Introduction to R for Quantitative Finance

4.5 (2 reviews total)
By Gergely Daróczi , Michael Puhle , Edina Berlinger and 6 more
  • Instant online access to over 7,500+ books and videos
  • Constantly updated with 100+ new titles each month
  • Breadth and depth in over 1,000+ technologies
  1. Time Series Analysis

About this book

Introduction to R for Quantitative Finance will show you how to solve real-world quantitative fi nance problems using the statistical computing language R. The book covers diverse topics ranging from time series analysis to fi nancial networks. Each chapter briefl y presents the theory behind specific concepts and deals with solving a diverse range of problems using R with the help of practical examples.

This book will be your guide on how to use and master R in order to solve quantitative finance problems. This book covers the essentials of quantitative finance, taking you through a number of clear and practical examples in R that will not only help you to understand the theory, but how to effectively deal with your own real-life problems.

Starting with time series analysis, you will also learn how to optimize portfolios and how asset pricing models work. The book then covers fixed income securities and derivatives such as credit risk management.

Publication date:
November 2013
Publisher
Packt
Pages
164
ISBN
9781783280933

 

Chapter 1. Time Series Analysis

Time series analysis is concerned with the analysis of data collected over time. Adjacent observations are typically dependent. Time series analysis hence deals with techniques for the analysis of this dependence.

The objective of this chapter is to introduce some common modeling techniques by means of specific applications. We will see how to use R to solve these real-world examples. We begin with some thoughts about how to store and process time series data in R. Afterwards, we deal with linear time series analysis and how it can be used to model and forecast house prices. In the subsequent section, we use the notion of cointegration to improve on the basic minimal variance hedge ratio by taking long-run trends into consideration. The chapter concludes with a section on how to use volatility models for risk management purposes.

 

Working with time series data


The native R classes suitable for storing time series data include vector, matrix, data.frame, and ts objects. But the types of data that can be stored in these objects are narrow; furthermore, the methods provided by these representations are limited in scope. Luckily, there exist specialized objects that deal with more general representation of time series data: zoo, xts, or timeSeries objects, available from packages of the same name.

It is not necessary to create time series objects for every time series analysis problem, but more sophisticated analyses require time series objects. You could calculate the mean or variance of time series data represented as a vector in R, but if you want to perform a seasonal decomposition using decompose, you need to have the data stored in a time series object.

In the following examples, we assume you are working with zoo objects because we think it is one of the most widely used packages. Before we can use zoo objects, we need to install and load the zoo package (if you have already installed it, you only need to load it) using the following command:

> install.packages("zoo")
> library("zoo")

In order to familiarize ourselves with the available methods, we create a zoo object called aapl from the daily closing prices of Apple's stock, which are stored in the CSV file aapl.csv. Each line on the sheet contains a date and a closing price separated by a comma. The first line contains the column headings (Date and Close). The date is formatted according to the recommended primary standard notation of ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). The closing price is adjusted for stock splits, dividends, and related changes.

Tip

Downloading the example code

You can download the example code files for all Packt books you have purchased from your account at http://www.packtpub.com. If you purchased this book elsewhere, you can visit http://www.packtpub.com/support and register to have the files e-mailed directly to you.

We load the data from our current working directory using the following command:

> aapl<-read.zoo("aapl.csv",+   sep=",", header = TRUE, format = "%Y-%m-%d")

To get a first impression of the data, we plot the stock price chart and specify a title for the overall plot (using the main argument) and labels for the x and y axis (using xlab and ylab respectively).

> plot(aapl, main = "APPLE Closing Prices on NASDAQ",+   ylab = "Price (USD)", xlab = "Date")

We can extract the first or last part of the time series using the following commands:

> head(aapl)
2000-01-03 2000-01-04 2000-01-05 2000-01-06 2000-01-07 2000-01-10
     27.58      25.25      25.62      23.40      24.51      24.08
> tail(aapl)
2013-04-17 2013-04-18 2013-04-19 2013-04-22 2013-04-23 2013-04-24
    402.80     392.05     390.53     398.67     406.13     405.46

Apple's all-time high and the day on which it occurred can be found using the following command:

> aapl[which.max(aapl)]
2012-09-19
    694.86

When dealing with time series, one is normally more interested in returns instead of prices. This is because returns are usually stationary. So we will calculate simple returns or continuously compounded returns (in percentage terms).

> ret_simple <- diff(aapl) / lag(aapl, k = -1) * 100
> ret_cont   <- diff(log(aapl)) * 100

Summary statistics about simple returns can also be obtained. We use the coredata method here to indicate that we are only interested in the stock prices and not the index (dates).

> summary(coredata(ret_simple))
     Min.   1st Qu.    Median      Mean   3rd Qu.      Max.
-51.86000  -1.32500   0.07901   0.12530   1.55300  13.91000

The biggest single-day loss is -51.86%. The date on which that loss occurred can be obtained using the following command:

> ret_simple[which.min(ret_simple)]
2000-09-29
 -51.85888

A quick search on the Internet reveals that the large movement occurred due to the issuance of a profit warning. To get a better understanding of the relative frequency of daily returns, we can plot the histogram. The number of cells used to group the return data can be specified using the break argument.

> hist(ret_simple, breaks=100, main = "Histogram of Simple Returns",+  xlab="%")

We can restrict our analysis to a subset (a window) of the time series. The highest stock price of Apple in 2013 can be found using the following command lines:

> aapl_2013 <- window(aapl, start = '2013-01-01', end = '2013-12-31')
> aapl_2013[which.max(aapl_2013)]
2013-01-02 
    545.85

The quantiles of the return distribution are of interest from a risk-management perspective. We can, for example, easily determine the 1 day 99% Value-at-Risk using a naive historical approach.

> quantile(ret_simple, probs = 0.01)
       1%        
-7.042678

Hence, the probability that the return is below 7% on any given day is only 1%. But if this day occurs (and it will occur approximately 2.5 times per year), 7% is the minimum amount you will lose.

 

Linear time series modeling and forecasting


An important class of linear time series models is the family of Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models, proposed by Box and Jenkins (1976). It assumes that the current value can depend only on the past values of the time series itself or on past values of some error term.

According to Box and Jenkins, building an ARIMA model consists of three stages:

  1. Model identification.

  2. Model estimation.

  3. Model diagnostic checking.

The model identification step involves determining the order (number of past values and number of past error terms to incorporate) of a tentative model using either graphical methods or information criteria. After determining the order of the model, the parameters of the model need to be estimated, generally using either the least squares or maximum likelihood methods. The fitted model must then be carefully examined to check for possible model inadequacies. This is done by making sure the model residuals behave as white noise; that is, there is no linear dependence left in the residuals.

Modeling and forecasting UK house prices

In addition to the zoo package, we will employ some methods from the forecast package. If you haven't installed it already, you need to use the following command to do so:

> install.packages("forecast")

Afterwards, we need to load the class using the following command:

> library("forecast")

First, we store the monthly house price data (source: Nationwide Building Society) in a zoo time series object.

> hp <- read.zoo("UKHP.csv", sep = ",",+   header = TRUE, format = "%Y-%m", FUN = as.yearmon)

The FUN argument applies the given function (as.yearmon, which represents the monthly data points) to the date column. To make sure we really stored monthly data (12 subperiods per period), by specifying as.yearmon, we query for the frequency of the data series.

> frequency(hp)
[1] 12

The result means that we have twelve subperiods (called months) in a period (called year). We again use simple returns for our analysis.

> hp_ret <- diff(hp) / lag(hp, k = -1) * 100

Model identification and estimation

We use the auto.arima function provided by the forecast package to identify the optimal model and estimate the coefficients in one step. The function takes several arguments besides the return series (hp_ret). By specifying stationary = TRUE,we restrict the search to stationary models. In a similar vein, seasonal = FALSE restricts the search to non-seasonal models. Furthermore, we select the Akaike information criteria as the measure of relative quality to be used in model selection.

> mod <- auto.arima(hp_ret, stationary = TRUE, seasonal = FALSE,+   ic="aic")

To determine the fitted coefficient values, we query the model output.

> mod
Series: hp_ret
ARIMA(2,0,0) with non-zero mean 

Coefficients:
         ar1     ar2  intercept
      0.2299  0.3491     0.4345
s.e.  0.0573  0.0575     0.1519

sigma^2 estimated as 1.105:  log likelihood=-390.97
AIC=789.94   AICc=790.1   BIC=804.28

An AR(2) process seems to fit the data best, according to Akaike's Information Criteria. For visual confirmation, we can plot the partial autocorrelation function using the command pacf. It shows non-zero partial autocorrelations until lag two, hence an AR process of order two seems to be appropriate. The two AR coefficients, the intercept (which is actually the mean if the model contains an AR term), and the respective standard errors are given. In the following example, they are all significant at the 5% level since the respective confidence intervals do not contain zero:

> confint(mod)
              2.5 %    97.5 %
ar1       0.1174881 0.3422486
ar2       0.2364347 0.4617421
intercept 0.1368785 0.7321623

If the model contains coefficients that are insignificant, we can estimate the model anew using the arima function with the fixed argument, which takes as input a vector of elements 0 and NA. NA indicates that the respective coefficient shall be estimated and 0 indicates that the respective coefficient should be set to zero.

Model diagnostic checking

A quick way to validate the model is to plot time-series diagnostics using the following command:

> tsdiag(mod)

The output of the preceding command is shown in the following figure:

Our model looks good since the standardized residuals don't show volatility clusters, no significant autocorrelations between the residuals according to the ACF plot, and the Ljung-Box test for autocorrelation shows high p-values, so the null hypothesis of independent residuals cannot be rejected.

To assess how well the model represents the data in the sample, we can plot the raw monthly returns (the thin black solid line) versus the fitted values (the thick red dotted line).

> plot(mod$x, lty = 1, main = "UK house prices: raw data vs. fitted+   values", ylab = "Return in percent", xlab = "Date")
> lines(fitted(mod), lty = 2,lwd = 2, col = "red")

The output is shown in the following figure:

Furthermore, we can calculate common measures of accuracy.

> accuracy(mod)
ME      RMSE      MAE          MPE   MAPE    MASE
0.00120 1.0514    0.8059       -Inf  Inf     0.792980241

This command returns the mean error, root mean squared error, mean absolute error, mean percentage error, mean absolute percentage error, and mean absolute scaled error.

Forecasting

To predict the monthly returns for the next three months (April to June 2013), use the following command:

> predict(mod, n.ahead=3)
$pred
           Apr       May       Jun
2013 0.5490544 0.7367277 0.5439708

$se
          Apr      May      Jun
2013 1.051422 1.078842 1.158658

So we expect a slight increase in the average home prices over the next three months, but with a high standard error of around 1%. To plot the forecast with standard errors, we can use the following command:

> plot(forecast(mod))
 

Cointegration


The idea behind cointegration, a concept introduced by Granger (1981) and formalized by Engle and Granger (1987), is to find a linear combination between non-stationary time series that result in a stationary time series. It is hence possible to detect stable long-run relationships between non-stationary time series (for example, prices).

Cross hedging jet fuel

Airlines are natural buyers of jet fuel. Since the price of jet fuel can be very volatile, most airlines hedge at least part of their exposure to jet fuel price changes. In the absence of liquid jet fuel OTC instruments, airlines use related exchange traded futures contracts (for example, heating oil) for hedging purposes. In the following section, we derive the optimal hedge ratio using first the classical approach of taking into account only the short-term fluctuations between the two prices; afterwards, we improve on the classical hedge ratio by taking into account the long-run stable relationship between the prices as well.

We first load the necessary libraries. The urca library has some useful methods for unit root tests and for estimating cointegration relationships.

> library("zoo")
> install.packages("urca")
> library("urca")

We import the monthly price data for jet fuel and heating oil (in USD per gallon).

> prices <- read.zoo("JetFuelHedging.csv", sep = ",",+   FUN = as.yearmon, format = "%Y-%m", header = TRUE)

Taking into account only the short-term behavior (monthly price changes) of the two commodities, one can derive the minimum variance hedge by fitting a linear model that explains changes in jet fuel prices by changes in heating oil prices. The beta coefficient of that regression is the optimal hedge ratio.

> simple_mod <- lm(diff(prices$JetFuel) ~ diff(prices$HeatingOil)+0)

The function lm (for linear model) estimates the coefficients for a best fit of changes in jet fuel prices versus changes in heating oil prices. The +0 term means that we set the intercept to zero; that is, no cash holdings.

> summary(simple_mod)
Call:
lm(formula = diff(prices$JetFuel) ~ diff(prices$HeatingOil) +
    0)
Residuals:
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max
-0.52503 -0.02968  0.00131  0.03237  0.39602

Coefficients:
                        Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
diff(prices$HeatingOil)  0.89059    0.03983   22.36   <2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 0.0846 on 189 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.7257,   Adjusted R-squared:  0.7242
F-statistic: 499.9 on 1 and 189 DF,  p-value: < 2.2e-16

We obtain a hedge ratio of 0.89059 and a residual standard error of 0.0846. The cross hedge is not perfect; the resulting hedged portfolio is still risky.

We now try to improve on this hedge ratio by using an existing long-run relationship between the levels of jet fuel and heating oil futures prices. You can already guess the existence of such a relationship by plotting the two price series (heating oil prices will be in red) using the following command:

> plot(prices$JetFuel, main = "Jet Fuel and Heating Oil Prices",+   xlab = "Date", ylab = "USD")
> lines(prices$HeatingOil, col = "red")

We use Engle and Granger's two-step estimation technique. Firstly, both time series are tested for a unit root (non-stationarity) using the augmented Dickey-Fuller test.

> jf_adf <- ur.df(prices$JetFuel, type = "drift")
> summary(jf_adf)
###############################################
# Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Unit Root Test #
###############################################

Test regression drift


Call:
lm(formula = z.diff ~ z.lag.1 + 1 + z.diff.lag)

Residuals:
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-1.06212 -0.05015  0.00566  0.07922  0.38086 

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)   
(Intercept)  0.03050    0.02177   1.401  0.16283   
z.lag.1     -0.01441    0.01271  -1.134  0.25845   
z.diff.lag   0.19471    0.07250   2.686  0.00789 **
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 0.159 on 186 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.04099,   Adjusted R-squared:  0.03067
F-statistic: 3.975 on 2 and 186 DF,  p-value: 0.0204


Value of test-statistic is: -1.1335 0.9865

Critical values for test statistics:
      1pct  5pct 10pct
tau2 -3.46 -2.88 -2.57
phi1  6.52  4.63  3.81

The null hypothesis of non-stationarity (jet fuel time series contains a unit root) cannot be rejected at the 1% significance level since the test statistic of -1.1335 is not more negative than the critical value of -3.46. The same holds true for heating oil prices (the test statistic is -1.041).

> ho_adf <- ur.df(prices$HeatingOil, type = "drift")
> summary(ho_adf)

We can now proceed to estimate the static equilibrium model and test the residuals for a stationary time series using an augmented Dickey-Fuller test. Please note that different critical values [for example, from Engle and Yoo (1987)] must now be used since the series under investigation is an estimated one.

> mod_static <- summary(lm(prices$JetFuel ~ prices$HeatingOil))
> error <- residuals(mod_static)
> error_cadf <- ur.df(error, type = "none")
> summary(error_cadf)

The test statistic obtained is -8.912 and the critical value for a sample size of 200 at the 1% level is -4.00; hence we reject the null hypothesis of non-stationarity. We have thus discovered two cointegrated variables and can proceed with the second step; that is, the specification of an Error-Correction Model (ECM). The ECM represents a dynamic model of how (and how fast) the system moves back to the static equilibrium estimated earlier and is stored in the mod_static variable.

> djf <- diff(prices$JetFuel)
> dho <- diff(prices$HeatingOil)
> error_lag <- lag(error, k = -1)
> mod_ecm <- lm(djf ~ dho + error_lag)
> summary(mod_ecm)

Call:
lm(formula = djf ~ dho + error_lag + 0)

Residuals:
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-0.19158 -0.03246  0.00047  0.02288  0.45117 

Coefficients:
          Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
dho        0.90020    
0.03238  27.798   <2e-16 ***
error_lag -0.65540    0.06614  -9.909   <2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 0.06875 on 188 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.8198,   Adjusted R-squared:  0.8179 
F-statistic: 427.6 on 2 and 188 DF,  p-value: < 2.2e-16

By taking into account the existence of a long-run relationship between jet fuel and heating oil prices (cointegration), the hedge ratio is now slightly higher (0.90020) and the residual standard error significantly lower (0.06875). The coefficient of the error term is negative (-0.65540): large deviations between the two prices are going to be corrected and prices move closer to their long-run stable relationship.

 

Modeling volatility


As we saw earlier, ARIMA models are used to model the conditional expectation of a process, given its past. For such a process, the conditional variance is constant. Real-world financial time series exhibit, among other characteristics, volatility clustering; that is, periods of relative calm are interrupted by bursts of volatility.

In this section we look at GARCH time series models that can take this stylized fact of real-world (financial) time series into account and apply these models to VaR forecasting.

Volatility forecasting for risk management

Financial institutions measure the risk of their activities using a Value-at-Risk (VaR), usually calculated at the 99% confidence level over a 10 business day horizon. This is the loss that is expected to be exceeded only 1% of the time.

We load the zoo library and import monthly return data for Intel Corporation from January 1973 to December 2008.

> library("zoo")
> intc <- read.zoo("intc.csv", header = TRUE,+   sep = ",", format = "%Y-%m", FUN = as.yearmon)

Testing for ARCH effects

A plot of the returns indicates that ARCH effects might exist in the monthly return data.

> plot(intc, main = "Monthly returns of Intel Corporation",+   xlab = "Date", ylab = "Return in percent")

The output of the preceding commands is as shown in the following figure:

We can use statistical hypothesis tests to verify our inkling. Two commonly used tests are as follows:

  • The Ljung-Box test for autocorrelation in squared returns (as a proxy for volatility)

  • The Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test by Engle (1982)

First, we perform the Ljung-Box test on the first 12 lags of the squared returns using the following command:

> Box.test(coredata(intc^2), type = "Ljung-Box", lag = 12)

   Box-Ljung test

data:  coredata(intc^2)
X-squared = 79.3451, df = 12, p-value = 5.502e-12

We can reject the null hypothesis of no autocorrelations in the squared returns at the 1% significance level. Alternatively, we could employ the LM test from the FinTS package, which gives the same result.

> install.packages("FinTS")
> library("FinTS")
> ArchTest(coredata(intc))

   ARCH LM-test; Null hypothesis: no ARCH effects

data:  coredata(intc)
Chi-squared = 59.3647, df = 12, p-value = 2.946e-08

Both tests confirm that ARCH effects exist in the monthly Intel returns; hence, an ARCH or GARCH model should be employed in modeling the return time series.

GARCH model specification

The most commonly used GARCH model, and one that is usually appropriate for financial time series as well, is a GARCH(1,1) model. We use the functions provided by the rugarch library for model specification, parameter estimation, backtesting, and forecasting. If you haven't installed the package, use the following command:

> install.packages("rugarch")

Afterwards, we can load the library using the following command:

> library("rugarch")

First, we need to specify the model using the function ugarchspec. For a GARCH(1,1) model, we need to set the garchOrder to c(1,1) and the model for the mean (mean.model) should be a white noise process and hence equal to armaOrder = c(0,0).

> intc_garch11_spec <- ugarchspec(variance.model = list(+   garchOrder = c(1, 1)),+  mean.model = list(armaOrder = c(0, 0)))

GARCH model estimation

The actual fitting of the coefficients by the method of maximum likelihood is done by the function ugarchfit using the model specification and the return data as inputs.

> intc_garch11_fit <- ugarchfit(spec = intc_garch11_spec,+  data = intc)

For additional arguments, see the Help on ugarchfit. The output of the fitted model (use the command intc_garch11_fit) reveals useful information, such as the values of the optimal parameters, the value of the log-likelihood function, and the information criteria.

Backtesting the risk model

A useful test for checking the model performance is to do a historical backtest. In a risk model backtest, we compare the estimated VaR with the actual return over the period. If the return is more negative than the VaR, we have a VaR exceedance. In our case, a VaR exceedance should only occur in 1% of the cases (since we specified a 99% confidence level).

The function ugarchroll performs a historical backtest on the specified GARCH model (here the model is intc_garch11_spec). We specify the backtest as follows:

  • The return data to be used is stored in the zoo object intc

  • The start period of the backtest (n.start) shall be 120 months after the beginning of the series (that is, January 1983)

  • The model should be reestimated every month (refit.every = 1)

  • We use a moving window for the estimation

  • We use a hybrid solver

  • We'd like to calculate the VaR (calculate.VaR = TRUE) at the 99% VaR tail level (VaR.alpha = 0.01)

  • We would like to keep the estimated coefficients (keep.coef = TRUE)

The following command shows all the preceding points for a backtest:

> intc_garch11_roll <- ugarchroll(intc_garch11_spec, intc,+   n.start = 120, refit.every = 1, refit.window = "moving",+   solver = "hybrid", calculate.VaR = TRUE, VaR.alpha = 0.01,+   keep.coef = TRUE)

We can examine the backtesting report using the report function. By specifying the type argument as VaR, the function executes the unconditional and conditional coverage tests for exceedances. VaR.alpha is the tail probability and conf.level is the confidence level on which the conditional coverage hypothesis test will be based.

> report(intc_garch11_roll, type = "VaR", VaR.alpha = 0.01,+   conf.level = 0.99)
VaR Backtest Report
===========================================
Model:            sGARCH-norm
Backtest Length:   312
Data:            

==========================================
alpha:            1%
Expected Exceed:   3.1
Actual VaR Exceed:	5
Actual %:         1.6%

Unconditional Coverage (Kupiec)
Null-Hypothesis:   Correct Exceedances
LR.uc Statistic:   0.968
LR.uc Critical:      6.635
LR.uc p-value:      0.325
Reject Null:      NO

Conditional Coverage (Christoffersen)
Null-Hypothesis:   Correct Exceedances and
               Independence of Failures
LR.cc Statistic:   1.131
LR.cc Critical:      9.21
LR.cc p-value:      0.568
Reject Null:      O

Kupiec's unconditional coverage compares the number of expected versus actual exceedances given the tail probability of VaR, while the Christoffersen test is a joint test of the unconditional coverage and the independence of the exceedances. In our case, despite the actual five exceedances versus an expectation of three, we can't reject the null hypothesis that the exceedances are correct and independent.

A plot of the backtesting performance can also be generated easily. First, create a zoo object using the extracted forecasted VaR from the ugarchroll object.

> intc_VaR <- zoo([email protected]$VaR[, 1])

We overwrite the index property of the zoo object with rownames (year and month) from this object as well.

> index(intc_VaR) <- as.yearmon(rownames([email protected]$VaR))

We do the same for the actual returns that are also stored in the ugarchroll object.

> intc_actual <- zoo([email protected]$VaR[, 2])
> index(intc_actual) <- as.yearmon(rownames([email protected]$VaR))

Now, we are able to plot the VaR versus the actual returns of Intel using the following commands:

> plot(intc_actual, type = "b", main = "99% 1 Month VaR Backtesting",+   xlab = "Date", ylab = "Return/VaR in percent")
> lines(intc_VaR, col = "red")
> legend("topright", inset=.05, c("Intel return","VaR"), col = c("black","red"), lty = c(1,1))

The following figure shows the output of the preceding command lines:

Forecasting

Now that we can be reasonably sure that our risk model works properly, we can produce VaR forecasts as well. The function ugarchforecast takes as arguments the fitted GARCH model (intc_garch11_fit) and the number of periods for which a forecast should be produced (n.ahead = 12; that is, twelve months).

> intc_garch11_fcst <- ugarchforecast(intc_garch11_fit, n.ahead = 12)

The resulting forecast can be expected by querying the forecast object as shown in the following command lines:

> intc_garch11_fcst
*------------------------------------*
*       GARCH Model Forecast         *
*------------------------------------*
Model: sGARCH
Horizon: 12
Roll Steps: 0
Out of Sample: 0

0-roll forecast [T0=Dec 2008]:
      Series  Sigma
T+1  0.01911 0.1168
T+2  0.01911 0.1172
T+3  0.01911 0.1177
T+4  0.01911 0.1181
T+5  0.01911 0.1184
T+6  0.01911 0.1188
T+7  0.01911 0.1191
T+8  0.01911 0.1194
T+9  0.01911 0.1197
T+10 0.01911 0.1200
T+11 0.01911 0.1202
T+12 0.01911 0.1204

The one-period ahead forecast for the volatility (sigma) is 0.1168. Since we assume a normal distribution, the 99% VaR can be calculated using the 99% quantile (type in qnorm(0.99)) of the standard normal distribution. The one-month 99% VaR estimate for the next period is hence qnorm(0.99)*0.1168 = 0.2717. Hence, with 99% probability the monthly return is above -27%.

 

Summary


In this chapter, we have applied R to selected problems in time series analysis. We covered the different ways of representing time series data, used an ARMA model to forecast house prices, improved our basic minimum variance hedge ratio using a cointegration relationship, and employed a GARCH model for risk management purposes. In the next chapter, you'll learn how you can use R for constructing an optimal portfolio.

About the Authors

  • Gergely Daróczi

    Gergely Daróczi is a former assistant professor of statistics and an enthusiastic R user and package developer. He is the founder and CTO of an R-based reporting web application at http://rapporter.net and a PhD candidate in sociology. He is currently working as the lead R developer/research data scientist at https://www.card.com/ in Los Angeles.

    Besides maintaining around half a dozen R packages, mainly dealing with reporting, Gergely has coauthored the books Introduction to R for Quantitative Finance and Mastering R for Quantitative Finance (both by Packt Publishing) by providing and reviewing the R source code. He has contributed to a number of scientific journal articles, mainly in social sciences but in medical sciences as well.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Michael Puhle

    Michael Puhle obtained a Ph.D. in Finance from the University of Passau in Germany. He worked for several years as a Senior Risk Controller at Allianz Global Investors in Munich, and as an Assistant Manager at KPMG's Financial Risk Management practice, where he was advising banks on market risk models. Michael is also the author of Bond Portfolio Optimization published by Springer Publishing.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Edina Berlinger

    Edina Berlinger has a PhD in economics from the Corvinus University of Budapest. She is an associate professor, teaching corporate finance, investments, and financial risk management. She is the head of the Finance department of the university, and is also the chair of the finance subcommittee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Her expertise covers loan systems, risk management, and more recently, network analysis. She has led several research projects in student loan design, liquidity management, heterogeneous agent models, and systemic risk.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Péter Csóka

    Péter Csóka is an Associate Professor at the Department of Finance, Corvinus University of Budapest, and a research fellow in the Game Theory Research Group, Centre For Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Maastricht University in 2008. His research topics include risk measures, risk capital allocation, game theory, corporate finance, and general equilibrium theory. He is currently focused on analyzing risk contributions for systemic risk and for illiquid portfolios. He has papers published in journals such as Mathematical Methods of Operational Research, European Journal of Operational Research, Games and Economic Behaviour, and Journal of Banking and Finance. He is the Chair of the organizing committee of the Annual Financial Market Liquidity Conference in Budapest.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Dániel Havran

    Dániel Havran is a postdoctoral research fellow at Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He also holds a part-time assistant professor position at the Corvinus University of Budapest, where he teaches corporate finance (BA, PhD) and credit risk management (MSc). He obtained his PhD in economics at Corvinus University of Budapest in 2011.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Márton Michaletzky

    Márton Michaletzky obtained his Ph.D. degree in Economics in 2011 from Corvinus University of Budapest. Between 2000 and 2003, he has been a Risk Manager and Macroeconomic Analyst with Concorde Securities Ltd. As Capital Market Transactions Manager, he gained experience in an EUR 3 bn securitization at the Hungarian State Motorway Management Company. In 2012, he took part in the preparation of an IPO and the private placement of a Hungarian financial services provider. Prior to joining DBH Investment, he was an assistant professor at the Department of Finance of CUB.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Zsolt Tulassay

    Zsolt Tulassay works as a Quantitative Analyst at a major US investment bank, validating derivatives pricing models. Previously, Zsolt worked as an Assistant Lecturer at the Department of Finance at Corvinus University, teaching courses on Derivatives, Quantitative Risk Management, and Financial Econometrics. Zsolt holds MA degrees in Economics from Corvinus University of Budapest and Central European University. His research interests include derivatives pricing, yield curve modeling, liquidity risk, and heterogeneous agent models.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Kata Váradi

    Kata Váradi is an assistant professor at the Department of Finance, Corvinus University of Budapest since 2013. Kata graduated in finance in 2009 from Corvinus University of Budapest and was awarded a PhD degree in 2012 for her thesis on the analysis of the market liquidity risk on the Hungarian stock market. Her research areas are market liquidity, fixed income securities, and networks in healthcare systems. Besides doing research, she is active in teaching as well. She mainly teaches corporate finance, investments, valuation, and multinational financial management.

    Browse publications by this author
  • Ágnes Vidovics-Dancs

    Ágnes Vidovics-Dancs is a PhD candidate and an assistant professor at the Department of Finance, Corvinus University of Budapest. Previously, she worked as a junior risk manager in the Hungarian Government Debt Management Agency. Her main research areas are government debt management (in general) and sovereign crises and defaults (in particular). She is a CEFA and CIIA diploma holder.

    Browse publications by this author

Latest Reviews

(2 reviews total)
Good service straight forward reasonable price and good collection of various items available
Excellent

Recommended For You

Book Title
Unlock this full book FREE 10 day trial
Start Free Trial