Modeling and forecasting the oil volatility index

Abstract

The increase in oil price volatility in recent years has raised the importance of forecasting it accurately for valuing and hedging investments. The paper models and forecasts the crude oil exchange‐traded funds (ETF) volatility index, which has been used in the last years as an important alternative measure to track and analyze the volatility of future oil prices. Analysis of the oil volatility index suggests that it presents features similar to those of the daily market volatility index, such as long memory, which is modeled using well‐known heterogeneous autoregressive (HAR) specifications and new extensions that are based on net and scaled measures of oil price changes. The aim is to improve the forecasting performance of the traditional HAR models by including predictors that capture the impact of oil price changes on the economy. The performance of the new proposals and benchmarks is evaluated with the model confidence set (MCS) and the Generalized‐AutoContouR (G‐ACR) tests in terms of point forecasts and density forecasting, respectively. We find that including the leverage in the conditional mean or variance of the basic HAR model increases its predictive ability. Furthermore, when considering density forecasting, the best models are a conditional heteroskedastic HAR model that includes a scaled measure of oil price changes, and a HAR model with errors following an exponential generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity specification. In both cases, we consider a flexible distribution for the errors of the conditional heteroskedastic process.

The impact of Covid-19 on G7 stock markets volatility: Evidence from a ST-HAR model

“…For empirical applications on these models we direct you to(Caggiano et al, 2017;Chkili, 2017;Elliott et al, 2016;Ghoshray, 2010;Moore & Wang, 2007;Nademi & Nademi, 2018;Umer et al, 2018) 3 For studies using the HAR model across different asset classes we direct you toSantos and Ziegelmann (2014) for Spanish equity index data, Y Wang et al (2017). for US equity index data,Buncic and Gisler (2016) for global equity index data;Čech and Baruník (2017) andAudrino et al (2020) for empirical applications using individual firm data;Mazzeu et al (2019) andLi et al (2020) for commodities.…”

Re-Evaluation of World Population Figures: Politics and Forecasting Mechanics

“…In this study, ARMA/ARIMA is developed and also examines the performance of the model using Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) (Ben Amor, Boubaker, & Belkacem, 2018;Goto & Taniguchi, 2019). As postulated by Box and Jenkins in the second half of the 1970s (Zhang et al, 2018), time series model had an autoregressive and moving average part (Gonçalves Mazzeu, Veiga, & Mariti, 2019). It means that Autoregressive (AR) and Moving Average (MA) are denoted as ARIMA (p, d, q) where p signifies the order of autoregressive process, d indicates the order of differencing of the timeseries data and qthe order of moving average process.…”

Monetary Policy Interdependency in Fisher Effect: A Comparative Evidence

“…We then subtracted the inflation expectation over the eight quarters, to determine the long run as used by, (Orphanides & Wieland, 2004). (23) Thus, the Fisher effect becomes: (24) Using the reduced form based on the concept of simultaneity, we have: (25) where, φ = monetary shock (Nechio et al, 2018). (26) Where, , , , and are negative coefficients.…”