本页提供题录、可核实摘要与阅读线索。AI 解读未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明和结论请核对原文。仅依据书目生成的内容属于阅读导航，不是对论文结论的确认。
摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。材料不足时保留待解读状态；引用采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计版本，缺失不视为零，也不代表论文质量。
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Abstract We compare 330 ARCH‐type models in terms of their ability to describe the conditional variance. The models are compared out‐of‐sample using DM–$ exchange rate data and IBM return data, where the latter is based on a new data set of realized variance. We find no evidence that a GARCH(1,1) is outperformed by more sophisticated models in our analysis of exchange rates, whereas the GARCH(1,1) is clearly inferior to models that can accommodate a leverage effect in our analysis of IBM returns. The models are compared with the test for superior predictive ability (SPA) and the reality check for data snooping (RC). Our empirical results show that the RC lacks power to an extent that makes it unable to distinguish ‘good’ and ‘bad’ models in our analysis. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.