Home
This Title All WIREs

Financial time series

Free article on Wiley InterScience:   HTML | PDF
The evolution of financial markets is a complicated real-world phenomenon that ranks at the top in terms of difficulty of modeling and/or prediction. One reason for this difficulty is the well-documented nonlinearity that is inherent at work. The state-of-the-art on the nonlinear modeling of financial returns is given by the popular auto-regressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARCH) models and their generalizations but they all have their short-comings. Foregoing the goal of finding the ‘best’ model, it is possible to simply transform the problem into a more manageable setting such as the setting of linearity. The form and properties of such a transformation are given, and the issue of one-step-ahead prediction using the new approach is explicitly addressed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Figure 1.

Daily returns of the S&P500 index spanning the period 8-30-1979 to 8-30-1991.

[ Normal View 4K | Magnified View 10K ]
Figure 2.

(a) Correlogram of the S&P500 returns. (b) Correlogram of the S&P500 squared returns.

[ Normal View 33K | Magnified View 58K ]
Figure 3.

Normalized S&P500 returns, i.e., the tranformed V -series, spanning the same period 8-30-1979 to 8-30-1991.

[ Normal View 7K | Magnified View 20K ]
Figure 4.

Plot of \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{amsfonts}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}$\hat K(w_{1}, w_{2})$\end{document} vs. (w1, w2) for the S&P500 returns.

[ Normal View 11K | Magnified View 29K ]
Figure 5.

Plot of \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{amsfonts}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}$\hat K(w_{1}, w_{2})$\end{document} vs. (w1, w2) for the normalized S&P500 returns.

[ Normal View 11K | Magnified View 28K ]
Figure 6.

QQ-plot of the S&P500 returns.

[ Normal View 2K | Magnified View 5K ]
Figure 7.

QQ-plot of the normalized S&P500 returns.

[ Normal View 2K | Magnified View 5K ]

Comments

1 comment
Contributor Epizitone Anabi:
I do agree the simplicity and linear possibility of arch model makes it attractive, but I am equally worried that, is not convincing enough to shelf the objective of a better prediction model. As a fact, I don't quite have any unique suggestion ,but won't it be more reasonable to overlap various models considering their prediction strenght rather than going with arch for the reason stated?

Post Your Comment

All fields are required. Your email address will not be displayed.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Supported HTML:
p, br, i, b, em, blockquote, quote, ul, ol, li, div, tt, a (up to 2 links allowed)

Access to this WIREs title is FREE for a limited time only.

Register Your Institution Now!

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox

Sign Up for Article Alerts