GARCH Models and Distributions Comparison for Nonlinear Time Series with Volatilities

Authors

  • Nur Haizum Abdul Rahman Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al-Sultan Abdullah, Lebuhraya Persiaran Tun Khalil Yaakob, 26300 Gambang, Pahang, Malaysia
  • Goh Hui Jia Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Hani Syahida Zulkafli Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11113/mjfas.v19n6.3101

Keywords:

GARCH, volatilities, financial data, time series

Abstract

The Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model is extensively used for handling volatilities. However, with numerous extensions to  the standard GARCH model, selecting the most suitable model for forecasting price volatilities becomes challenging. This study aims to examine the performance of different GARCH models in forecasting crude oil price volatilities using West Texas Intermediate (WTI) data. The models considered are the standard GARCH, Integrated GARCH (IGARCH), Exponential GARCH (EGARCH), and Golsten, Jagannathan, and Runkle GARCH (GJR-GARCH), each with normal distribution, Student’s t-distribution, and Generalized Error Distribution (GED). To evaluate the performance of each model, the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) are used as the model selection criteria, along with forecast accuracy measures such as absolute error, root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). Post-estimation tests, including the Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity Lagrange Multiplier (ARCH-LM) test and the Ljung-Box test, are conducted to ensure the adequacy of all models. The results reveal that all GARCH models are suitable for modeling the data, as indicated by statistically significant estimated parameters and satisfactory post-estimation outcomes. However, the EGARCH (1, 1) model, particularly with Student’s t-distribution, outperforms other models in both data fitting and accurate forecasting of nonlinear time series.

References

R.S. Tsay, R. Chen. (2018). Nonlinear Time Series Analysis. Wiley, Hoboken.

R. Bhowmik, S. Wang. (2020). Stock market volatility and return analysis: A systematic literature review. Entropy, 22, 522.

N. Hung, N. Thach, A. Le. (2018). GARCH models in forecasting the volatility of the World’s oil prices. Stud. Comp. Intell., 673-683.

R. F. Engle. (1982). Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation. Econometrica, 50, 987-1007.

T. Bollerslev. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. J. Econom., 31, 307-327.

R.F. Engle, T. Bollerslev, Modelling the Persistence of Conditional Variances, Econom. Rev. 5 (1986) 1-50.

D. B. Nelson. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach, Econometrica, 59, 347-370.

V. Naimy, O. Haddad, G. Fernández-Avilés, R. El Khoury. (2021). The predictive capacity of GARCH-type models in measuring the volatility of crypto and world currencies. PLoS One, 16.

D. B. Nugroho, D. Kurniawati, L. P. Panjaitan, Z. Kholil, B. Susanto, L. R. Sasongko. (2019). Empirical performance of GARCH, GARCH-M, GJR-GARCH and log-GARCH models for returns volatility. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1307, 012003.

C. Dritsaki. (2017). An empirical evaluation in GARCH volatility modeling: Evidence from the Stockholm stock exchange. J. Math. Financ., 7, 366-390.

B. Meher, I. Hawaldar, L. Mohapatra, A. Sarea. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on price volatility of crude oil and natural gas listed on multi commodity exchange of India. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy, 10, 422-431.

A. M. Herrera, L. Hu, D. Pastor. (2018). Forecasting crude oil price volatility. Int. J. Forecast., 34, 622-635.

N. Hung, N. Thach, A. Le. (2018). GARCH models in forecasting the volatility of the world’s oil prices. Stud. Comp. Intell., 673-683.

B. Venkatareddy, K. G. (2020). Rainfall indexation for evaluating rainfall risk profile of Indian subcontinent. Indian. J. Finance, 14, 40-52.

N. Zamrus, M. H. Mohd Rodzhan, N. N. Mohamad. (2022). Forecasting model of air pollution index using generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity family (GARCH). Mal. J. Fund. Appl. Sci., 18, 184-196.

B. Wellington Garikai. (2019). Stock market volatility analysis using GARCH family models: Evidence from Zimbabwe stock exchange. MPRA Paper No. 94201.

G. M. Ljung, G. E. P. Box. (1978)z. On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika, 65, 297-303.

L. Schmidt. (2021). Volatility forecasting performance of GARCH models: A study on nordic indices during COVID-19. Master Thesis, Umeå University.

L. R. Glosten, R. Jagannathan, D. E. Runkle. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. J. Finance., 48, 1779-1801.

H. Pham. (2019). A new criterion for model selection. Mathematics, 7, 1215.

F. Fabozzi, S. Focardi, T. Rachev, B. Arshanapalli. (2014). Appendix E: Model selection criterion: AIC and BIC, in the basics of financial econometrics: Tools, concepts, and asset management applications, 399-403.

H. Akaike. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike. 199-213.

G. Schwarz. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat., 6, 461-464.

J. J. Dziak, D. L. Coffman, S. T. Lanza, R. Li, L. S. Jermiin. (2020). Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria. Brief Bioinform., 21553-565.

N. Mehdiyev, D. Enke, P. Fettke, P. Loos. (2016). Evaluating forecasting methods by considering different accuracy measures. Procedia Comput. Sci., 95, 264-271.

D. Koutsandreas, E. Spiliotis, F. Petropoulos, V. Assimakopoulos. (2021). On the selection of forecasting accuracy measures. J. Oper. Res. Soc., 73, 1-18.

Downloads

Published

04-12-2023