跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要的预测目标是金融资产条件方差矩阵,比较多元 GARCH 与相关结构,直接属于波动率计量。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者

多元 GARCH 模型的预测准确性

研究问题
面对多个资产的条件方差矩阵预测,如何比较多元 GARCH 规格,以及市场不稳定程度和预测损失函数如何影响模型选择?
方法与思路
作者以10只纽约证券交易所资产比较125个模型,考察1、5、20日预测,并结合四种损失函数、MCS 与 SPA 检验。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称模型表现随市场状态变化;SPA 检验未发现最佳模型显著优于含杠杆效应的基准 DCC,危机期考虑非平稳性有帮助。
阅读关注点
应核对方差矩阵评价基准、损失函数的不对称性、市场状态划分,以及 MCS 与 SPA 结论为何可能不同。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要,无法判断预测评价基准及检验细节;未显著胜过 DCC 并不意味着各模型预测能力相同。

原文摘要

SUMMARY This paper addresses the question of the selection of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic (GARCH) models in terms of variance matrix forecasting accuracy, with a particular focus on relatively large‐scale problems. We consider 10 assets from the New York Stock Exchange and compare 125 models based 1‐, 5‐ and 20‐day‐ahead conditional variance forecasts over a period of 10 years using the model confidence set (MCS) and the superior predictive ability (SPA) tests. Model performance is evaluated using four statistical loss functions which account for different types and degrees of asymmetry with respect to over‐/under‐predictions. When considering the full sample, MCS results are strongly driven by short periods of high market instability during which multivariate GARCH models appear to be inaccurate. Over relatively unstable periods, i.e. the dot‐com bubble, the set of superior models is composed of sophisticated specifications such as orthogonal and dynamic conditional correlation (DCC), both with leverage effect in the conditional variances. However, unlike the DCC models, our results show that the orthogonal specifications tend to underestimate the conditional variance. Over calm periods, a simple assumption like constant conditional correlation and symmetry in the conditional variances cannot be rejected. Finally, during the 2007–2008 financial crisis, accounting for non‐stationarity in the conditional variance process generates superior forecasts. The SPA test suggests that, independently from the period, the best models do not provide significantly better forecasts than the DCC model of Engle (2002, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 20: 339–350) with leverage in the conditional variances of the returns. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文