Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency Data

Background: Since high-frequency data have become available, an unbiased volatility estimator, i.e. realized variance (RV) can be computed. Commonly used models for RV forecasting suffer from strong persistence with a high sensitivity to the returns distribution assumption and they use only daily re...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Arnerić Josip, Poklepović Tea, Teai Juin Wen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sciendo 2018-07-01
Series:Business Systems Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2018-0016
id doaj-d3ca081e79c747cf83868a536b9fe0c8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d3ca081e79c747cf83868a536b9fe0c82021-09-05T21:00:36ZengSciendoBusiness Systems Research1847-93752018-07-0192183410.2478/bsrj-2018-0016Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency DataArnerić Josip0Poklepović Tea1Teai Juin Wen2Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb,Zagreb, CroatiaFaculty of Economics, Business and Tourism, University ofSplit, CroatiaNational University ofSingapore, SingaporeBackground: Since high-frequency data have become available, an unbiased volatility estimator, i.e. realized variance (RV) can be computed. Commonly used models for RV forecasting suffer from strong persistence with a high sensitivity to the returns distribution assumption and they use only daily returns. Objectives: The main objective is measurement and forecasting of RV. Two approaches are compared: Heterogeneous AutoRegressive model (HAR-RV) and Feedforward Neural Networks (FNNs). Even though HAR-RV-type models describe RV stylized facts very well, they ignore its nonlinear behaviour. Therefore, FNN-HAR-type models are developed. Methods/Approach: Firstly, an optimal sampling frequency with application to the DAX index is chosen. Secondly, in and out of sample predictions within HAR models and FNNs are compared using RMSE, AIC, the Wald test and the DM test. Weights of FNN-HAR-type models are estimated using the BP algorithm. Results: The optimal sampling frequency of RV is 10 minutes. Within HAR-type models, HAR-RV-J has better, but not significant, forecasting performances, while FNN-HAR-J and FNNLHAR- J have significantly better predictive accuracy in comparison to the FNN-HAR model. Conclusions: Compared to the traditional ones, FNN-HAR-type models are better in capturing nonlinear behaviour of RV. FNN-HAR-type models have better accuracy compared to traditional HAR-type models, but only on the sample data, whereas their out-of-sample predictive accuracy is approximately equal.https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2018-0016high-frequency datarealized variancenonlinearitylong memoryjumpsleveragefeedforward neural networksheterogeneous autoregressive model
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Arnerić Josip
Poklepović Tea
Teai Juin Wen
spellingShingle Arnerić Josip
Poklepović Tea
Teai Juin Wen
Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency Data
Business Systems Research
high-frequency data
realized variance
nonlinearity
long memory
jumps
leverage
feedforward neural networks
heterogeneous autoregressive model
author_facet Arnerić Josip
Poklepović Tea
Teai Juin Wen
author_sort Arnerić Josip
title Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency Data
title_short Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency Data
title_full Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency Data
title_fullStr Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency Data
title_full_unstemmed Neural Network Approach in Forecasting Realized Variance Using High-Frequency Data
title_sort neural network approach in forecasting realized variance using high-frequency data
publisher Sciendo
series Business Systems Research
issn 1847-9375
publishDate 2018-07-01
description Background: Since high-frequency data have become available, an unbiased volatility estimator, i.e. realized variance (RV) can be computed. Commonly used models for RV forecasting suffer from strong persistence with a high sensitivity to the returns distribution assumption and they use only daily returns. Objectives: The main objective is measurement and forecasting of RV. Two approaches are compared: Heterogeneous AutoRegressive model (HAR-RV) and Feedforward Neural Networks (FNNs). Even though HAR-RV-type models describe RV stylized facts very well, they ignore its nonlinear behaviour. Therefore, FNN-HAR-type models are developed. Methods/Approach: Firstly, an optimal sampling frequency with application to the DAX index is chosen. Secondly, in and out of sample predictions within HAR models and FNNs are compared using RMSE, AIC, the Wald test and the DM test. Weights of FNN-HAR-type models are estimated using the BP algorithm. Results: The optimal sampling frequency of RV is 10 minutes. Within HAR-type models, HAR-RV-J has better, but not significant, forecasting performances, while FNN-HAR-J and FNNLHAR- J have significantly better predictive accuracy in comparison to the FNN-HAR model. Conclusions: Compared to the traditional ones, FNN-HAR-type models are better in capturing nonlinear behaviour of RV. FNN-HAR-type models have better accuracy compared to traditional HAR-type models, but only on the sample data, whereas their out-of-sample predictive accuracy is approximately equal.
topic high-frequency data
realized variance
nonlinearity
long memory
jumps
leverage
feedforward neural networks
heterogeneous autoregressive model
url https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2018-0016
work_keys_str_mv AT arnericjosip neuralnetworkapproachinforecastingrealizedvarianceusinghighfrequencydata
AT poklepovictea neuralnetworkapproachinforecastingrealizedvarianceusinghighfrequencydata
AT teaijuinwen neuralnetworkapproachinforecastingrealizedvarianceusinghighfrequencydata
_version_ 1717782656583729152