This paper re-examines the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between UK output variability and growth using GARCH-M models applied to post-war monthly industrial production data, estimated under quasi-maximumlikelihood with the consistent variance ± covariance estimator of Bollerslev and Wooldridge (1992). In contrast to previous results suggesting a significant positive relationship between UK output variability and growth, we find no significant relationship. Rather than suggesting a connection between risk and return in the attitudes of investors, our findings may be interpreted as more supportive of macroeconomic models which dichotomize the determination of output growth and variability.
The paper analyses the forecasting performance of a variety of statistical and econometric models of UK FTA All Share and FTSE100 stock index volatility at the monthly, weekly and daily frequencies under both symmetric and asymmetric loss functions. Under symmetric loss, results suggest that the random walk model provides vastly superior monthly volatility forecasts, while random walk, moving average, and recursive smoothing models provide moderately superior weekly volatility forecasts, and GARCH, moving average and exponential smoothing models provide marginally superior daily volatility forecasts. If attention is restricted to one forecasting method for all frequencies, the most consistent forecasting performance is provided by moving average and GARCH models. More generally, results suggest that previous results reporting that the class of GARCH models provide relatively poor volatility forecasts may not be robust at higher frequencies, failing to hold here for the crash-adjusted FTSE100 index in particular.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.