Is intraday data useful for forecasting VaR? The evidence from EUR/PLN exchange rate

Original Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we evaluate alternative volatility forecasting methods under Value at Risk (VaR) approach by calculating one-step-ahead forecasts of daily VaR for the EUR/PLN foreign exchange rate within the 4-year period. Using several risk models, including GARCH specifications and realized volatility models as well as hybrid of these two, we examine whether incorporation of intraday data allows to produce better one-step-ahead volatility forecasts in daily horizon than in case of using daily data only. The volatility forecasts are compared within VaR framework in two-step procedure: the statistical accuracy test are conducted as well as the loss functions are obtained. We find that GARCH models produce better backtesting results than models for realized volatility. When the loss functions of the models that passed the first-stage filtering procedure are compared, there is no distinct winner of the race. We also find no evidence that skewed Student t distribution assumption within GARCH models provides better VaR forecasts when compared to symmetric Student.

Keywords

VaR Intraday data Realized volatility GARCH ARFIMA HAR-RV Jumps 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the comments by anonymous referees as well as conference participants at the International Risk Management Conference 2016 organized by University of Florence, NYU Stern Salomon Center and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All remaining errors are mine.

References

  1. Ahoniemi, K., A.-M. Fuertes, and J. Olmo. 2016. Overnight news and daily equity trading risk limits. Journal of FInancial Econometrics 14 (3): 525–551.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2065017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, T.G., and L. Benzoni. 2009. Realized volatility. In Handbook of financial time series, ed. T.G. Andersen, R.A. Davis, J.-P. Kreiss, and T. Mikosch, 555–575. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, T.G., and T. Bollerslev. 1998. Answering the skeptics: Yes, standard volatility models do provide accurate forecasts. International Economic Review 39 (4): 885–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, T.G., T. Bollerslev, and F.X. Diebold. 2007. Roughing it up: Including jump components in the measurement, modeling, and forecasting of return volatility. Review of Economics and Statistics 89 (11): 701–720.  https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.89.4.701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen, T.G., T. Bollerslev, F.X. Diebold, and P. Labys. 2001. The distribution of realized exchange rate volatility. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 (8): 42–55.  https://doi.org/10.1198/016214501750332965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersen, T.G., T. Bollerslev, F.X. Diebold, and P. Labys. 2003. Modeling and forecasting realized volatility. Econometrica 71: 529–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baillie, R.T., T. Bollerslev, and H.O. Mikkelsen. 1996. Fractionally integrated generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 74 (1): 3–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(95)01749-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barndorff-Nielsen, O.E., and N. Shephard. 2004. Power and bipower variation with stochastic volatility and jumps. Journal of Financial Econometrics 2: 1–48.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbh001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Będowska-Sójka, B. 2015. Daily VAR forecasts with realized volatility and GARCH models. Argumenta Oeconomica 34 (1): 157–173.Google Scholar
  10. Bollerslev, T. 1986. Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 31 (3): 307–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brownlees, C.T., and G.M. Gallo. 2009. Comparison of volatility measures: A risk management perspective. Journal of Financial Econometrics 8 (1): 29–56.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbp009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christoffersen, P.F. 1998. Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review 39 (4): 841–862.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2527341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clements, M.P., A.B. Galvão, and J.H. Kim. 2008. Quantile forecasts of daily exchange rate returns from forecasts of realized volatility. Journal of Empirical Finance 15 (4): 729–750.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2007.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corsi, F. 2009. A simple approximate long-memory model of realized volatility. Journal of Financial Econometrics 7 (2): 174–196.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jjfinec/nbp001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dacorogna, M.M., R. Gençay, U. Müller, R. Olsen, and O. Pictet. 2001. An introduction to high frequency finance. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Doornik, J.A., and D.F. Hendry. 2005. Empirical econometric modelling. PcGiveTM11. London: Timberlake Consultants.Google Scholar
  17. Elliott, G., and A. Timmermann. 2004. Optimal forecast combinations under general loss functions and forecast error distributions. Journal of Econometrics 122 (1): 47–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engle, R.F., and S. Manganelli. 2004. CAViaR: Conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 22 (4): 367–381.  https://doi.org/10.1198/073500104000000370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuertes, A.-M., and J. Olmo. 2012. Exploiting intraday and overnight price variation for daily VaR prediction. Frontiers in Finance and Economics 9 (2): 1–31.Google Scholar
  20. Giot, P., and S. Laurent. 2003. Value-at-risk for long and short trading positions. Journal of Applied Econometrics 18 (6): 641–664.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giot, P., and S. Laurent. 2004. Modelling daily value-at-risk using realized volatility and ARCH type models. Journal of Empirical Finance 11 (3): 379–398.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2003.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, P.R., and A. Lunde. 2005. A forecast comparison of volatility models: Does anything beat a GARCH(1,1)? Journal of Applied Econometrics 20 (7): 873–889.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kambouroudis, D.S., D.G. McMillan, and K. Tsakou. 2016. Forecasting stock return volatility: A comparison of GARCH, implied volatility, and realized volatility models. Journal of Futures Markets 36 (12): 1127–1163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.21783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kupiec, P.H. 1995. Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models. The Journal of Derivatives 3 (2): 73–84.  https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1995.407942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laurent, S. 2010. G@rch 6.0 help. London: Timberlake Consultants Ltd.Google Scholar
  26. Lopez, J.A. 1999. Methods for evaluating value at risk esimates. FRBSF Economics Review 2 (1): 3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1086/250095.Google Scholar
  27. Louzis, D.P., S. Xanthopoulos-Sisinis, and A.P. Refenes 2014. Realized volatility models and alternative Value-at-Risk prediction strategies. in Economic modelling. Elsevier B.V., 40, pp. 101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.03.025.
  28. McMillan, D.G., A.E.H. Speight, and K.P. Evans. 2008. How useful is intraday data for evaluating daily Value-at-Risk? Evidence from three Euro rates. Journal of Multinational Financial Management 18 (5): 488–503.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2007.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller, U.A., M.M Dacorogna, R.D. Dave, O.V. Pictet, R.B. Olsen and J.R. Ward 1995 Fractals and intrinsic time: A challenge to econometricians, Olsen & Associates Research Group. Available at: http://finance.martinsewell.com/stylized-facts/scaling/Muller-etal1993.pdf.
  30. Nelson, D.B. 1991. Conditional Heteroskedasticity in asset returns : A new approach author. Econometrica 59 (2): 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Patton, A.J., and K. Sheppard. 2015. Good volatility, bad volatility: Signed jumps and the persistence of volatility. Review of Economics and Statistics 97 (3): 683–697.  https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarma, M., S. Thomas, and A. Shah. 2003. Selection of value-at-risk models. Journal of Forecasting 22: 337–358.  https://doi.org/10.1002/for.868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wong, Z.Y., W.C. Chin, and S.H. Tan. 2016. Daily value-at-risk modeling and forecast evaluation: The realized volatility approach. The Journal of Finance and Data Science 2 (3): 171–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfds.2016.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconometricsPoznań University of Economics and BusinessPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations