Abstract

SummaryWe investigate the added value of combining density forecasts focused on a specific region of support. We develop forecast combination schemes that assign weights to individual predictive densities based on the censored likelihood scoring rule and the continuous ranked probability scoring rule (CRPS) and compare these to weighting schemes based on the log score and the equally weighted scheme. We apply this approach in the context of measuring downside risk in equity markets using recently developed volatility models, including HEAVY, realized GARCH and GAS models, applied to daily returns on the S&P 500, DJIA, FTSE and Nikkei indexes from 2000 until 2013. The results show that combined density forecasts based on optimizing the censored likelihood scoring rule significantly outperform pooling based on equal weights, optimizing the CRPS or log scoring rule. In addition, 99% Value‐at‐Risk estimates improve when weights are based on the censored likelihood scoring rule.

Highlights

  • Value-at-Risk (VaR) is a commonly used measure of downside risk for investments

  • We investigate the benefits of combining density forecasts with weights based on a specific region of interest

  • We develop a new density forecast combination scheme based on the censored likelihood scoring rule (Diks et al, 2011) and the continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) function (Gneiting & Ranjan, 2011)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Financial institutions are allowed by regulation (i.e., the Basel accords) to report VaR estimates for their asset portfolios obtained from their own “internal” model (subject to approval by the supervisory authorities). Given the availability of an abundant number of different methods for measuring (and managing) downside risk, financial institutions face the difficult task of choosing the “best” model for their purposes. This creates uncertainty because the true data-generating process is unknown. We examine whether combining different models may result in superior VaR estimates

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call