Econometric Analysis of SOFIX Index with GARCH Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates five different Auto Regressive Moving Average (ARMA) and Generalized Auto Regressive Condition-al Heteroscedacity (GARCH models (GARCH, exponential GARCH or EGARCH, integrated GARCH or IGARCH, Component GARCH or CGARCH and the Glosten-Jagannathan-Runkle GARCH or GJR-GARCH) along with six distributions (normal, Student’s t, GED and their skewed forms), which are used to estimate the price dynamics of the Bulgarian stock index SOFIX. We use the best model to predict how much time it will take, after the latest crisis, for the SOFIX index to reach its historical peak once again. The empirical data cover the period between the years 2000 and 2024, including the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose is to answer which of the five models is the best at analysing the SOFIX price and which distribution is most appropriate. The results, based on the BIC and AIC, show that the ARMA(1,1)-CGARCH(1,1) specification with the Student’s t-distribution is preferred for modelling. From the results obtained, we can confirm that the CGARCH model specification supports a more appropriate description of SOFIX volatility than a simple GARCH model. We find that long-term shocks have a more persistent impact on volatility than the effect of short-term shocks. Furthermore, for the same magnitude, negative shocks to SOFIX prices have a more significant impact on volatility than positive shocks. According to the results, when predicting future values of SOFIX, it is necessary to include both a first-order autoregressive component and a first-order moving average in the mean equation. With the help of 5000 simulations, it is estimated that the chances of SOFIX reaching its historical peak value of 1976.73 (08.10.2007) are higher than 90% at 13.08.2087.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".