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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Polish zloty currency (PLN) is obviously not one of the most liquid in FX market and the issue of entering Eurozone is still questionable. About 80 per cent of Polish international trade is accountable in Euro.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Andersen, T.G., T. Bollerslev, F.X. Diebold, and P. Labys. 2003. Modeling and forecasting realized volatility. Econometrica 71: 529–626.
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.
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.
Będowska-Sójka, B. 2015. Daily VAR forecasts with realized volatility and GARCH models. Argumenta Oeconomica 34 (1): 157–173.
Bollerslev, T. 1986. Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 31 (3): 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
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.
Christoffersen, P.F. 1998. Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review 39 (4): 841–862. https://doi.org/10.2307/2527341.
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.
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.
Dacorogna, M.M., R. Gençay, U. Müller, R. Olsen, and O. Pictet. 2001. An introduction to high frequency finance. London: Academic Press.
Doornik, J.A., and D.F. Hendry. 2005. Empirical econometric modelling. PcGiveTM11. London: Timberlake Consultants.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Laurent, S. 2010. G@rch 6.0 help. London: Timberlake Consultants Ltd.
Lopez, J.A. 1999. Methods for evaluating value at risk esimates. FRBSF Economics Review 2 (1): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1086/250095.
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.
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.
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.
Nelson, D.B. 1991. Conditional Heteroskedasticity in asset returns : A new approach author. Econometrica 59 (2): 347–370.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Będowska-Sójka, B. Is intraday data useful for forecasting VaR? The evidence from EUR/PLN exchange rate. Risk Manag 20, 326–346 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-018-0038-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-018-0038-z