Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T15:43:36.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESIDUAL-BASED GARCH BOOTSTRAP AND SECOND ORDER ASYMPTOTIC REFINEMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2016

Minsoo Jeong
Minsoo Jeong*
Affiliation:
Yonsei UniversityWonju Campus
*
*Address correspondence to Minsoo Jeong, Department of Economics, Yonsei University Wonju Campus, Wonju, Gangwon, 26493, Korea, e-mail: mssjong@yonsei.ac.kr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The residual-based bootstrap is considered one of the most reliable methods for bootstrapping generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models. However, in terms of theoretical aspects, only the consistency of the bootstrap has been established, while the higher order asymptotic refinement remains unproven. For example, Corradi and Iglesias (2008) demonstrate the asymptotic refinement of the block bootstrap for GARCH models but leave the results of the residual-based bootstrap as a conjecture. To derive the second order asymptotic refinement of the residual-based GARCH bootstrap, we utilize the analysis in Andrews (2001, 2002) and establish the Edgeworth expansions of the t-statistics, as well as the convergence of their moments. As expected, we show that the bootstrap error in the coverage probabilities of the equal-tailed t-statistic and the corresponding test-inversion confidence intervals are at most of the order of O(n−1), where the exact order depends on the moment condition of the process. This convergence rate is faster than that of the block bootstrap, as well as that of the first order asymptotic test.

Information

Type
MISCELLANEA
Information
Econometric Theory , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 779 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Footnotes

The author is very grateful to Joon Y. Park for comments and advice. This paper is based on the author’s master’s thesis written under his guidance. The author also thanks to Joel L. Horowitz for advise during his visit to SNU, and to anonymous reviewers for valuable comments which improved the quality of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, D.W.K. (2000) Inconsistency of the bootstrap when a parameter is on the boundary of the parameter space. Econometrica 68, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. (2001) Higher-order improvements of a computationally attractive k-step bootstrap for extremum estimators. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1230R, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.Google Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. (2002) Higher-order improvements of a computationally attractive k-step bootstrap for extremum estimators. Econometrica 70, 119–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D.W.K. (2005) Higher-order improvements of the parametric bootstrap for Markov processes, in Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg, Cambridge, pp. 171–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, I., & Horváth, L. (2003) The rate of consistency of the quasi-maximum likelihood estimator. Statistics & Probability Letters 61, 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, I., Horváth, L., & Kokoszka, P. (2003) GARCH processes: structure and estimation. Bernoulli 9(2), 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, R.N. (1987) Some aspects of Edgeworth expansions in statistics and probability, in Puri, M. L., Vilaplana, J. P., and Wertz, Wolfgang (eds.), New Perspectives in Theoretical and Applied Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 157–170.Google Scholar
Bollerslev, T. (1986) Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of econometrics 31(3), 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bose, A. (1988) Egdeworth correction by bootstrap in autoregressions. Annals of Statistics 16, 1709–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bose, A. (1990) Bootstrap in moving average models. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 42, 753–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J. (1999) Test inversion bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 61(1), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, B., Gel, Y.R., Balakrishna, N., & Abraham, B. (2011) Computationally efficient bootstrap prediction intervals for returns and volatilities in ARCH and GARCH processes. Journal of Forecasting 30(1), 51–71.Google Scholar
Choi, E., & Hall, P. (2000) Bootstrap confidence regions computed from autoregressions of arbitrary order. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 62, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christoffersen, P., & Gonçalves, S. (2005) Estimation risk in financial risk management. Journal of Risk 7, 1–29.Google Scholar
Corradi, V., & Iglesias, E. (2008) Bootstrap refinements for QML estimators of the GARCH(1,1) parameters. Journal of Econometrics 144(2), 500–510.Google Scholar
Davis, R.A., & Mikosch, T. (2009) Extreme value theory for GARCH processes. in Handbook of Financial Time Series, Springer, pp. 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doukhan, P. (1994) Mixing: Properties and Examples , New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francq, C., & Zakoïan, J. (2004) Maximum likelihood estimation of pure GARCH and ARMA-GARCH processes. Bernoulli 10(4), 605–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francq, C., & Zakoïan, J. (2006) Mixing properties of a general class of GARCH(1,1) models without moment assumptions on the observed process. Econometric Theory 22(5), 815–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götze, F., & Hipp, C. (1994) Asymptotic distribution of statistics in time series. Annals of Statistics 22, 2062–2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P., & Yao, Q. (2003) Inference in ARCH and GARCH models with heavy-tailed errors. Econometrica 71(1), 285–317.Google Scholar
Hansen, P.R., & Lunde, A. (2005) A forecast comparison of volatility models: does anything beat a GARCH(1,1)? Journal of Applied Econometrics 20(7), 873–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo, J., & Zaffaroni, P. (2007) A goodness-of-fit test for ARCH(∞) models. Journal of econometrics 141(2), 835–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, J.L. (2003) Bootstrap methods for Markov processes. Econometrica 71, 1049–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüppelberg, C., Lindner, A., & Maller, R. (2004) A continuous-time GARCH process driven by a Levy process: stationary and second order behaviour. Journal of Applied Probability 41, 601–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.W., & Hansen, B. E. (1994) Asymptotic theory for the GARCH(1,1) quasi-maximum likelihood estimator. Econometric Theory 10, 29–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsdaine, R.L. (1996) Consistency and asymptotic normality of the quasi-maximum likelihood estimator in IGARCH(1,1) and covariance stationary GARCH(1,1) models. Econometrica 64(3), 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancini, L., & Trojani, F. (2005) Robust semiparametric bootstrap methods for value at risk prediction under GARCH-type volatility processes. Working Paper, University of St. Gallen.Google Scholar
Mikosch, T., & Stărică, C. (2000) Limit theory for the sample autocorrelations and extremes of a GARCH (1,1) process. The Annals of Statistics 28(5), 1427–1451.Google Scholar
Nelsen, D.B. (1990) Stationarity and persistence in the GARCH(1,1) model. Econometric Theory 6, 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, L., Romo, J., & Ruiz, E. (2006) Bootstrap prediction for returns and volatilities in GARCH models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 50(9), 2293–2312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rio, E. (1993) Covariance inequalities for strongly mixing processes. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré (B) 29(4), 587–597.Google Scholar
Shimizu, K. (2009) Bootstrapping stationary ARMA-GARCH models. Vieweg+Teubner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varga, L., & Zempléni, A. (2012) Weighted bootstrap in GARCH models. Working Paper, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar