There is widespread evidence that the volatility of stock returns displays an asymmetric response to good and bad news. This paper considers the impact of asymmetry on time varying hedges for financial futures. An asymmetric model which allows forecasts of cash and futures return volatility to respond differently to positive and negative return innovations gives superior in-sample hedging performance. However, the simpler symmetric model is not inferior in a hold-out sample. A method for evaluating the models in a modern risk management framework is presented, highlighting the importance of allowing optimal hedge ratios to be both time-varying and asymmetric.

No abstract

Recent research has suggested that forecast evaluation on the basis of standard statistical loss functions could prefer models which are sub-optimal when used in a practical setting. This paper explores a number of statistical models for predicting the daily volatility of several key UK financial time series. The out-of-sample forecasting performance of various linear and GARCH-type models of volatility are compared with forecasts derived from a multivariate approach. The forecasts are evaluated using traditional metrics, such as mean squared error, and also by how adequately they perform in a modern risk management setting. We find that the relative accuracies of the various methods are highly sensitive to the measure used to evaluate them. Such results have implications for any econometric time series forecasts which are subsequently employed in financial decision making.

Reading's research outputs online 1 NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in the International Journal of Forecasting. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in the International

This paper demonstrates that the use of GARCH-type models for the calculation of minimum capital risk requirements (MCRRs) may lead to the production of inaccurate and therefore inefficient capital requirements. We show that this inaccuracy stems from the fact that GARCH models typically overstate the degree of persistence in return volatility. A simple modification to the model is found to improve the accuracy of MCRR estimates in both back-and out-of-sample tests. Given that internal risk management models are currently in widespread usage in some parts of the world (most notably the USA), and will soon be permitted for EC banks and investment firms, we believe that our paper should serve as a valuable caution to risk management practitioners who are using, or intend to use this popular class of models.