if the return is assumed zero, the epsilon t sequared is the variance of the return but the epsilon_t is not the return. i think we should have a conversation off line because i don't want to bother the whole list with this. what the original email said is still incorrect, ( see below ) but, if all you are saying that the variance, sigma_squared, is expectation of epslion_t squared term is when the mean is zero, i agree with you. the return itself, r_t, is still a normal random variable times this "innovation" as you put it so you can't build an arma or an arima or whatever for the return. if you want to build one for the return squared ( dont' subtract a mean because it's already zero ) , that's fine but then you are really building one for the variance. so, the original should have had epsilon_t squared in the transformed equation, NOT r_t ^2. r_t is still equal to epsilon_t*z_t and e(r_t)^2= sigma_squared but r_t^2 is not the same as the epsilon_t^2. if this isn't clear, i don't know what else to say.
________________________________ From: Hannu Kahra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 4:15 PM To: Leeds, Mark (IED) Cc: Wensui Liu; r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch; Megh Dal Subject: Re: [R] Comparison between GARCH and ARMA Except in the case of zero means, that is point (7) in your previous mail. On 11/7/06, Leeds, Mark (IED) < [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: but not the return squared squared which is what was written previously. . ________________________________ From: Hannu Kahra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:54 PM To: Wensui Liu Cc: Leeds, Mark (IED); r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch; Megh Dal Subject: Re: [R] Comparison between GARCH and ARMA A GARCH model can be regarded as an application of the ARMA idea to the squared innovation series. See, e.g. Ruey S. Tsay, Analysis of Financial Time Series, Wiley, 2nd edition, page 114. Hannu On 11/7/06, Wensui Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mark, I totally agree that it doesn't make sense to compare arma with garch. but to some extent, garch can be considered arma for conditional variance. similarly, arch can be considered ma for conditional variance. the above is just my understanding, which might not be correct. thanks. On 11/7/06, Leeds, Mark (IED) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi : I'm a R novice but I consider myself reasonably versed in time > series related material and > I have never heard of an equivalence between Garch(1,1) for volatility > and an ARMA(1,1) in the squared returns > and I'm almost sure there isn't. > > There are various problems with what you wrote. > > 1) r(t) = h(t)*z(t) not h(i) but that's not a big deal. > > 2) you can't write the equation in terms of r(t) because r(t) = > h(t)*z(t) and h(t) is UPDATED FIRST > And then the relation r(t) = h(t)*z(t) is true ( in the sense of the > model ). So, r(t) is > a function of z(t) , a random variable, so trying to use r(t) on the > left hand side of the volatility > equation doesn't make sense at all. > > 3) even if your equation was valid, what you wrote is not an ARMA(1,1). > The AR term is there but the MA term > ( the beta term ) Has an r_t-1 terms in it when r_t-1 is on the left > side. An MA term in an ARMA framework > multiples lagged noise terms not the lag of what's on the left side. > That's what the AR term does. > > 4) even if your equation was correct in terms of it being a true > ARMA(1,1) , you > Have common coefficients on The AR term and MA term ( beta ) so you > would need contraints to tell the > Model that this was the same term in both places. > > 5) basically, you can't do what you > Are trying to do so you shouldn't expect to any consistency in estimates > Of the intercept for the reasons stated above. > why are you trying to transform in such a way anyway ? > > Now back to your original garch(1,1) model > > 6) a garch(1,1) has a stationarity condition that alpha + beta is less > than 1 > So this has to be satisfied when you estimate a garch(1,1). > > It looks like this condition is satisfied so you should be okay there. > > 7) also, if you are really assuming/believe that the returns have mean > zero to begin with, without subtraction, > Then you shouldn't be subtracting the mean before you estimate > Because eseentially you will be subtracting noise and throwing out > useful > Information that could used in estimating the garch(1,1) parameters. > Maybe you aren't assuming that the mean is zero and you are making the > mean zero which is fine. > > I hope this helps you. I don't mean to be rude but I am just trying to > get across that what you > Are doing is not valid. If you saw the equivalence somewhere in the > literature, > Let me know because I would be interested in looking at it. > > > mark > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] On Behalf Of Megh Dal > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 2:24 AM > To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: [R] Comparison between GARCH and ARMA > > Dear all R user, > > Please forgive me if my problem is too simple. > Actually my problem is basically Statistical rather directly R related. > Suppose I have return series ret > with mean zero. And I want to fit a Garch(1,1) > on this. > > my is r[t] = h[i]*z[t] > > h[t] = w + alpha*r[t-1]^2 + beta*h[t-1] > > I want to estimate the three parameters here; > > the R syntax is as follows: > > # download data: > data(EuStockMarkets) > r <- diff(log(EuStockMarkets))[,"DAX"] > r = r - mean(r) > > # fit a garch(1,1) on this: > library(tseries) > garch(r) > > The estimated parameters are given below: > > ***** ESTIMATION WITH ANALYTICAL GRADIENT ***** > > > > Call: > garch(x = r) > > Coefficient(s): > a0 a1 b1 > 4.746e-06 6.837e-02 8.877e-01 > > Now it is straightforward to transform Garch(1,1) > to a ARMA like this: > > r[t]^2 = w + (alpha+beta)*r[t-1]^2 + beta*(h[t-1] - > r[t-1]^2) - (h[t] - r[t]^2) > = w + (alpha+beta)*r[t-1]^2 + beta*theta[t-1] + theta[t] > > So if I fit a ARMA(1,1) on r[t]^2 I am getting following result; > > arma(r^2, order=c(1,1)) > > Call: > arma(x = r^2, order = c(1, 1)) > > Coefficient(s): > ar1 ma1 intercept > 9.157e-01 -8.398e-01 9.033e-06 > > Therefore if the above derivation is correct then I should get a same > intercept term for both Garch and ARMA case. But here I am not getting > it. Can anyone explain why? > > Any input will be highly appreciated. > > Thanks and regards, > Megh > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > Sponsored Link > > Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate > Click now to apply http://yahoo.degrees.info > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > This is not an offer (or solicitation of an offer) to buy/se...{{dropped}} > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > -- WenSui Liu (http://spaces.msn.com/statcompute/blog ) Senior Decision Support Analyst Cincinnati Children Hospital Medical Center ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ________________________________ This is not an offer (or solicitation of an offer) to buy/sell the securities/instruments mentioned or an official confirmation. Morgan Stanley may deal as principal in or own or act as market maker for securities/instruments mentioned or may advise the issuers. This is not research and is not from MS Research but it may refer to a research analyst/research report. Unless indicated, these views are the author's and may differ from those of Morgan Stanley research or others in the Firm. We do not represent this is accurate or complete and we may not update this. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. For additional information, research reports and important disclosures, contact me or see https://secure.ms.com/servlet/cls. You should not use e-mail to request, authorize or effect the purchase or sale of any security or instrument, to send transfer instructions, or to effect any other transactions. We cannot guarantee that any such requests received via e-mail will be processed in a timely manner. This communication is solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. We do not waive confidentiality by mistransmission. Contact me if you do not wish to receive these communications. In the UK, this communication is directed in the UK to those persons who are market counterparties or intermediate customers (as defined in the UK Financial Services Authority's rules). -------------------------------------------------------- This is not an offer (or solicitation of an offer) to buy/se...{{dropped}} ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
