MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014137813 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v1n2p88

On the Effect of Subprime Crisis on Value-at-Risk Estimation: GARCH Family Models Approach

2009· article· en· W2014137813 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khaled Mokni, Zouheir Mighri, Faysal Mansouri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility clusteringAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility (finance)Value at riskEconometricsEconomicsSubprime crisisEstimationFinancial crisisStock marketRisk managementGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of the risk management literature shows that few studies have attempted to take into account financial crisis in market risk measurement, in particular when using a Value-at Risk (VaR) analysis. In this paper, we use models to investigate the effects of subprime crisis on the Value-at-Risk estimation. In this framework, we investigate GARCH family models such as, GARCH, IGARCH, and GJR-GARCH. Each is adjusted based on three residuals distributions; normal, Student and Skewed Student-t. Using American stock market data, we show that dynamic volatility is different between the stability and during crisis periods. The estimation results indicate that the amount of VaR is different during these two time periods. This finding could be explained by the volatility clustering effect. The empirical results show also that GJR-GARCH model performs better in both sub-sample periods, in comparison with GARCH and IGARCH models. Moreover, we conclude that Student-t and Skewed Student-t distributions are preferred in the stable period while the normal distribution is recommended during the turbulent period.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207