The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 9:30 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 1 hour.
2012
DOI: 10.1002/cjs.11149
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust Lagrange multiplier test for detecting ARCH/GARCH effect using permutation and bootstrap

Abstract: The Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test is one of the principal tools to detect ARCH and GARCH effects in financial data analysis. However, when the underlying data are non‐normal, which is often the case in practice, the asymptotic LM test, based on the χ2‐approximation of critical values, is known to perform poorly, particularly for small and moderate sample sizes. In this paper we propose to employ two re‐sampling techniques to find critical values of the LM test, namely permutation and bootstrap. We derive the p… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Campbell and Diebold (2005) claim that their preprocessed (deseasonalized and autoregressive filtered) daily mean temperatures exhibit conditional heteroscedasticity. Remarkably, in our case of mean monthly data, both the 2 -approximated and bootstrap-based LM tests also yield highly statistically significant p-values, implying the likely existence of ARCH effects (Engle, 1982;Lee, 1991;Gel and Chen, 2012). Finally, in terms of trend, Campbell and Diebold (2005) assume a linear trend for their model of preprocessed daily surface temperatures, but they do not present any testing results.…”
Section: Water Pollution: the Turkey Lake Watershed Study 1980-2003mentioning
confidence: 58%
“…Campbell and Diebold (2005) claim that their preprocessed (deseasonalized and autoregressive filtered) daily mean temperatures exhibit conditional heteroscedasticity. Remarkably, in our case of mean monthly data, both the 2 -approximated and bootstrap-based LM tests also yield highly statistically significant p-values, implying the likely existence of ARCH effects (Engle, 1982;Lee, 1991;Gel and Chen, 2012). Finally, in terms of trend, Campbell and Diebold (2005) assume a linear trend for their model of preprocessed daily surface temperatures, but they do not present any testing results.…”
Section: Water Pollution: the Turkey Lake Watershed Study 1980-2003mentioning
confidence: 58%
“…Even if we assume a GARCH model to be heteroskedastic, the testing procedure is the same as that in by Lee (1991) and Gel and Chen (2012). Therefore, we focus only on the ARCH test.…”
Section: Arch Tests Using Nonparametric Regression Approaches For Conmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Catani and Ahlgren (2017) propose an LM test for ARCH using high-dimentional vector autoregressive models. In addition, Gel and Chen (2012) introduce bootstrap ARCH tests. 3.…”
Section: Fundingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In financial data analysis, the detection of GARCH effects can use the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test (Gel & Chen, 2012). One of the important steps before applying GARCH methodology is to examine the residual of risk and return for evidence of heteroscedasticity.…”
Section: Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticitymentioning
confidence: 99%