tsgarch

1 Introduction

The Generalized Auto-Regressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) model of Bollerslev (1986) and the numerous extensions which have followed since, is a framework for modeling the dynamics of the conditional variance. It has proved particularly popular, particularly among financial market practitioners, but also in other areas were the arrival of unexpected new information may lead to non-instantaneous decay (persistence) and/or asymmetric reaction to good and bad news (news impact).

Many programming languages have one or more implementations of GARCH, with R having no less than 3, including the garch function from the tseries package, fGarch and rugarch. A select R package review is provided in Hill and McCullough (2019), and a cross language package review on asymmetric GARCH in Charles and Darné (2019). The suggestions and constructive feedback in these papers were taken into account when developing this new package, as were many of the user comments over the last 10+ years.

The tsgarch package is a partial re-implementation of rugarch, by the same author, with key differences summarized below:

• does not (yet) implement all GARCH models in rugarch. FIGARCH, Multiplicative Component GARCH and Realized GARCH are not currently implemented.

• does not implement joint ARFIMA-GARCH estimation. The conditional mean equation only allows for a constant. With so many options for modelling the conditional mean, many of which are available in the tsmodels framework, it was decided to keep this package simpler and avoid the joint estimation of both conditional mean and variance dynamics. While the 2 step estimation approach, whereby the residuals of the conditional mean are passed to the variance dynamics estimation, may be less efficient for small sized datasets, it is expected to be more flexible in what can be achieved. Additionally, the ARCH-in-mean model is no longer available, as it was found to have very limited value within the tsmodels framework or in general, this author’s experience. A separate tsarma package for ARMA(p,q)-X models is however available.

• makes use of automatic differentiation (autodiff) during estimation, via the TMB package. This is in line with similar approaches in other models written in the tsmodels framework. Using autodiff allows for more confident estimation and more accurate standard errors. Autodiff is also used for the more complex inequality constraints of some models which involve evaluation of an expectation, in order to generate more accurate Jacobians of these inequalities for use during optimization.

• adopts a custom approach in optimization using parameter scaling which avoids problems with convergence and numerical stability.

• fully implements and correctly documents a number of sandwich estimators making use of the sandwich package framework (with methods for bread and estfun and meat/meat_HAC functions).

• makes use of S3 methods and classes, abandoning the S4 approach of rugarch. Additionally, while making use of standard methods from the stats package, some of the methods are based on those exported from tsmethods, consistent with other packages in the tsmodels framework. The Appendix provides a table with a hierarchical overview of the main functions and methods currently implemented in the package.

• provides more accurate and informative output, including standard errors, confidence intervals, and a more detailed summary output including a fancy flextable output for the summary method.

• provides numerous fixes and enhancements to the original rugarch code, including the unconditional variance of the exponential GARCH(1,1) model, and better startup conditions for the initialization of the recursion.

• provides more extensive documentation and high coverage of unit tests, with a focus on the accuracy of the estimation and the correctness of the output as well as catching many corner cases.

This vignette provides a mathematical summary of each type of GARCH model used, general assumptions regarding initialization and other estimation details as well as the forecast equation. Separate vignettes are available with code demonstrations.

2 GARCH Estimation

The density function, based on the distributions available in the tsdistributions package, is expressed in terms of the location, scale, skew and shape parameters \(\left\{\mu_t,\sigma_t,\zeta,\nu\right\}\), normalized to give zero mean and unit variance:

\[ z_t = \frac{y_t - \mu_t}{\sigma_t} \] {#eq:garch_estimation}

where \(\mu_t = E\left(y_t|x_t \right)\) and \(\sigma^2_t = E\left((y_t - \mu_t)^2|x_t\right)\), with \(x_t\) the information set available at the period immediately before time \(t\) and may include both external regressors and lagged values of \(y\). Assuming that the distribution of \(z_t\) is independent of the conditioning information set¹, then:

\[ g\left(z_t|\zeta,\nu\right) = \frac{d}{dz}P\left(z_t<z|\zeta,\nu\right) \] {#garch_gfun}

which is related to the distribution of \(y_t\) by through the scale term:

\[ f\left(y_t|\mu_t,\sigma_t,\zeta,\nu\right) = \frac{1}{\sigma_t}g\left(z_t|\zeta,\nu\right) \tag{1}\]

The parameter set \(\theta\), which includes the conditional mean, conditional variance and distributional skew and shape parameters is estimated by minimizing the negative of the log-likelihood:

\[ \theta_{ML} = \underset{\theta}{\operatorname{arg\min}}\sum^T_{t=1}-\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_t}g\left(z_t|\zeta,\nu\right)\right) \tag{2}\]

subject to upper and lower parameters bound constraints as well as the persistence constraint (\(P<1\)) and other non-negativity constraints. Estimation is performed using the nloptr solver with analytic Gradient and Jacobian of the constraints² provided through autodiff in TMB.

2.1 Recursion Initialization (\(\sigma^\delta_0\))

When estimating a GARCH model, we need to initialize the variance to some value in order to start the recursion. In the tsgarch package we set all values of \(\sigma^2_t,\forall t\le0\) to the sample variance or some other estimator which the user can choose from. Three options are available:

1. unconditional: \(\left(\frac{1}{T}\sum_{j=1}^T\varepsilon_j^2\right)^{(\delta/2)}\)
2. sample: \(\left(\frac{1}{S}\sum_{j=1}^S\varepsilon_j^2\right)^{(\delta/2)}\), where S is the length of the sample to use.
3. backcasting: \(\left(\lambda^T\hat\sigma^2 + (1-\lambda)\sum_{j=0}^{T-1}\lambda^j \varepsilon^2{1+j}\right)^{\delta/2},\quad \lambda\in\{0,1\}\)

where : \(\hat\sigma^2=\frac{1}{T-1}\sum_{j=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_j\)

For the backasting method, setting \(\lambda=1\) we obtain the sample variance, else values of \(\lambda\) less than one and greater than zero yields the exponential smoothing backcast estimator. The exponent \(\delta\) is for the power ARCH type models, otherwise it is set to 2 (variance). One popular commercial econometric software package defaults to backasting using a value of 0.7 for \(\lambda\).

In addition to the variance, we also need to initialize the value of the ARCH component for \(t\leq j\), by taking the sample average of the equation or part of the equation. Details of this initialization is provided for each model. Note that for all models, the initialization values of the ARCH(q) components will follow the user choice for the variance initialization.

2.2 Model Persistence, Long Run Variance and Half-Life

The persistence (\(P\)) of a GARCH model is a measure which quantifies the degree of volatility clustering and rate of decay. It also forms a bounding constraint (\(<1\)) on the model dynamics in order to ensure stationarity. Another way to think about persistence is by looking at the unconditional variance of a GARCH model which is defined as

\[ \hat\sigma^2 = \frac{\omega + \sum_{k=1}^m\xi_k\bar \chi_k}{1-P} \tag{3}\]

where \(\bar \chi_k\) is the sample mean of any external regressors.

Equation Equation 3 illustrates that positivity of the unconditional variance requires \(P<=1\), whilst existence of this value requires \(P<1\), which is not the case for the integrated GARCH model where \(P=1\) by design. The form that \(P\) takes will depend on the type of model, with the formulas provided in Section Section 2.8. Closely related to the persistence is the half-life measure which is defined as the number of periods it takes for a shock to revert half way back to the long run variance, and defined as \(-\textrm{log}_e(2)/\mathrm{log}_e(P)\).

A special note is warranted for the half-life of the Component GARCH (cgarch) model which is composed of a permanent and transitory component, each of which have a persistence (see Equation 56). The permanent component half-life, based on the estimate of \(\rho\), measures the time taken for the long-run influence of a shock in volatility to revert by half towards it’s long run unconditional value, whereas the transitory component half-life accounts for the time taken for a shock’s influence to revert to its long-run rate.

2.3 Variance Targeting (\(\bar\omega\))

Variance targeting sets the value of the GARCH intercept (\(\omega\)) to it’s long run estimate as :

\[ \bar\omega = \hat\sigma^2\left(1 - P\right) - \sum^m_{k=1}\xi_k \bar \chi_k \tag{4}\]

where \(\hat\sigma^2\) is the unconditional variance of \(\varepsilon^2\), consistently estimated by its sample counterpart, \(P\) is the model persistence and \(\bar\chi_k\) the mean of the external variance regressors (if present). A review of variance targeting can be found in Francq, Horvath, and Zakoian (2011). In this author’s experience, more than 90% of model estimation problems come from trying to estimate \(\omega\) as a result of parameter scaling issues. In tsgarch, despite attempts to apply some scaling rules during optimization, failure to converge will sometimes happen, in which case the model will be automatically re-estimated with variance targeting (the output will indicate when this has happened).

Unlike initialization estimators for \(\sigma^2_0\) and \(\varepsilon^2_0\), the value of \(\hat\sigma^2\) and \(\hat v_j\) is based on the full sample.

2.4 External Regressors (\(\chi\))

Inclusion of additive external regressors has always been a little tricky when it comes to variance modelling due to the non-negativity constraint. This is an issue in all GARCH flavors with the exception of the exponential model. One way to deal with this is to constrain coefficients and regressors to be strictly positive which is not ideal. Another option, which is now offered in tsgarch is to have multiplicative regressors where the intercept is now calculated as follows:

\[ \omega_t = \mathrm{exp}\left(\omega + \sum^m_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\right) \tag{5}\]

which does not require any bound constraints on either the constant \(\omega\) or the regressors.

2.5 News Impact Curve

Engle and Ng (1993) defined the news impact curve as a way to analyze the effect of news on the conditional variance by keeping constant the information dated \(t-2\) and earlier. Therefore, the long run variance of the model is used in place of \(\sigma_{t-1}\) and a range of values for \(\varepsilon_t\) are chosen to show how news of different sign and size impact the current conditional variance. A most interesting example of this found in the Family GARCH model of Hentschel (1995) which accommodates both shifts and rotations in the news impact curve, with the shift factor being the the main source of asymmetry for small shocks, and rotation driving larger shocks. A more detailed exposition, and compact representation of the news impact can be found in Caporin and Costola (2019) who define asymmetry of a GARCH model, for all shocks \(\theta\), as the case where:

\[ \mathrm{NIC}\left(\theta\right) \neq \mathrm{NIC}\left(-\theta\right) \tag{6}\]

2.6 Standard Errors

The tsgarch package makes use of the methods available in the sandwich package to deliver a number of different estimators for the parameter covariance matrix (S).

Define the objective function (\(\Psi\)) as the log-likelihood of the GARCH model with respect to the data and parameters:

\[ \Psi\left(y,x,\theta\right) = \sum^T_{t=1}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_t}g\left(z_t|\zeta,\nu\right)\right) \tag{7}\]

where \(\frac{1}{\sigma_t}g\left(z_t|\zeta,\nu\right)\) is defined in Section 2. The estimating (or score) function of the objective function is then:

\[ \psi\left(y,x,\theta\right) = \frac{\partial\Psi\left(y,x,\theta\right)}{\partial\theta} \tag{8}\]

Inference about the parameter set \(\theta\) relies on a central limit theorem (CLT) with \(\sqrt{n}\) consistency:

\[ \sqrt{n}\left(\hat\theta - \theta\right) \overset{d}{\to} N\left(0, S(\theta)\right) \tag{9}\]

where \(\overset{d}{\to}\) indicates convergence in distribution. The sandwich package defines the sandwich estimator \(S\left(\theta\right)\) as:

\[ S\left(\theta\right) = B\left(\theta\right) M\left(\theta\right) B\left(\theta\right) \tag{10}\]

where the meat (M) of the sandwich is the variance of the estimating function:

\[ M\left(\theta\right) = \textrm{VAR}\left[\psi\left(y,x,\theta\right)\right] \tag{11}\]

and the bread (B) is the inverse of the expectation of its first derivative (\(\psi^{'}\)):

\[ B\left(\theta\right) = \left(E\left[-\psi^{'}\left(y,x,\theta\right)\right]\right)^{-1} \tag{12}\]

In tsgarch, the following 4 estimators for the covariance matrix are defined:

2.6.1 Direct (H)

\[ S\left(\theta\right) = B\left(\theta\right) = -H^{-1} \tag{13}\]

This makes use of the analytic hessian (\(H\)) at the optimal solution.

2.6.2 Outer product of the gradient (OP)

\[ \begin{aligned} S\left(\theta\right) &= M\left(\theta\right) \\ &= \frac{1}{T}\sum^T_{t=1}\psi\left(y_t,x_t,\hat\theta\right)\psi\left(y_t,x_t,\hat\theta\right)^{'} \end{aligned} \tag{14}\]

The estimating function is essentially the Jacobian of the likelihood at each time step with respect to the parameters. Currently, this is based on the jacobian function from numDeriv, but will be replaced in a future version by the analytic solution from TMB.

2.6.3 Quasi-Maximum Likelihood (QML)

\[ \begin{aligned} S\left(\theta\right) &= B\left(\theta\right) M\left(\theta\right) B\left(\theta\right) \\ & = H^{-1}\left(\psi\left(y_t,x_t,\hat\theta\right)\psi\left(y_t,x_t,\hat\theta\right)^{'}\right)H^{-1} \end{aligned} \tag{15}\]

2.6.4 HAC

In the presence of residual autocorrelation, the HAC estimator is based on the weighted empirical autocorrelations of the empirical estimating functions:

\[ \begin{aligned} M_{HAC} & = \frac{1}{T}\sum^T_{i,j=1}w_{|i-j|}\psi\left(y_t,x_t,\hat\theta\right)\psi\left(y_t,x_t,\hat\theta\right)^{'} \\ S\left(\theta\right) &= B\left(\theta\right) M_{HAC}\left(\theta\right) B\left(\theta\right) \end{aligned} \tag{16}\]

where the weights \(w\) can either be fixed or estimated using an appropriate choice of strategies. In the tsgarch package, the bandwidth of Newey and West (1994) is used to automatically calculate the lag and then the weights, based on the bwNeweyWest function from the sandwich package.

2.7 Parameter Scaling

The estimation strategy involves 2 passes through the optimizer. During the first pass, the parameters are first estimated using no-scaling. In the second pass, the problem is reformulated based on re-scaling the n parameters and their bounds by the vector \(s = \sqrt{\{s^{-1}_{1,1},s^{-1}_{2,2},\ldots,s^{-1}_{n,n}\}}\), where \(s_{i,i}\) are the diagonals of the hessian at the previous solution.

The rescaled parameters and their bounds are passed to the optimizer, whilst the underlying C++ TMB code scales them back in order to perform the likelihood calculations and correctly adjust the analytic derivatives in the presence of this scaling vector.

The reason for performing this extra step, is to avoid some bad solutions as a result of large differences in scaling (particularly with respect to the constant \(\omega\)), and to avoid issues with the derivatives. The optimal hessian and scores (the estimating function) in the output object are based on the scaled versions from the second pass which are then re-scaled back. This approach was found to offer substantial stability at a relatively low cost. Some justification for this method can be found in Yang and Lee (2010) and Rao (2019).

2.8 GARCH Flavors

The tsgarch package implements a number of different flavors of GARCH, including the option of 10 different distributions. The next subsections provide details of each model’s formulation. For each model, the dynamics of the conditional mean take the following form:

\[ \begin{aligned} \mu_t &= \mu \\ y_t &= \mu_t + \varepsilon_t,\quad \varepsilon_t\sim D\left(0, \sigma_t,\zeta,\nu, \lambda\right) \end{aligned} \tag{17}\]

where D is one of the available distributions from tsdistributions, \(\zeta\) the skew parameter, \(\nu\) the shape parameter and \(\lambda\) an additional shape parameter used in the Generalized Hyperbolic distribution. These additional distributional parameters may be present in some combination or not at all depending on the distribution. It is also possible to set \(\mu\) to zero and pass a series of pre-filtered residual values from some other model as discussed in Section Section 1.

Note that the parameter symbols for the model equations presented in the following subsections will be exactly the same as those output by the package, with the summary method on estimated objects having the option to replace the names of parameters with symbols when transforming to a flextable object (as_flextable method on summary object).

2.8.1 Vanilla GARCH (garch)

The vanilla GARCH model of Bollerslev (1986) extended the ARCH model of Engle (1982) to include a moving average term making it more closely aligned with the literature on ARMA processes, and allowing for a wider range of behavior and more persistent volatility.

2.8.1.1 Equation

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\\ \sigma^2_t &= \omega_t + \sum^q_{j=1}\alpha_j\varepsilon^2_{t-j} + \sum^p_{j=1}\beta_j\sigma^2_{t-j} \end{aligned} \tag{18}\]

In the presence of variance regressors, the choice to use multiplicative type intercept means that:

\[ \omega_t = \exp{\left(\omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\right)} \]

in which case the bounds on \(\omega\) and \(\xi_k\) are mostly free and we don’t have to worry about the positivity of the variance.

2.8.1.2 Initialization

\[ \begin{aligned} \sigma_{t-j}^2 &= \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t,\quad (t-j)\le 0\\ \varepsilon_{t-j}^2 & = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t,\quad (t-j) \le 0 \end{aligned} \tag{19}\]

where the first equation is used to initialize the GARCH recursion and the second one (identical to the first) is used for the ARCH recursion initialization.

This is the default choice, but other choices such as less than full sample and backcasting are also available and described in Section Section 2.1.

2.8.1.3 Persistence

\[ \begin{aligned} P &= \sum^q_{j=1}\alpha_j + \sum^p_{j=1}\beta_j \end{aligned} \tag{20}\]

2.8.1.4 News Impact

\[ \begin{aligned} \sigma^2_{t} &= \omega + \alpha \varepsilon^2_t + \beta\bar\sigma^2 \end{aligned} \tag{21}\]

where \(\bar\sigma^2 = \frac{\omega + \sum_{k=1}^n\xi_k\bar\chi_k}{1 - P}\)³ and represents the long run unconditional variance in the (optional) presence of m variance regressors \(\chi\) with coefficients \(\xi\) (see Section Section 2.3).

2.8.1.5 Model Constraints

• \(1>\alpha_j>0\)
• \(1>\beta_j>0\)
• \(\omega>0\)
• \(P < 1\)

For higher order models, it is suggested that the constraints on \(\alpha_j\) be relaxed to allow for non positive values This can be achieved by changing the lower value in the parmatrix slot of the specification.

2.8.1.6 Forecast

\[ \sigma_{t+h}^{2}=\left({\omega+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_k\chi_{k,t+h}}}\right)+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q}{\alpha_{j}}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{2}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{p}{\beta_{j}}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{2},\quad \left({h-j}\right)>0 \tag{22}\]

2.8.2 Integrated GARCH (igarch)

The integrated GARCH model of Engle and Bollerslev (1986) assumes that the persistence \(P = 1\), hence shocks are permanent and the unconditional variance infinite. The motivation behind this model was to capture the long memory behavior observed in some financial time series.⁴ However, Nelson (1990) showed that the IGARCH process with no drift (\(\omega=0\)) would converge to zero with probability one. In the presence of a drift term (\(\omega>0\)) the process is neither covariance stationary nor does it have well-defined unconditional variance, though it still remains strictly stationary and ergodic. For truly long memory processes, other GARCH models should be considered such as the Fractionally Integrated GARCH (FIGARCH) or Hyperbolic GARCH (HYGARCH) which may be included at a later time.

2.8.2.1 Equation

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\\ \sigma^2_t &= \omega_t + \sum^q_{j=1}\alpha_j\varepsilon^2_{t-j} + \sum^p_{j=1}\beta_j\sigma^2_{t-j} \end{aligned} \tag{23}\]

2.8.2.2 Persistence

The persistence in the igarch model is set to 1 and forms a binding constraint on the parameters.

\[ \begin{aligned} P = \sum^q_{j=1}\alpha_j + \sum^p_{j=1}\beta_j = 1 \end{aligned} \tag{24}\]

2.8.2.3 News Impact

Not defined.

2.8.2.4 Model Constraints

• \(1>\alpha_j>0\)
• \(1>\beta_j>0\)
• \(\omega>0\)
• \(P = 1\)

2.8.2.5 Forecast

Same as the the vanilla GARCH forecast in Section Section 2.8.1.

2.8.3 Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (ewma)

The Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (ewma) model is a restricted igarch model where the drift term (\(\omega\)) is set to zero. It has proven popular among some practitioners for it’s simplicity and speed, with coefficients most often hard coded rather than estimated, based on prior knowledge. However, as mentioned in Section Section 2.8.2 the variance will converge to zero in a finite number of steps so it is unlikely to be a good model for anything but very short term forecasting.

2.8.3.1 Equation

The ewma equation is usually written as \(\sigma^2_t = \left(1 - \lambda\right)\varepsilon^2_{t-1} + \lambda\sigma^2_{t-1}\), but we present below the more general model which shows that it is a restricted igarch model with no drift (although it is always possible to include regressors).

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\\ \sigma^2_t &= \omega_t + \sum^q_{j=1}\alpha_j\varepsilon^2_{t-j} + \sum^p_{j=1}\beta_j\sigma^2_{t-j} \end{aligned} \tag{25}\]

2.8.3.2 Persistence

Since this is simply a restricted igarch model, the persistence is set to 1 and forms a binding constraint on the parameters as in Equation 24.

2.8.3.3 News Impact

Not defined.

2.8.3.4 Forecast

Same as the the vanilla GARCH forecast in Section Section 2.8.1 with \(\omega\) set to zero.

2.8.4 Exponential GARCH (egarch)

The exponential GARCH model of Nelson (1991) allows for asymmetric effects between positive and negative returns, and does not require specific parameter restrictions to ensure positivity of the variance since the modelling is performed on the log variance.

2.8.4.1 Equation

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\\ {\log_e}\left(\sigma^2_t\right) &= \omega_t + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \left(\alpha_j z_{t - j} + \gamma_j\left(\left|z_{t - j}\right| - E\left|z_{t - j}\right|\right)\right) + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j\log_e\left(\sigma^2_{t - j}\right) \end{aligned} \tag{26}\]

where \(z_t = \frac{\varepsilon_t}{\sigma_t}\), with expectation of the absolute moment given by:

\[ E\left|z_{t - j}\right| = \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty{\left|z\right|} D\left(z, 0,1,\zeta,\nu,\lambda\right) dz \tag{27}\]

For symmetric distributions, the absolute moment is usually available in closed form (such as in the Gaussian case where it is \(\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\)). For other distributions this is calculated using Gauss-Kronrod quadrature in the C++ TMB code so that it is forms part of the autodiff tape.

2.8.4.2 Initialization

\[ \begin{aligned} \log_e\sigma_{t-j}^2 &= \log_e\left(\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t\right),\quad (t-j)\le 0\\ z_{t-j}^2 & = 0,\quad (t-j)\le 0\\ \left(|z_{t-j}| - E|z_{t-j}|\right) &= 0,\quad (t-j)\le 0 \end{aligned} \tag{28}\]

where the first equation is used in the initialization of the GARCH recursion, whilst the second and third equations are for the ARCH initialization.

This is the default choice, but other choices such as less than full sample and backcasting are also available and described in Section Section 2.1.

2.8.4.3 Persistence

The persistence has a rather simple form based on the sum of the moving average coefficients.

\[ P = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j \tag{29}\]

2.8.4.4 Unconditional Variance

The unconditional variance of an EGARCH(1,1) model, is given by the following equation:

\[ \bar \sigma^2 = \exp{\left(\frac{\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k}}{1 - \beta}\right)}\prod_{i=1}^\infty E\left[\exp{\left(\beta^{i-1}g\left(z_t\right)\right)}\right] \tag{30}\]

where \(g\left(z_t\right) = \alpha z_t + \gamma \left(|z_t| - E|z_t|\right)\) (see He, Terasvirta, and Malmsten (2002)), and \(E\left[\exp{\left(\beta^{i-1}g\left(z_t\right)\right)}\right]\) is calculated by numerical quadrature:

\[ \mathop{\int}\limits_{{-}\infty}\limits^{\infty}{\exp\left({{\mathit{\beta}}_{1}^{{i}{-}{1}}{g}\left({x}\right)}\right)}{D}\left({{x}{,}{0}{,}{1}{,}\mathit{\zeta}{,}\mathit{\nu}{,}\mathit{\lambda}}\right){dx} \tag{31}\] We approximate the infinite product by truncating i to 1000 which we found is more than sufficient for convergence.

For higher order GARCH model, i.e. \(p,q>1\), the unconditional variance is approximated via simulation, averaging the variance over 100 simulations of length 25000.

2.8.4.5 News Impact

\[ \sigma^2_i = {\exp}\left(\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k} + \alpha z_i + \gamma \left(\left|z_i\right| - E\left|z_i\right|\right) + \beta {\log_e}\left(\sigma^2\right)\right) \tag{32}\]

where \(\bar\sigma^2\), represents the unconditional variance as given in Equation Equation 30.

2.8.4.6 Model Constraints

• \(P < 1\)

2.8.4.7 Forecast

For the \(max(p,q)<=1\), the forecast for \(t+h, h>1\) is: \[ {\mathit{\sigma}}_{{t}{+}{h}}^{2}{=}{\left({{\mathit{\sigma}}_{{t}{+}{1}}^{2}}\right)}^{{\mathit{\beta}}^{{h}{-}{1}}}\exp\left({\frac{{1}{-}{\mathit{\beta}}^{{h}{-}{1}}}{{1}{-}\mathit{\beta}}\left({\mathit{\omega}{+}\mathop{\sum}\limits_{{k}{=}{1}}\limits^{m}{{\mathit{\xi}}_{k}{\mathit{\chi}}_{{k}{,}{t}{+}{h}}}}\right)}\right)\mathop{\prod}\limits_{{i}{=}{1}}\limits^{\infty}{{E}\left[{\exp\left({{\mathit{\beta}}^{{i}{-}{1}}{g}\left({{z}_{t}}\right)}\right)}\right]} \tag{33}\]

where \(g\left(x\right) = \left(\alpha_1 x + \gamma_1 \left(\left|x\right| - \kappa\right)\right)\), and \(\kappa\) as in Equation 27. We approximate the infinite product in the equation by truncating it to 1000 terms. For higher order models, the forecast is approximated via simulation.

2.8.5 GJR GARCH (gjrgarch)

The GJR GARCH model of Glosten, Jagannathan, and Runkle (1993) models positive and negative shocks on the conditional variance asymmetrically using a leverage term for past squared, negative innovations via the indicator function \(I\).

2.8.5.1 Equation

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\\ \sigma^2_t & = \omega_t + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \left(\alpha_j\varepsilon^2_{t - j} + \gamma_j {I}_{[\varepsilon_{t-j}\le 0]}\varepsilon^2_{t - j}\right) + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j\sigma^2_{t-j} \end{aligned} \tag{34}\]

where \(\gamma_j\) now represents the leverage term. The indicator function \(I\) takes on value 1 for \(\varepsilon \le 0\) and 0 otherwise. Because of the presence of the indicator function, the persistence of the model now crucially depends on the asymmetry of the conditional distribution.

2.8.5.2 Initialization

\[ \begin{aligned} \sigma_{t-j}^2 &= \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t,\quad (t-j)\le 0\\ \varepsilon_{t-j}^2 & = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t,\quad (t-j) \le 0\\ {I}_{[\varepsilon_{t-j}\le 0]}\varepsilon^2_{t - j} & = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=i}^{T} I_{[\varepsilon_{t}\le 0]} \varepsilon^2_t,\quad (t-j) \le 0 \end{aligned} \tag{35}\]

2.8.5.3 Persistence

\[ \begin{aligned} P &= \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \alpha_j + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \gamma _j\kappa \end{aligned} \tag{36}\]

where \(\kappa\) is the expected value of \(\varepsilon_t \le 0\). Since this represents the probability of being less than zero, we can work directly with the standardized innovations when using the location scale distributions⁵, \(z_t\):

\[ \begin{aligned} \kappa &= E\left[I_{[z_{t-j}\le 0]}\right] \\ &= \int\limits_{-\infty}^0 D\left(z, 0,1,\zeta,\nu,\lambda\right) dz \end{aligned} \tag{37}\]

For symmetric distributions this value is always 0.5, but for skewed distributions this is calculated using Gauss-Kronrod quadrature in the C++ TMB code so that it is forms part of the autodiff tape allowing to also extract the Jacobian of this function for use with the inequality constraint in the nloptr solver.

2.8.5.4 News Impact

\[ \sigma^2_i = \omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k} + \alpha \varepsilon^2_i + \gamma {I}_{[\varepsilon_i\le 0]}\varepsilon^2_i + \beta \bar\sigma^2 \tag{38}\]

where \(\bar\sigma^2 = \frac{\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k}}{1 - P}\), represents the long run unconditional variance.

2.8.5.5 Model Constraints

• \(1>\alpha_j>0\)
• \(1>\beta_j>0\)
• \(\alpha_j + \gamma_j>0\)
• \(\omega>0\)
• \(P < 1\)

Note that we also constrain \(\gamma_j > -1\). The Jacobian of the inequality constraints is calculated either analytically or using autodiff. For higher order models, it is suggested that the constraints on \(\alpha_j\) and \(\gamma_j\) be relaxed to allow for non positive values. This can be achieved by changing the lower value in the parmatrix slot of the specification.

2.8.5.6 Forecast

\[ \sigma_{t+h}^{2}=\omega+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\chi_{k,t+h}}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q}{\alpha_{j}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{2}}+\gamma_{j}\kappa\sigma_{t+h-j}^{2}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{p}{\beta_{j}}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{2},\quad \left({h-j}\right)>0 \tag{39}\]

2.8.6 Asymmetric Power ARCH (aparch)

The asymmetric power ARCH model of Ding, Granger, and Engle (1993) allows for both leverage and the Taylor effect, named after Taylor (1986) who observed that the sample autocorrelation of absolute returns was usually larger than that of squared returns.

2.8.6.1 Equation

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\\ \sigma^{\delta}_t &= \omega_t + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \alpha_j\left(\left|\varepsilon_{t - j}\right| - \gamma_j\varepsilon_{t - j}\right)^{\delta} + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j\sigma^{\delta}_{t - j} \end{aligned} \tag{40}\]

where \(\delta \in {\mathbb{R}^ + }\), being a Box-Cox transformation of \(\sigma_t\), and \(\gamma_j\) the coefficient in the leverage term.

2.8.6.2 Initialization

See Laurent (2004) page 52:

\[ \begin{aligned} \sigma_{t-j}^\delta &= \left(\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t\right)^{(\delta/2)},\quad (t-j)\le 0\\ \left(\left|\varepsilon_{t - j}\right| - \gamma_j\varepsilon_{t - j}\right)^{\delta} &= \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=i}^{T}\left(|\varepsilon_t| - \gamma_j\varepsilon_t\right)^\delta,\quad (t-j) \le 0\\ \end{aligned} \tag{41}\]

2.8.6.3 Persistence

\[ \begin{aligned} P = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \alpha_j \kappa_j \end{aligned} \tag{42}\]

where \(\kappa_j\) is the expected value of the standardized residuals \(z_t\) under the Box-Cox transformation of the term which includes the leverage coefficient:

\[ \begin{aligned} \kappa_j & = E\left(\left|z_{t-j}\right| - \gamma_j z_{t-j}\right)^\delta \\ &= \int\limits_{- \infty}^\infty \left(\left|z\right| - \gamma_j z\right)^{\delta} D\left(z, 0,1,\zeta,\nu,\lambda\right) dz \end{aligned} \tag{43}\]

For symmetric distributions there are closed form solutions for this expression, but for skewed distributions this is calculated using Gauss-Kronrod quadrature in the C++ TMB code so that it is forms part of the autodiff tape allowing to also extract the Jacobian of this function for use with the inequality constraint in the nloptr solver.

2.8.6.4 News Impact

\[ \sigma^2_i = \left(\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k} + \alpha\left(\left|\varepsilon_i\right| - \gamma\varepsilon_i\right)^{\delta} + \beta\bar\sigma^{\delta}\right)^{\frac{2}{\delta}} \tag{44}\]

where \(\bar\sigma^{\delta} = \frac{\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k}}{1 - P}\), represents the long run unconditional volatility raised to the power of \(\delta\).

2.8.6.5 Model Constraints

• \(1>\alpha_j>0\)
• \(1>\beta_j>0\)
• \(|\gamma_j|<1\)
• \(\delta>0\)
• \(\omega>0\)
• \(P < 1\)

Non-negativity constraints on \(\alpha_j\) may be relaxed for higher order models by changing the lower parameter in the parmatrix of the specification object prior to estimation.

2.8.6.6 Forecast

\[ \sigma_{t+h}^{2}={\left({\omega+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\chi_{k,t+h}}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q}{\alpha_{j}\kappa_{j}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{\delta}}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{p}{\beta_{j}}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{\delta}}\right)}^{2/\delta},\quad \left({h-j}\right)>0 \tag{45}\]

where \(\kappa_j = E\left(\left|z_{t-j}\right| - \gamma_j z_{t-j}\right)^\delta\), see Equation 43.

2.8.7 Family GARCH (fgarch)

The family GARCH model of Hentschel (1995) is a large omnibus model which subsumes some of the most popular GARCH models. It allows for both shifts and rotations in the news impact curve, where the shift is the main source of asymmetry for small shocks while rotation drives larger shocks. The following restrictions in the parameters leads to specific models:

• GARCH: \(\delta = 2\), \(\eta_j = \gamma_j = 0\)
• Absolute Value GARCH: \(\delta = 1\), \(|\gamma_j|\le1\)
• GJR GARCH: \(\delta=2\),\(\eta_j=0\)
• Threshold GARCH: \(\delta=1\),\(\eta_j=0\),\(|\gamma_j|\le1\)
• Nonlinear GARCH: \(\gamma_j = \eta_j = 0\)
• Nonlinear Asymmetric GARCH: \(\delta=2\),\(\gamma_j=0\)
• APARCH: \(\eta_j=0\), \(|\gamma_j|\le1\)

2.8.7.1 Equation

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t}\\ \sigma^{\delta}_t & = \omega_t + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \alpha_j\sigma^{\delta}_{t - j}\left(\left|z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right| - \gamma_j\left(z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right)\right)^{\delta} + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j\sigma^{\delta}_{t - j} \end{aligned} \tag{46}\]

The original formulation, takes a slightly different form:

\[ \begin{aligned} \omega_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_j \chi_{k,t}\\ \sigma^{\delta}_t & = \omega_t + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \alpha_j\sigma^{\delta}_{t - j}\left(\left|z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right| - \gamma_j\left(z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right)\right)^{\lambda} + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j\sigma^{\delta}_{t - j} \end{aligned} \tag{47}\] which accommodates the exponential GARCH model as well as a more flexible transformation, albeit more computationally demanding. The tsgarch package does not adopt this more general formulation, instead setting \(\lambda = \delta\).

2.8.7.2 Initialization

\[ \begin{aligned} \sigma_{t-j}^\delta &= \left(\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t\right)^{(\delta/2)},\quad (t-j)\le 0\\ \left(\left|z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right| - \gamma_j\left(z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right)\right)^{\delta} &= \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=i}^{T}\left(|z_t - \eta_j| - \gamma_j(z_t - \eta_j)\right)^\delta,\quad (t-j) \le 0\\ \end{aligned} \tag{48}\]

2.8.7.3 Persistence

\[ \begin{aligned} P = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^p \beta_j + \sum\limits_{j = 1}^q \alpha_j\kappa_j \end{aligned} \tag{49}\]

where \(\kappa_j\) is the expected value of the standardized residuals \(z_t\) under the Box-Cox transformation of the absolute value asymmetry term

\[ \begin{aligned} \kappa_j &= E\left(\left|z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right| - \gamma_j\left(z_{t - j} - \eta_j\right)\right)^{\delta} \\ & = \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty \left(\left|z - \eta_j\right| - \gamma_j\left(z -\eta _j\right)\right)^{\delta} D\left(z, 0,1,\zeta,\nu,\lambda\right) dz \end{aligned} \tag{50}\]

There are no simple closed form solutions for this expression so it is calculated using Gauss-Kronrod quadrature in the C++ TMB code so that it is forms part of the autodiff tape allowing to also extract the Jacobian of this function for use with the inequality constraint in the nloptr solver.

2.8.7.4 News Impact

\[ \sigma^2_i = \left(\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k} + \alpha\bar\sigma^{\delta}\left(\left|z_i - \eta\right| - \gamma\left(z_i - \eta\right)\right)^{\delta} + \beta \bar\sigma^{\delta}\right)^{\frac{2}{\delta}} \tag{51}\]

where \(\bar\sigma^{\delta} = \frac{\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k}}{1 - P}\), represents the long run unconditional volatility raised to the power of \(\delta\).

2.8.7.5 Model Constraints

• \(1>\alpha_j>0\)
• \(1>\beta_j>0\)
• \(|\gamma_j|<1\)
• \(-10<|\eta_j|<10\)
• \(\delta>0\)
• \(\omega>0\)
• \(P < 1\)

Non-negativity constraints on \(\alpha_j\) may be relaxed for higher order models by changing the lower parameter in the parmatrix of the specification object prior to estimation.

2.8.7.6 Forecast

\[ \sigma_{t+h}^{2}={\left({\omega+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\chi_{k,t+h}}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{q}{\alpha_{j}\kappa_{j}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{\delta}}+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{p}{\beta_{j}}\sigma_{t+h-j}^{\delta}}\right)}^{2/\delta},\quad \left({h-j}\right)>0 \tag{52}\]

where \(\kappa_j\) is the expected value of the standardized residuals \(z_t\) under the Box-Cox transformation of the absolute value asymmetry term, see Equation 50.

2.8.8 Component GARCH (cgarch)

The model of Lee and Engle (1999) decomposes the conditional variance into a permanent and transitory component so as to investigate the long- and short-run movements of volatility affecting securities.

2.8.8.1 Equation

\[ \begin{aligned} q_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t} + \rho q_{t-1} + \phi\left(\varepsilon^2_{t-1}-\sigma^2_{t-1}\right)\\ \sigma^2_t &= q_t + \sum^q_{j=1}\alpha_j\left(\varepsilon^2_{t-j} - q_{t-j}\right) + \sum^p_{j=1}\beta_j\left(\sigma^2_{t-j} - q_{t-j}\right) \end{aligned} \tag{53}\]

The process can be re-written in an alternative form to better highlight the decomposition of the permanent and transitory components, shown below for the Component GARCH(1,1) model:

\[ \begin{aligned} &\textrm{Permanent: } &q_t &= \omega + \sum^{m}_{k=1}\xi_k \chi_{k,t} + \rho q_{t-1} + \phi\left(\varepsilon^2_{t-1}-\sigma^2_{t-1}\right) \\ &\textrm{Transitory: } &s_t &= \left(\alpha + \beta\right) s_{t-1} + \alpha\left(\varepsilon^2_{t-1} - \sigma^2_{t-1}\right) \\ &\textrm{Total: } &\sigma^2_t &= q_t + s_t \end{aligned} \tag{54}\]

The parameters \(\alpha\) and \(\phi\) correspond to immediate impacts of volatility shocks \(\left(\varepsilon^2_{t-j} - \sigma^2_{t-j}\right)\) on the transitory and permanent components, whereas \(\left(\alpha + \beta\right)\) and \(\rho\) measure the persistence of the transitory and permanent components, respectively. The model as currently implemented allows for higher order in the transitory component but no higher orders in the permanent component. The regressors only enter through the permanent component equation.⁶

2.8.8.2 Initialization

The transitory component is initialized to 0, whilst the squared residuals, variance and permanent component are initialized to the sample variance. As a result, the initial squared residuals and variance cancel out during initialization.

\[ \begin{aligned} \varepsilon_{t-j}^{2},\sigma_{t-j}^{2},q_{t-j} & =\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\varepsilon^2_t,\quad (t-j)\le 0\\ s_{t-j} & =0,\quad (t-j)\le 0 \end{aligned} \tag{55}\]

2.8.8.3 Persistence

\[ \begin{aligned} &\textrm{Transitory: } & P^T &= \sum^q_{j=1}\alpha_j + \sum^p_{j=1}\beta_j\\ &\textrm{Permanent: } & P^P &= \rho \end{aligned} \tag{56}\]

2.8.8.4 News Impact

Since the component GARCH model can be represented as a restricted GARCH(2,2) model, we derive the news impact curve using this representation to arrive at the following equation:

\[ \sigma^2_t = \omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k} + \rho\bar\sigma^2 + \phi\left(\varepsilon^2_t - \bar\sigma^2\right)+\alpha\left(\varepsilon^2_t - \bar\sigma^2\right) \tag{57}\]

where the unconditional variance \(\bar\sigma^2 = \frac{\omega + \sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\bar\chi_k}}{1-\rho}\).

2.8.8.5 Constraints

• \(1>\alpha_j>0\)
• \(1>\beta_j>0\)
• \(1>\phi>0\)
• \(1>\rho>0\)
• \(\omega>0\)
• \(1>P^P>P^T>0\)
• \(\beta>\phi\)

2.8.8.6 Forecast

\[ \begin{aligned} q_{t+h} &= \left(\frac{\omega+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\chi_{k,t+h}}}{1-\rho}\right) + \rho^k\left(q_t - \frac{\omega+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\chi_{k,t+h}}}{1-\rho}\right)\\ s_{t+h} &= P_T^h\left(\sigma_t^2 - q_t\right)\\ \sigma_{t+h}^2 &= q_{t+h} + s_{t+h} \end{aligned} \tag{58}\]

where \(P_T\) is the transitory persistence as defined in Equation 56. As h grows larger, the forecast converges to \(\frac{\omega+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{m}{\xi_{k}\chi_{k,t+h}}}{1-\rho}\).

3 Demonstration

3.1 Estimation

We use log returns of the adjusted closing price of the S&P500 ETF dataset from the tsdatasets package for the demonstration, which spans the period 1993-01-29 / 2023-03-30.

Code

library(xts)
y <- tsdatasets::spy
r <- diff(log(y))[-1]
spec <- garch_modelspec(r, model = "aparch", constant = TRUE, order = c(1,1),
                        distribution = "jsu", variance_targeting = FALSE)
mod <- estimate(spec)
print(summary(mod))

## APARCH Model Summary
## 
## Coefficients:
##               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## mu           2.387e-04  6.187e-05   3.857 0.000115 ***
## omega        3.108e-04  1.303e-04   2.385 0.017059 *  
## alpha1       9.366e-02  1.580e-02   5.930 3.04e-09 ***
## gamma1       9.990e-01  2.145e-01   4.658 3.19e-06 ***
## beta1        9.072e-01  1.312e-02  69.149  < 2e-16 ***
## delta        9.595e-01  8.273e-02  11.599  < 2e-16 ***
## skew        -5.511e-01  6.803e-02  -8.102 4.44e-16 ***
## shape        2.008e+00  9.570e-02  20.986  < 2e-16 ***
## persistence  9.761e-01  2.930e-03 333.180  < 2e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  
## 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## N: 7596
## V(initial): 0.0001422,  V(unconditional): 0.0001176
## Persistence: 0.9761
## LogLik: 25010.2,  AIC:  -50002.5,  BIC: -49940.1

Notice that the persistence is also included in the summary report, with standard errors, and calculated based on the sdreport function from TMB which performs these calculations on any linear or nonlinear operation on parameters in a user template through the ADREPORT() macro.

A nicer table can be generated using the as_flextable method, which we illustrate below and this time we generate QMLE standard errors:

Code

s <- summary(mod, vcov_type = "QMLE")
as_flextable(s, include.symbols = TRUE, include.equation = TRUE, table.caption = "SPY - APARCH(1,1) - JSU")

	Estimate	Std. Error	t value	Pr(>|t|)
$$\mu$$	0.0002	0.0001	2.9321	0.0034	**
$$\omega$$	0.0003	0.0002	1.3626	0.1730
$$\alpha_1$$	0.0937	0.0498	1.8789	0.0603	.
$$\gamma_1$$	0.9990	0.7249	1.3781	0.1682
$$\beta_1$$	0.9072	0.0402	22.5425	0.0000	***
$$\delta$$	0.9595	0.1521	6.3082	0.0000	***
$$\zeta$$	-0.5511	0.0668	-8.2454	0.0000	***
$$\nu$$	2.0084	0.1041	19.3017	0.0000	***
$$P$$	0.9761	0.0029	333.1801	0.0000	***
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
variance targeting: FALSE
initialization value: 0.0001422
LogLik: 25010.24
AIC: -5e+04 | BIC: -4.994e+04
Model Equation
$$\varepsilon_t \sim JSU\left(0,\sigma_t,\zeta, \nu\right)$$
$$\sigma^{\delta}_t = \omega + \alpha_1 \left(\left|\varepsilon_{t-1}\right| - \gamma_1 \varepsilon_{t-1}\right)^{\delta} + \beta_1 \sigma^{\delta}_{t-1}$$
Persistence (P) and Unconditional Variance Equations
$$P = \sum_{j=1}^p \beta_j + \sum_{j=1}^q \alpha_j \kappa_j,\quad \kappa_j = E\left[\left(\left|z_{t-j}\right| - \gamma_j z_{t-j}\right)^{\delta}\right]$$
$$E\left[\varepsilon^2_t\right] = \left(\frac{\omega}{1 - P}\right)^{2/\delta}$$

The plot method on the estimated object provides a visual summary of the volatility against the absolute returns together with a news impact plot and a Q-Q plot of the GARCH standardized residuals against the theoretical samples from the distribution used. Notice how the news-impact curve is highly asymmetric, with only negative shocks having any noticeable impact on the variance.

Code

plot(mod)

3.2 Prediction

The predict method will generate both a forecast of the volatility as well as generate a sample predictive distribution of the residuals, parametrically from the model distribution or using the bootstrap of Pascual, Romo, and Ruiz (2006). This can then be injected into the predict method of other models in the tsmodels framework. The returned object is of class tsmodel.predict for which a plot method is available in the tsmethods package.

The following plot shows the predicted volatility for the next 150 periods. Using the halflife method, we find that this is equal to about 29 periods. The intersection of the vertical and horizontal dotted lines in the plot show that this is indeed the case with the volatility recovering 50% of the way back to its long run value of 0.011.

Code

p <- predict(mod, h = 150, sim_method = "bootstrap", nsim = 5000)
hl <- ceiling(halflife(mod))
long_run <- sqrt(unconditional(mod))
par(mar = c(3,2,3,3))
plot(as.zoo(p$sigma), ylab = expression(~sigma[t+h]), xlab = "", main = "T+150 Forecast", cex.main = 0.8)
abline(h = as.numeric(p$sigma[hl]), lty = 2, col = "grey5")
abline(v = index(p$sigma[hl]), lty = 2, col = "grey5")
abline(h = long_run, lty = 1, col = "tomato")
grid()

Given that we used the bootstrap method, we can also plot the distribution of the conditional volatility which is of class tsmodel.distribution for which plot methods are exported from the tsmethods package.

The bootstrap method is based on re-sampling standardized residuals from the empirical distribution of the fitted model to generate future realizations of the series and sigma. There are two ways to do this: one takes into account parameter uncertainty by building a simulated distribution of the parameters through simulation and refitting, and one which only considers distributional uncertainty and hence avoids the expensive and lengthy parameter distribution estimation. In the latter case, prediction intervals for the 1-ahead sigma forecast will not be available since only the parameter uncertainty is relevant in GARCH type models in this case. In tsgarch only the latter method is currently implemented (unlike in rugarch).

Code

par(mar = c(3,2,3,3))
plot(p$sigma_sim, median_color = NA, gradient_color = 'snow3', interval_color = "tomato", main = "T+150 Volatility Forecast Distribution")
lines(index(p$sigma), as.numeric(p$sigma), col = 'steelblue')

Finally, we can just plot the predicted object which contains the simulated predictive density of the model.

Code

par(mar = c(3,2,3,3))
plot(p, n_original = 200, interval_quantile = c(0.01, 0.99), median_color = 'green', gradient_color = 'snow3', interval_color = "orange", main = "T+150 Forecast Distribution")
lines(index(p$mean), as.numeric(p$mean), col = 'steelblue')

3.3 Backtesting

The tsbacktest method allows the generation of rolling forecasts using an expanding window and returns the values needed to describe the forecast conditional density including the mean, sigma, skew, shape and lambda values, which may be of particular interest for evaluating value at risk or other distributional measures.

The backtest method has 2 key arguments, the forecast horizon (h) and the number of period before a model is re-estimated to generate a fresh set of parameters from which to forecast. In the case of rolling forecasts, the data is filtered (using the tsfilter method) every period in order to update the last state from which new forecasts of length h are generated. Forecasts are uniquely defined by their horizon and and forecast date.

The tsbacktest method across all packages in the tsmodels framework allows the use of parallel processing via the future package.

Code

# create a mew specification
spec <- garch_modelspec(r, model = "egarch", constant = TRUE, distribution = "jsu")
# set up resources
library(future)
plan("future::multisession", workers = 10)
b <- tsbacktest(spec, start = 7000, h = 10, estimate_every = 30, rolling = TRUE, trace = FALSE)
# return to sequential
plan("future::sequential")

The main component of the returned list is a table with the following headings:

Code

print(b$table, topn = 2, trunc.cols = T)

##       estimation_date convergence filter_date horizon
##                <Date>       <int>      <Date>   <int>
##    1:      2020-11-13           1  2020-11-13       1
##    2:      2020-11-13           1  2020-11-13       2
##   ---                                                
## 5914:      2023-02-22           1  2023-03-28       2
## 5915:      2023-02-22           1  2023-03-29       1
## 8 variable(s) not shown: [size <int>, forecast_date <Date>, mu <num>, sigma <num>, skew <num>, shape <num>, lambda <num>, actual <num>]

The estimation_date shows the date on which the model was estimated from which the parameters were used for the forecast. It also outputs a convergence code which returns 1 if both the Kuhn-Karush-Tucker conditions (gradient and positive definite Hessian) were satisfied⁷, else 0 which may mean that one or both conditions were not satisfied. The filter date is \(t_0\) date on which the forecast was made, with horizon denoting the n-ahead period forecast, size the expanding window size used for estimating the model and foreacast_date the date the forecast corresponds to. The remaining column headings are the forecasts of the conditional mean (mu) and volatility (sigma) and any additional distributional parameters (which are fixed based on the estimated model). Note that even if the model has no additional distributional parameters, the defaults will still be printed since the (d,p,q,r) methods from the tsdistribution package can take all this information, given some distribution, and will take care of which distribution needs what. Finally, the actual column is the realized value of y for each forecast_date.

An interesting way to visualize the 1-step ahead forecasts is by looking at the value at risk exceedances plot:

Code

library(tsdistributions)
h1 <- b$table[horizon == 1, .(filter_date, forecast_date, mu, sigma, skew, shape, lambda, actual)]
h1[,VaR := qdist(b$distribution, p = 0.025, mu = mu, sigma = sigma, skew = skew, shape = shape, lambda = lambda)]
main_title <-  paste("Daily Returns and Value-at-Risk \nExceedances (alpha=0.025)",sep = "")
par(mar = c(3,2,3,3))
plot(h1$forecast_date, h1$actual, type = "n", main = title, ylim =
         c(min(min(h1$actual), min(h1$VaR)),
           max(max(h1$actual), max(h1$VaR))),
     ann = FALSE, cex.lab = 0.9, cex.axis = 0.8)
title(main_title, cex.main = 0.8)
abline(h = 0, col = "grey", lty = 2)
points(h1$forecast_date, h1$actual, pch = 18, col = "snow3")
sel <- which(h1$actual < h1$VaR)
points(h1$forecast_date[sel],h1$actual[sel], pch = 18, col = "red")
lines(h1$forecast_date, h1$VaR, lwd = 2, col = "black")
legend("topleft", max(h1$actual), c("returns","return < VaR","VaR"),
       col = c("snow3", "red","black"), cex = 0.75,
       pch = c(18,18,-1), lty = c(0,0,1), lwd = c(0,0,2), bty = "n")
grid()

3.4 Benchmark

The package has a built-in function which generates a table for the benchmark of Fiorentini, Calzolari, and Panattoni (1996), showing the log relative error between the values from tsgarch and the benchmark values, and defined as:

\[ \textrm{LRE} = -\log_{10}\left(\frac{\left|x - b\right|}{\left|b\right|}\right) \] where \(x\) is the estimated value and \(b\) the benchmark value.

Code

benchmark <- benchmark_fcp()
as_flextable(benchmark)

	Estimate		Std Error (H)		Std Error (OPG)		Std Error (QML)
	tsgarch	FCP	tsgarch	FCP	tsgarch	FCP	tsgarch	FCP
$$\mu$$	-0.0062	-0.0062	0.0085	0.0085	0.0084	0.0084	0.0092	0.0092
	6.1518		6.9758		6.4222		6.3652
$$\omega$$	0.0108	0.0108	0.0029	0.0029	0.0013	0.0013	0.0065	0.0065
	5.0391		6.1340		5.4333		6.2619
$$\alpha_1$$	0.1531	0.1531	0.0265	0.0265	0.0140	0.0140	0.0535	0.0535
	6.3803		5.9348		5.1801		7.4731
$$\beta_1$$	0.8060	0.8060	0.0336	0.0336	0.0166	0.0166	0.0725	0.0725
	6.3809		6.5216		6.7323		6.1553
Notes to table: values in italic are the log relative errors (LRE). The FCP benchmark is from the paper by Fiorentini, G., G. Calzolari and L. Panattoni, Analytic Derivatives and the Computation of GARCH Estimates, Journal of Applied Econometrics 11 (1996), 399--417.

4 Conclusion

The package is still in active development. Additional models may be added, porting some of the remaining rugarch models, but the focus is likely to be on models for high frequency data and porting the multivariate models from rmgarch.

A separate package called tstests includes a number of tests which were previously part of rugarch and will be released to CRAN soon.

5 Appendix

5.1 Methods and Classes

(...)	type	input	output
tsgarch
¦--garch_modelspec	function	xts	tsgarch.spec
¦   ¦--simulate	method	tsgarch.spec	tsgarch.simulate
¦   ¦--tsfilter	method	tsgarch.spec	tsgarch.estimate
¦   ¦--omega	method	tsgarch.spec	numeric
¦   °--tsbacktest	method	tsgarch.spec	list
¦--estimate	method	tsgarch.spec	tsgarch.estimate
¦   ¦--summary	method	tsgarch.estimate	summary.tsgarch
¦   ¦   ¦--print	method	summary.tsgarch	print
¦   ¦   °--as_flextable	method	summary.tsgarch	flextable
¦   ¦--tidy	method	tsgarch.estimate	tibble
¦   ¦--glance	method	tsgarch.estimate	tibble
¦   ¦--omega	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   ¦--sigma	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   ¦--plot	method	tsgarch.estimate	plot
¦   ¦--coef	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   ¦--logLik	method	tsgarch.estimate	logLik
¦   ¦--fitted	method	tsgarch.estimate	xts
¦   ¦--residuals	method	tsgarch.estimate	xts
¦   ¦--tsequation	method	tsgarch.estimate	list
¦   ¦--AIC	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   ¦--BIC	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   ¦--persistence	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   ¦--confint	method	tsgarch.estimate	matrix
¦   ¦--vcov	method	tsgarch.estimate	matrix
¦   ¦--bread	method	tsgarch.estimate	matrix
¦   ¦--estfun	method	tsgarch.estimate	matrix
¦   ¦--predict	method	tsgarch.estimate	tsmodel.predict
¦   ¦   ¦--plot	method	tsmodel.predict	plot
¦   ¦   °--pit	method	tsgarch.predict	xts
¦   ¦--simulate	method	tsgarch.estimate	tsmodel.simulate
¦   ¦--tsfilter	method	tsgarch.estimate	tsmodel.estimate
¦   ¦--unconditional	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   ¦--nobs	method	tsgarch.estimate	numeric
¦   °--pit	method	tsgarch.estimate	xts
¦--halflife	method	numeric	numeric
°--newsimpact	function	numeric	tsgarch.newsimpact
°--plot	method	tsgarch.newsimpact	plot

6 References

Bollerslev, T., 1986, Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity, Journal of Econometrics 31, 307–327.

Caporin, Massimiliano, and Michele Costola, 2019, Asymmetry and leverage in GARCH models: A news impact curve perspective, Applied Economics 51, 3345–3364.

Charles, Amélie, and Olivier Darné, 2019, The accuracy of asymmetric GARCH model estimation, International Economics 157, 179–202.

Ding, Z., C. W. J. Granger, and R. F. Engle, 1993, A long memory property of stock market returns and a new model, Journal of Empirical Finance 1, 83–106.

Engle, R. F., 1982, Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of united kingdom inflation, Econometrica 50(4), 987–1007.

Engle, R.F., and T. Bollerslev, 1986, Modelling the persistence of conditional variances, Econometric Reviews 5, 1–50.

Engle, Robert F, and Victor K Ng, 1993, Measuring and testing the impact of news on volatility, The Journal of Finance 48, 1749–1778.

Fiorentini, Gabriele, Giorgio Calzolari, and Lorenzo Panattoni, 1996, Analytic derivatives and the computation of GARCH estimates, Journal of Applied Econometrics 11, 399–417.

Francq, Christian, Lajos Horvath, and Jean-Michel Zakoian, 2011, Merits and drawbacks of variance targeting in GARCH models, Journal of Financial Econometrics 9, 619–656.

Glosten, L.R., R. Jagannathan, and D.E. Runkle, 1993, On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks, Journal of Finance 48(5), 1779–1801.

Hansen, Bruce E, 1994, Autoregressive conditional density estimation, International Economic Review, 705–730.

He, Changli, Timo Terasvirta, and Hans Malmsten, 2002, Moment structure of a family of first-order exponential GARCH models, Econometric Theory 18, 868–885.

Hentschel, L., 1995, All in the family nesting symmetric and asymmetric GARCH models, Journal of Financial Economics 39, 71–104.

Hill, Chelsey, and BD McCullough, 2019, On the accuracy of garch estimation in r packages, Econometric Research in Finance 4, 133–156.

Laurent, Sebastien, 2004, Analytical derivates of the APARCH model, Computational Economics 24, 51–57.

Lee, G. J., and R. F. Engle, 1999, A permanent and transitory component model of stock return volatility, Cointegration causality and forecasting a festschrift in honor of clive WJ granger (Oxford University Press).

Nelson, Daniel B, 1990, Stationarity and persistence in the GARCH (1, 1) model, Econometric theory 6, 318–334.

Nelson, Daniel B, 1991, Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 347–370.

Newey, Whitney K, and Kenneth D West, 1994, Automatic lag selection in covariance matrix estimation, The Review of Economic Studies 61, 631–653.

Pascual, L., J. Romo, and E. Ruiz, 2006, Bootstrap prediction for returns and volatilities in GARCH models, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 50, 2293–2312.

Rao, Singiresu S, 2019, Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice (John Wiley & Sons).

Taylor, S.J., 1986, Modelling Financial Time Series (Wiley).

Yang, Kyung-won, and Tai-yong Lee, 2010, Heuristic scaling method for efficient parameter estimation, Chemical Engineering Research and Design 88, 520–528.

Footnotes

1. In the case when this assumption is relaxed, this will give rise to a non constant conditional distribution. See Hansen (1994).

2. For some of the problems, the persistence has an easy closed form solution and therefore the Jacobian is hardcoded instead of making use of autodiff.

3. If using a multiplicative intercept choice, then \(\bar\sigma^2 = \frac{\exp\left(\omega + \sum_{k=1}^n\xi_k\bar\chi_k\right)}{1 - P}\).

4. Though many times it is also possible that this is the result of omitted structural breaks

5. for details see the tsdistributions package.

6. Some implementations in other software packages allow for more flexibility, allowing regressors to enter into both components.

7. This is based on the kktchk function from the optimx package.