2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00180-016-0646-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Value-at-Risk models using the MCS approach

Abstract: This paper compares the Value-at-Risk (VaR) forecasts delivered by alternative model specifications using the Model Confidence Set (MCS) procedure recently developed by Hansen et al. (2011). The direct VaR estimate provided by the Conditional Autoregressive Value-at-Risk (CAViaR) models of Engle and Manganelli (2004) are compared to those obtained by the popular Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (ARCH) models of Engle (1982) and to the recently introduced Generalised Autoregressive Score (GAS) mode… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We surmise from the results that the ease/difficulty with which to model tail risks does not depend on the actual conditions of the financial markets for an equity except for China and South Africa. Bernardi & Catania [8] made similar remarks in using the MCS algorithm to compare VaR models of four major global stock indices from Asia, North America and Europe. It follows that risk managers would prefer a SSM with a size closer to M 0 to those that are smaller.…”
Section: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…We surmise from the results that the ease/difficulty with which to model tail risks does not depend on the actual conditions of the financial markets for an equity except for China and South Africa. Bernardi & Catania [8] made similar remarks in using the MCS algorithm to compare VaR models of four major global stock indices from Asia, North America and Europe. It follows that risk managers would prefer a SSM with a size closer to M 0 to those that are smaller.…”
Section: Descriptive Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The existing risk measurement methods are mainly based on different properties of the international crude oil market returns. On the one hand, the market risk is measured from the perspective of heteroscedasticity of asset returns, such as in literature which uses static and dynamic VaR based on GARCH models to predict risks in financial markets like stock markets, international crude oil markets and virtual money markets [20][21][22]. On the other hand, from the perspective of asset returns agglomeration to measure market risks.…”
Section: Risk Measurement Methods Of International Crude Oil Marketmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cabedo and Moya [19] assumed heteroscedasticity of crude oil returns and measured the risk of the crude oil market based on the GARCH model. Thereafter, most of the literature adopts static and dynamic VaR based on the GARCH model to predict financial market risks in stock markets, international crude oil markets and virtual currency markets [20][21][22][23]. For example, based on the heteroscedasticity of virtual currency returns, Li et al [24] measured virtual currency market risks with different types of GARCH models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model class is closely related to Generalized Autoregressive Score models of Creal et al (2013), for a predictive application see e.g. Bernardi & Catania (2016). In the paper we follow the formulation by Harvey.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%