARCH(1,1) with a reparameterised unbounded Johnson distribution [JSU] distribution of residuals) which passed the joint Christoffersen test with a 95% confidence level. It seems that these three models are appropriate for capturing volatility clustering, since all of them failed for a number of exceptions. Finally, none of the analysed models passed the Pearson's Q test, whether with 90%, 95% or 99%.
引用
收藏
页码:477 / 498
页数:22
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Alexander C., 1997, The Journal of Derivatives, V4, P50
[2]  
Andjelic G, 2010, AFR J BUS MANAGE, V4, P3666
[3]  
Angelidis T., 2004, STAT METHODOL, V1, P105, DOI [DOI 10.1016/J.STAMET.2004.08.004, DOI 10.1016/j.stamet.2004.08.004]
[4]  
[Anonymous], ADV MODELLING OPTIMI
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1986, MODELLING FINANCIAL
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1995, Journal of Derivatives, DOI DOI 10.3905/JOD.1995.407942
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1997, Journal of Derivatives, DOI 10.3905/jod.1997.407971
[8]   Evaluating predictive performance of value-at-risk models in emerging markets: A reality check [J].
Bao, Y ;
Lee, TH ;
Saltoglu, B .
JOURNAL OF FORECASTING, 2006, 25 (02) :101-128
[9]   GENERALIZED AUTOREGRESSIVE CONDITIONAL HETEROSKEDASTICITY [J].
BOLLERSLEV, T .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 1986, 31 (03) :307-327
[10]  
Bucevska V., 2012, BUSINESS SYSTEMS RES, V4, P49, DOI [10.2478/bsrj-2013-0005, DOI 10.2478/BSRJ-2013-0005]