ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
This study attempts to estimate the value-at-risk (VaR) to forecast volatility for both conventional and Islamic stock markets in Malaysia. In particular, the purpose of the article is to investigate whether GARCH models are accurate in the evaluation of VaR in emerging stock markets such as Malaysia.The daily return of the conventional (KLCI) and Islamic (FBMS) stock market are analysed for the period 2000 – 2015. The volatility model of GARCH (1,1), TGARCH (1,1) and CGARCH (1,1) with a normal and and student-t distribution are used to model the conditional variance of the stock market returns. The VaR violations of unconditional coverage and the backtesting procedure of Kupiec test are used to check the reliability and accuracy of the volatility model used for both normal and student-t distribution. Based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), the best model for modelling the conventional and Islamic stock market returns is TGARCH (1,1). The backtesting results showed that for all GARCH models used, the normal distribution gives better forecast VaR compared to the student’s t distribution.
Abdrashev, N. (2016). Comparison of Islamic and conventional bank stocks by Value-At-Risk method. Journal of Insurance and Financial Management, 19-31.
Albaity, M., & Ahmad, R. (2011). Return performance, leverage effect, and volatility spillover in. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 161-171.
Angelidisa, T., Benosa, A., & Degiannakis, S. (2004). The use of GARCH models in VaR estimation. Statistical Methodology, 105-128.
Bhatt, V., & Sultan, J. (2012). Leverage Risk, Financial Crisis, and Stock Returns: A Comparison among Islamic, Conventional, and Socially Responsible Stocks. Islamic Economic Studies, 87-143.
Bollershev, T. (1986). Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 307-327.
Danielsson, J. (2011). Financial Risk Forecasting: The Theory and Practice of Forecasting Market Risk with Implementation in R and Matlab. London: Wiley.
Ding, Z., & Granger, C. (1996). Modeling Volatility Persistence of Speculative Returns: A New Approach. Journal of Ecometrics, 185-215.
Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation. Econometrica, 987-1007.
Engle, R. F., & Lee , G. (1999). A Permanent and Transitory Component Model of Stock Return Volatility in R.F. Engle and H. White (eds.), Cointegration, Causality, and Forecasting: A Festschrift in Honor of Clive W.J. Granger. Oxford University Press, 475-497.
Glosten, L., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. (1993). On the Relation between the Expected Value and the Volatility of the Nominal Excess Return on Stocks. The Journal of Finance, 1779-1801.
Goudarzi , H. (2011). Modeling Asymmetric Volatility in the Indian Stock Market. International Journal of Business and Management , 221-231.
Kupiec, P. H. (1995). Techniques for Verifying the Accuracy of Risk Measurement Models. The Jounal of Derivatives, 73-84.
Li, Y.-X., Lian , J.-G., & Zhang, H.-K. (2016). Forecast and Backtesting of VAR Models in Crude Oil Market. Journal of Statistics and Mathematical Sciences, 131-140.
Nasr, A. B., Lux , T., Ajmid, A., & Guptae, R. (2016). Forecasting the volatility of the Dow Jones Islamic Stock Market Index: Long memory vs. regime switching. International Review of Economics and Finance, 559-571.
Smolovi?, J. C., Lipovina-Božovi? , M., & Vujoševi?, S. (2017). GARCH models in value at risk estimation:empirical evidence from the Montenegrin stock exchange. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 477-498.
Zakoian, J. M. (1994). Threshold heteroskedastic models. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 931-955.
In-Text Citation: (Aridi, Cheong, & Hooi, 2018)
To Cite this Article: Aridi, N. A., Cheong, C. W., & Hooi, T. S. (2018). An Estimation of Value at Risk using GARCH Models for the Conventional and Islamic Stock Market in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(11), 2054–2065.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode