Asymmetry and Leverage in Conditional Volatility Models
AbstractThe three most popular univariate conditional volatility models are the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model of Engle (1982) and Bollerslev (1986), the GJR (or threshold GARCH) model of Glosten, Jagannathan and Runkle (1992), and the exponential GARCH (or EGARCH) model of Nelson (1990, 1991). The underlying stochastic specification to obtain GARCH was demonstrated by Tsay (1987), and that of EGARCH was shown recently in McAleer and Hafner (2014). These models are important in estimating and forecasting volatility, as well as in capturing asymmetry, which is the different effects on conditional volatility of positive and negative effects of equal magnitude, and purportedly in capturing leverage, which is the negative correlation between returns shocks and subsequent shocks to volatility. As there seems to be some confusion in the literature between asymmetry and leverage, as well as which asymmetric models are purported to be able to capture leverage, the purpose of the paper is three-fold, namely, (1) to derive the GJR model from a random coefficient autoregressive process, with appropriate regularity conditions; (2) to show that leverage is not possible in the GJR and EGARCH models; and (3) to present the interpretation of the parameters of the three popular univariate conditional volatility models in a unified manner. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
McAleer, M. Asymmetry and Leverage in Conditional Volatility Models. Econometrics 2014, 2, 145-150.
McAleer M. Asymmetry and Leverage in Conditional Volatility Models. Econometrics. 2014; 2(3):145-150.Chicago/Turabian Style
McAleer, Michael. 2014. "Asymmetry and Leverage in Conditional Volatility Models." Econometrics 2, no. 3: 145-150.