Journals / Business and Economics Research Journal / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Estimation of the XU100 Index Return Volatility with the Integration of GARCH Family Models and ANN

GARCH Ailesi Modelleri ve ANN Entegrasyonu ile BİST 100 Endeks Getirisinin Volatilite Tahmini

Pages
385–396
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In line with these findings, it is recommended to evaluate the advantages of hybrid models in dynamic risk analysis of financial instruments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:To avoid market risk, besides portfolio diversification, investors are trying to model the volatility in the best way to reduce uncertainty.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the volatility of the Borsa İstanbul 100 price index return is estimated by the aforementioned simple and hybrid models, and the success of the hybrid models is compared with the success of their components.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In line with these findings, it is recommended to evaluate the advantages of hybrid models in dynamic risk analysis of financial instruments.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

To avoid market risk, besides portfolio diversification, investors are trying to model the volatility in the best way to reduce uncertainty. The most commonly used methods to model volatility are Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity family models. However, some studies published in recent years show that semi-parametric hybrid models which consist of the integration of Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity family models with the Artificial Neural Networks algorithm perform better than these simple models. In this study, the volatility of the Borsa İstanbul 100 price index return is estimated by the aforementioned simple and hybrid models, and the success of the hybrid models is compared with the success of their components. Two different distributions - Normal Distribution and Generalized Error Distribution - are assumed through the estimation process. Comparisons are performed using Mean Squared Error and Mean Absolute Deviation criteria. According to both criteria, the hybrid model composed of Exponential Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity - Artificial Neural Networks performed the best. In line with these findings, it is recommended to evaluate the advantages of hybrid models in dynamic risk analysis of financial instruments.

Özet

Yatırımcılar, piyasa riskinden kaçınmak için, portföy çeşitlendirmesinin yanı sıra ekonometrik modeller ile volatiliteyi en iyi şekilde modelleyerek belirsizliği azaltmaya çalışmaktadırlar. Volatiliteyi modellemek için en sık başvurulan yöntemler Otoregresif Koşullu Değişen Varyans ailesi modelleridir. Ancak son yıllarda yapılan bazı çalışmalar, Otoregresif Koşullu Değişen Varyans ailesi modellerinin Yapay Sinir Ağları algoritması ile entegrasyonundan oluşan yarı parametrik hibrit modellerin, yalın modellere göre daha iyi performans sergilediğini göstermektedir. Bundan yola çıkılarak bu çalışmada, bahsi geçen yalın ve hibrit modeller ile Borsa İstanbul 100 fiyat endeks getirisinin volatilitesi tahmin edilmiş ve hibrit modellerinin tahmin başarısı, bileşenlerinin tahmin başarısı ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Tahminlerde, veriler ile ilgili iki farklı dağılım – Normal Dağılım ve Genelleştirilmiş Hata Dağılımı - varsayımı yapılmış ve karşılaştırmalarda Hata Kareleri Ortalaması ve Mutlak Sapma Ortalaması kriterleri kullanılmıştır. Her iki kritere göre, Üssel Genelleştirilmiş Otoregresif Koşullu Değişen Varyans - Yapay Sinir Ağları bileşkesi olan hibrit model en iyi performansı sergilemiştir. Bu bulgular doğrultusunda, finansal araçların dinamik risk analizinde hibrit modellerin sağlayabileceği üstünlüklerin değerlendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZBEY, F., PAKSOY, S. (2020). Estimation of the XU100 Index Return Volatility with the Integration of GARCH Family Models and ANN. Business and Economics Research Journal, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 385–396. https://ajindex.com/articles/150973

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Aşkın, Ö. E. (2020). BIST şehir endekslerine ait volatilitenin modellenmesi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (85), 223- 242. Aydin, A. D., & Cavdar, S. C. (2015). Prediction of financial crisis with artificial neural network: An empirical analysis on Turkey. International Journal of Financial Research, 6(4), 36-45.
  2. Baykut, E., & Kula, V. (2018). Borsa İstanbul pay endekslerinin volatilite yapısı: BİST-50 örneği (2007-2016 yılları). Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1), 279-303.
  3. Bildirici, M., & Ersin, Ö. Ö. (2009). Improving forecasts of GARCH family models with the artificial neural networks: An application to the daily returns in Istanbul Stock Exchange. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7355-7362.
  4. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307- 327. Bollerslev, T. (1987). A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(3), 542-547.
  5. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
  6. Dolado, J. J., Jenkinson, T., & Sosvilla‐Rivero, S. (1990). Cointegration and unit roots. Journal of Economic Surveys, 4(3), 249-273.
  7. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987-1007.
  8. Erilli, N. A., Eğrioğlu, E., Yolcu, U., Aladağ, Ç. H., & Uslu, V. R. (2010). Türkiye’de enflasyonun ileri ve geri beslemeli yapay sinir ağlarının melez yaklaşımı ile öngörüsü. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 11(1), 42-55.
  9. Guresen, E., Kayakutlu, G., & Daim, T. U. (2011). Using artificial neural network models in stock market index prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 10389-10397.
  10. Güreşen, E., & Kayakutlu, G. (2008). Forecasting stock exchange movements using artificial neural network models and hybrid models. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent Information Processing. Kılıç, S. B., Paksoy, S., & Genç, T. (2014). Forecasting the direction of BIST 100 returns with artificial neural network models. Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc., 4(3), 759-765. Kirchgässner, G., & Wolters, J. (2007). Introduction to modern time series analysis. Springer Science & Business Media. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity