Abstract

Here we assess the return fitting and option valuation performance of generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models. We compare component versus GARCH(1, 1) models, affine versus nonaffine GARCH models, and conditionally normal versus nonnormal GED models. We find that nonaffine models dominate affine models in terms of both fitting returns and option valuation. For the affine models, we find strong evidence in favor of the component structure for both returns and options; for the nonaffine models, the evidence is less convincing in option valuation. The evidence in favor of the nonnormal GED models is strong when fitting daily returns, but not when valuing options.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.