A Forecast Comparison of Volatility Models: Does Anything Beat a GARCH(1,1)?
Preprint
- 1 January 2001
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
- Vol. 20 (7)
- https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.264571
Abstract
We compare 330 ARCH-type models in terms of their ability to describe the conditional variance. The models are compared out-of-sample using DM-$ exchange rate data and IBM return data, where the latter is based on a new data set of realized variance. We find no evidence that a GARCH(1,1) is outperformed by more sophisticated models in our analysis of exchange rates, whereas the GARCH(1,1) is clearly inferior to models that can accommodate a leverage effect in our analysis of IBM returns. The models are compared with the test for superior predictive ability (SPA) and the reality check for data snooping (RC). Our empirical results show that the RC lacks power to an extent that makes it unable to distinguish 'good' and 'bad' models in our analysis.Keywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Parametric and Nonparametric Volatility MeasurementPublished by Elsevier ,2010
- On measuring volatility of diffusion processes with high frequency dataEconomics Letters, 2002
- Non-Gaussian Ornstein–Uhlenbeck-based Models and Some of Their Uses in Financial EconomicsJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 2001
- Answering the Skeptics: Yes, Standard Volatility Models do Provide Accurate ForecastsInternational Economic Review, 1998
- Intraday periodicity and volatility persistence in financial marketsPublished by Elsevier ,1998
- 8 Forecast evaluation and combinationPublished by Elsevier ,1996
- Comparing Predictive AccuracyJournal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1995
- A long memory property of stock market returns and a new modelJournal of Empirical Finance, 1993
- The Message in Daily Exchange Rates: A Conditional-Variance TaleJournal of Business & Economic Statistics, 1989
- Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityJournal of Econometrics, 1986