GARCH Models and Asymmetric GARCH models .


47 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Food / Beverages
Description
GARCH Models and Hilter kilter GARCH models. VECM (Survey). Cointegrating Eq:
Transcripts
Slide 1

GARCH Models and Asymmetric GARCH models

Slide 2

VECM (Review) Cointegrating Eq:  R1(- 1)1.000000 R10(- 1) - 0.980444  (0.07657) [-12.8046] C  0.603495 Error Correction: D(R1) D(R10) CointEq1 -0.029996  0.015287  (0.01783)  (0.01140) [-1.68255] [ 1.34155] D(R1(- 1))  0.273219 -0.028276  (0.06803)  (0.04348) [ 4.01619] [-0.65026] D(R1(- 2)) -0.087596  0.025434  (0.06772)  (0.04328) [-1.29358] [ 0.58761] D(R10(- 1))  0.370337  0.425735  (0.10747)  (0.06869) [ 3.44593] [ 6.19757] D(R10(- 2)) -0.263587 -0.266142  (0.10796)  (0.06901) [-2.44152] [-3.85675] C -0.000459

Slide 3

Structure of today\'s session Brief re-top of last address Estimation of ARCH models Maximum probability estimation The Glosten Jaganathan and Runkle show which brings lopsided alteration into the model. Update

Slide 4

Problems: What estimation of q ought to be picked? The quantity of slacks, q , may be extensive. The non-pessimism imperatives may be abused. Summed up ARCH (GARCH) models: Allows the restrictive change, σ t 2 , to depend its own particular slacks and also slacked squared residuals. GARCH(1,1) The understanding here is that the current fitted change is a weighted capacity of a long haul normal esteem ( α 0 ), unpredictability amid the past period ( α 1 u t - 1 2 ), and the fitted difference from the model amid the past period ( βσ t - 1 2 ).

Slide 5

GARCH Models The GARCH model is truly an ARMA kind of process. To demonstrate this the squared lingering at time t is equivalent to the contingent difference and a steady term, to give:

Slide 6

Estimating ARCH/GARCH Models practically speaking the probability capacity is communicated in logs (so that a multiplicative capacity turns into an added substance one). The log-probability work (LLF) for an ARCH model with a typically conveyed mistake is given by L : The PC replaces σ 2t in the LLF with its ARCH procedure.

Slide 7

Maximum Likelihood Estimation: Global greatest L Max Local most extreme β MLE Where L is boosted dlogL/d β = 0. Programming use different calculations for emphasis to the worldwide greatest gauge of β .

Slide 8

ML Estimation of ARCH/GARCH models Specify the model and its probability work Use OLS relapse to get introductory appraisals ( beginning qualities ) for β 1 , β 1 and so on. Pick starting evaluations for the parameters of the contingent fluctuation work. Eviews (and other programming) offers you zeros as beginning qualities for these. By and by it is ideal to pick little positive qualities. Indicate a meeting criteria (for the most part the product has a default an incentive for this). Augment the probability by cycle until no further change in the model coefficients can be gotten (and the meeting criteria in step 4 is met).

Slide 9

GARCH (p,q): - The current contingent difference relies on upon q slacks of the past squared blunder and p slacks of the past restrictive fluctuation. - However higher request models above GARCH(1,1) are once in a while utilized as a part of practice.

Slide 10

Asymmetric GARCH Models Given that every one of the terms in a GARCH model are squared, there will dependably be a symmetric reaction to positive and negative stuns However due to the utilized way of most firms, a negative stun ought to be more harming than a positive stun and in this way create more prominent instability. There have been two ways to deal with this stylised actuality, the exponential GARCH demonstrate and the Glosten, Jagannathan and Runkle models.

Slide 11

Asymmetric Adjustment The lopsided modification is brought into the model using a spurious variable which takes the estimation of 0 or 1 It takes the estimation of 1 if the stun is negative (i.e. <0), and 0 generally

Slide 12

Glosten, Jagannathan and Runkle Model (GJR)

Slide 13

GJR Model From the past slide plainly a huge positive stun will deliver less instability than a vast negative one, accepting the coefficient γ is sure If the last term is critical, as indicated by the t-insights, then it infers topsy-turvy reactions are an imperative impact The non-pessimism limitation for terms 2 and 4 are currently:

Slide 14

GJR Model It is conceivable to compute the restrictive fluctuation for a positive and negative stun and consequently demonstrate that these are distinctive. Obviously in the negative stun case the squared mistake term will have two segments, the individual part and the dummied part.

Slide 15

News Impact Curves Both GARCH and GJR models can be utilized to deliver plots of the following time frame unpredictability, that emerges taking after both positive and negative stuns. This basically includes substituting estimations of u (t-1) in the range [-1,+1] into the assessed model, to acquire different qualities for the restrictive change. The plot for the GARCH model will be symmetric, for the GJR display, negative stuns will be higher than positive stuns.

Slide 16

EGARCH The exponential GARCH or EGARCH model was produced by Nelson (1991)taking the accompanying structure:

Slide 17

EGARCH This is the exponential GARCH show and can likewise be utilized to clarify asymmetries. A further preferred standpoint is that the reliant variable is in logs, so the non-pessimism limitation is not ruptured. Similarly as with the GJR demonstrate, if the accompanying term is negative and huge, then there is confirmation of asymmetry (the use impact):

Slide 18

GARCH-in-mean This sort of model presents the restrictive fluctuation (or standard deviation) into the mean condition. These are frequently utilized as a part of benefit return conditions, where both return and hazard are to be considered. On the off chance that the coefficient on this hazard variable is certain and noteworthy, it demonstrates that expanded hazard prompts to a higher return. Thus it can be brought into resource equality models, speaking to the hazard premium.

Slide 19

GARCH-in-mean Example The accompanying model uses the arrival on a bond as the needy variable:

Slide 20

GARCH-in-mean Example In the past slide, the positive sign and critical t-measurement show that the danger of the bond prompts to a higher return. The demonstrative tests are deciphered in the standard way.

Slide 21

Forecasting utilizing GARCH models The GARCH models are valuable for guaging unpredictability of benefit returns, choices and other back arrangement. This is especially vital in alternatives estimating, where instability is an imperative contribution to the valuing of the choice. Be that as it may it is hard to create the standard mistake band for the certainty interims for the contingent fluctuation gauges as this requires the change of the difference.

Slide 22

Forecasting with GARCH Although the GARCH show has the contingent difference of the blunder term as its needy variable, this is the same as the restrictive change of the needy variable in the mean condition. This is the situation paying little respect to what factors are incorporated into the mean condition.

Slide 23

Conclusion The GARCH model is preferred as a rule over the ARCH model, as a rule a GARCH(1,1) model is adequate. The GJR model can be utilized to show hilter kilter alteration, using a fake variable. This permits negative stuns to have higher restrictive difference than positive stuns.

Recommended
View more...