Value at Risk estimation using GAS models with heavy tailed distributions for cryptocurrencies

Authors

  • Stephanie Danielle Subramoney University of KwaZulu-Natal
  • Knowledge Chinhamu University of KwaZulu-Natal
  • Retius Chifurira University of Kwa-Zulu Natal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20525/ijfbs.v10i4.1316

Keywords:

Cryptocurrency, GAS, Generalised Lambda Distribution, Value at Risk

Abstract

 

Risk management and prediction of market losses of cryptocurrencies are of notable value to risk managers, portfolio managers, financial market researchers and academics. One of the most common measures of an asset’s risk is Value-at-Risk (VaR). This paper evaluates and compares the performance of generalized autoregressive score (GAS) combined with heavy-tailed distributions, in estimating the VaR of two well-known cryptocurrencies’ returns, namely Bitcoin returns and Ethereum returns. In this paper, we proposed a VaR model for Bitcoin and Ethereum returns, namely the GAS model combined with the generalized lambda distribution (GLD), referred to as the GAS-GLD model. The relative performance of the GAS-GLD models was compared to the models proposed by Troster et al. (2018), in other words, GAS models combined with asymmetric Laplace distribution (ALD), the asymmetric Student’s t-distribution (AST) and the skew Student’s t-distribution (SSTD). The Kupiec likelihood ratio test was used to assess the adequacy of the proposed models. The principal findings suggest that the GAS models with heavy-tailed innovation distributions are, in fact, appropriate for modelling cryptocurrency returns, with the GAS-GLD being the most adequate for the Bitcoin returns at various VaR levels, and both GAS-SSTD, GAS-ALD and GAS-GLD models being the most appropriate for the Ethereum returns at the VaR levels used in this study.

 

 

References

Ardia, D., Bluteau, K., & Ru ?ede, M. (2019). Regime changes in Bitcoin GARCH volatility dynamics. Finance Research Letters, 29(C), 266-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.08.009

Ardia, D., Boudt, K., & Catania, L. (2018). Downside risk evaluation with the R Package GAS. The R Journal, 10(2), 410-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-064

Bouoiyour, J., Selmi, R., Tiwari, A., & Olayeni, O. (2016). What drives Bitcoin price? Economics Bulletin, 36, 843-850.

Catania, L., & Grassi, S. (2017). Modelling Cryptocurrencies Financial Time Series. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Chalabi Y., Scott, D.J., & Wuertz, D. (2012). Flexible distribution modelling with the generalized lambda distribution. MPRA Paper No. 43333.

Chan, S., Chu, J., Nadarajah, S., & Osterrieder, J. (2017). A Statistical Analysis of Cryptocurrencies. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 10(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm10020012

Christoffersen, P. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4): 841-862.

Chu, J., Chan, S., Nadarajah, S., & Osterrieder, J. (2017). Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A comparison of GARCH models. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 11, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm10040017

Conrad, C., Custovic, A., & Ghysels, E. (2018). Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A comparison of GARCH models. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 11, 23.

Corrado, C.J. (2001). Option Pricing Based on the Generalized Lambda Distribution. Journal of Futures Market. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.248696

Creal, D., Koopman, S.J., & Lucas, A. (2013). Generalized autoregressive score models with applications. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28, 777-795. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.1279

Duffie, D., & Pan, J. (1997). An Overview of Value at Risk. Testing for unit roots: An empirical investigation, 4(3), 7-49. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1997.407971

Dyhrberg, A. (2015). Bitcoin, gold and the dollar – A GARCH volatility analysis. Finance Research Letters, 16, 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2015.10.008

Engle, R. F., & Russell, J.R. (1998). Autoregressive Conditional Duration: A New Model for Irregularly Spaced Transaction Data. Econometrica 66(5), 1127-1162. https://doi.org/10.2307/2999632

Jorion, P., (2000). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk.

Katsiampa, P. (2017). Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A comparison of GARCH models. Economics Letters 158(C), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.023

Kotz, S., Kozubowski, T.J. & Podgórski, K. (2001) Asymmetric Multivariate Laplace Distribution. In: The Laplace Distribution and Generalizations. Birkhäuser, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0173-1_7

Kupiec, P. (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models.

Journal of Derivatives, 2, 173-184. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1995.407942

Liu, R., Shao, Z., Wei, G., & Wang, W. (2017). Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A comparison of GARCH models. Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance Research, 1, 71-75. https://doi.org/10.20448/2002.11.71.75.

Marcellino, M. (2006). Leading Indicators. Handbook of Economic Forecasting, 1, 879-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0706(05)01016-5

Ramberg, J. S., & Schmeiser, B. W., (1974). An approximate method for generating asymmetric random variables. Commun. ACM 17(2), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/360827.360840

Sapuric, S. & Kokkinaki, A. (2014). Bitcoin Is Volatile! Isn’t that Right? Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 183:255-265. Conference: International Conference on Business Information Systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11460-6_22

Takaishi, T. (2018). Statistical properties and multifractality of Bitcoin. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.04.046

Troster, V., Tiwari, A.K., Shahbaz, M., & Macedo, D.N. (2018). Bitcoin returns and risk: A general GARCH and GAS analysis. Finance Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.09.01

Downloads

Published

2021-10-15

How to Cite

Subramoney, S. D., Chinhamu, K., & Chifurira, R. . (2021). Value at Risk estimation using GAS models with heavy tailed distributions for cryptocurrencies. International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies (2147-4486), 10(4), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijfbs.v10i4.1316