International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management
ISSN (Print): 2374-2011 ISSN (Online): 2374-2038 Website: Editor-in-chief: Tarek Sadraoui
Open Access
Journal Browser
International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management. 2017, 5(2), 22-32
DOI: 10.12691/ijefm-5-2-1
Open AccessArticle

A Comparative Performance of Conventional Methods for Estimating Market Risk Using Value at Risk

Cyprian Ondieki Omari1,

1Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology, Nyeri, Kenya

Pub. Date: April 26, 2017

Cite this paper:
Cyprian Ondieki Omari. A Comparative Performance of Conventional Methods for Estimating Market Risk Using Value at Risk. International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management. 2017; 5(2):22-32. doi: 10.12691/ijefm-5-2-1


This paper presents a comparative evaluation of the predictive performance of conventional univariate VaR models including unconditional normal distribution model, exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA/RiskMetrics), Historical Simulation, Filtered Historical Simulation, GARCH-normal and GARCH Students t models in terms of their forecasting accuracy. The paper empirically determines the extent to which the aforementioned methods are reliable in estimating one-day ahead Value at Risk (VaR). The analysis is based on daily closing prices of the USD/KES exchange rates over the period starting January 03, 2003 to December 31, 2016. In order to assess the performance of the models, the rolling window of approximately four years (n=1000 days) is used for backtesting purposes. The backtesting analysis covers the sub-period from November 2008 to December 2016, consequently including the most volatile periods of the Kenyan shilling and the historical all-time high in September 2015. The empirical results demonstrate that GJR-GARCH-t approach and Filtered Historical Simulation method with GARCH volatility specification perform competitively accurate in estimating VaR forecasts for both standard and more extreme quantiles thereby generally out-performing all the other models under consideration.

backtesting generalized autoregressive conditionally heteroscedastic (GARCH) models Value-at-Risk (VaR) volatility clustering Conditional and Unconditional Coverage Tests

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Angelidis, T., Benos, A., & Degiannakis, S. (2004). The use of GARCH models in VaR estimation. Statistical methodology, 1(1), 105-128.
[2]  Barone -Adesi, G. G. (1999). VaR without correlations for portfolio of derivative securities. UniversitĂ  della Svizzera italiana.
[3]  Barone-Adesi, G., & Giannopoulos, K. (2001). Non parametric VaR techniques. Myths and realities. Economic Notes, 30(2), 167-181.
[4]  Basel Committee on Banking Supervison. (2013). Fundamental review of the trading book: A revised market risk framework.
[5]  Black, F. (1976). Studies of stock price volatility changes. In: proceedings of the 1976 Business Meeting of the Business and Economics Statistics Section, American Association, 177-181.
[6]  Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of econometrics, 31(3), 307-327.
[7]  Bollerslev, T. (1987). A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return. The review of economics and statistics, 542-547.
[8]  Boudoukh J., Richardson M., Whitelaw R. (1998). The best of both worlds, Risk 11 (May), 64-67.
[9]  Campbell, S. D. (2006). A review of backtesting and backtesting procedures. The Journal of Risk, 9(2).
[10]  Christoffersen, P. (2009). Backtesting. Encyclopedia of Quantitative Finance.
[11]  Christoffersen, P. F. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts. International economic review, 841-862.
[12]  Dowd, K. (2005). Measuring market risk. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[13]  Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 987-1007.
[14]  Engle, R. F., & Manganelli, S. (1999). CAViaR: conditional value at risk by quantile regression (No. w7341). National bureau of economic research.
[15]  Gencay, R., Dacorogna, M., Olsen, R., & Pictet, O. (2003). Foreign exchange trading models and market behavior. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27(6), 909-935.
[16]  Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. E. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. The journal of finance, 48(5), 1779-1801.
[17]  Hendricks, D. (1996). Evaluation of value-at-risk models using historical data (digest summary). Economic Policy Review Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2(1), 39-67.
[18]  Hull, J., & White, A. (1998). Incorporating volatility updating into the historical simulation method for value-at-risk. Journal of Risk, 1(1), 5-19.
[19]  Jorion, P. (2001). Financial Risk Manager Handbook 2001-2002. Wiley.
[20]  Jorion, P. (2007). Financial risk manager handbook (Vol. 406). John Wiley & Sons.
[21]  Kupiec, P. H. (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models. The journal of Derivatives, 3(2), 73-84.
[22]  McNeil, A. J., & Frey, R. (2000). Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach. Journal of empirical finance, 7(3), 271-300.
[23]  Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, vol.59, No.2, 347-370.
[24]  PĂ©rignon, C., & Smith, D. (2010). The level and quality of value-at-Risk disclosure by commercial banks, Journal of Banking and Finance 34, pp. 362-377.
[25]  Riskmetrics, T. M. (1996). JP Morgan Technical Document.