ArticleSN business & economics2022
Forecasting volatility in Asian financial markets: evidence from recursive and rolling window methods.
Article in SN business & economics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Information shocks, market returns and volatility: a comparative analysis of developed equity markets in Asia.SN business & economics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present paper examines the relative out-of-sample predictive ability of GARCH, GARCH-M, EGARCH, TGARCH and PGARCH models for ten Asian markets by using three different time frames and two different methods, considering the features of volatility clustering, leverage effect and volatility persistence phenomena, for which the evidence of existence is found in the data. Five measures of comparison are employed in this research, and a further dimension is investigated based on the classification of the selected models, in order to identify the existence or lack of any differences between the recursive and rolling window methods. The empirical results reveal that asymmetric models, led by the EGARCH model, provide better forecasts compared to symmetric models in higher time frames. However, when it comes to lower time frames, symmetric GARCH models tend to outperform their asymmetric counterparts. Furthermore, linear GARCH models are penalized more by the rolling window method, while recursive method places them amongst the best performers, highlighting the importance of choosing a proper approach. In addition, this study reveals an important controversy: that one error statistic may suggest a particular model is the best, while another suggests the same model to be the worst, indicating that the performance of the model heavily depends on which loss function is used. Finally, it is proved that GARCH-type models can appropriately adapt to the volatility of Asian stock indices and provide a satisfactory degree of forecast accuracy in all selected time frames. These results are also supported by the Diebold-Mariano (DM) pairwise comparison test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.