Choosing the Best Volatility Models: The Model Confidence Set Approach
This paper applies the model confidence set (MCS) procedure of Hansen, Lunde and Nason (2003) to a set of volatility models. An MCS is analogous to the confidence interval of a parameter in the sense that it contains the best forecasting model with a certain probability. The key to the MCS is that i...
Saved in:
Published in | Oxford bulletin of economics and statistics Vol. 65; no. s1; pp. 839 - 861 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Oxford, UK and Malden, USA
Blackwell Publishing, Ltd
01.12.2003
Department of Economics, University of Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
Series | Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | This paper applies the model confidence set (MCS) procedure of Hansen, Lunde and Nason (2003) to a set of volatility models. An MCS is analogous to the confidence interval of a parameter in the sense that it contains the best forecasting model with a certain probability. The key to the MCS is that it acknowledges the limitations of the information in the data. The empirical exercise is based on 55 volatility models and the MCS includes about a third of these when evaluated by mean square error, whereas the MCS contains only a VGARCH model when mean absolute deviation criterion is used. We conduct a simulation study which shows that the MCS captures the superior models across a range of significance levels. When we benchmark the MCS relative to a Bonferroni bound, the latter delivers inferior performance. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ark:/67375/WNG-MRM2VQXL-S istex:4DEB90617EDCA2AAE6A06A1E30A53F7518A0E81D We thank Mark Kamstra and seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta for useful comments. All errors are ours. Financial support from the Danish Research Agency, grant no. 24-00-0363, and the Salomon Research Award at Brown University is gratefully acknowledged. This paper also owes much to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which provided support and hospitality to the first and third authors. The views of this paper are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve System or any of its staff. ArticleID:OBES086 |
ISSN: | 0305-9049 1468-0084 |
DOI: | 10.1046/j.0305-9049.2003.00086.x |