Search results

This paper aims to examine and compare the dividend ratios’ statistical and economic ability to predict the equity premium in the UK and US markets and two US sub-indices (S&P 500 Growth and S&P 500 Value).

In this paper, the authors use the linear regression models to examine the dividend ratios’ statistical ability to predict the equity premium. The in-sample and out-of-sample approaches, including Diebold and Mariano (1995) statistics, and Goyal and Welch’s (2003) graphical approach, are used. Also, the mean-variance analysis is used to test the economic significance.

The paper findings indicate that the dividend ratios have in-sample and out-of-sample predictive abilities in both UK and US markets and both US sub-indices. However, the results show that the dividend ratios have a less impressive predictive ability in the US market compared to the UK market and less in the US value index than the US growth index. This could indicate that there is no relation between the number of companies that distribute dividends in each index and the informativeness of dividends ratios. Furthermore, the tests show the dividend ratios’ predictive ability departure during particular periods and in some indices.

Results and implications of this research are exclusively applied to the US and UK markets. These results can also be applied with caution to other markets, taking into consideration the distinctive characteristics of these markets.

Results revealed in this paper imply that the investors in any of the indices may experience economic gain by adopting a dynamic trading strategy using the information content of the dividend ratios prediction models instead of the benchmark model, which is the prevailing simple moving average model.

This paper adds value through testing the prediction models’ economic significance in two well-developed markets, in addition to exploring the relationship between the number of companies distributing cash dividends and the dividends ratio prediction ability. Unlike most of the previous studies in which dividend ratios’ prediction ability is attributed to the number of companies that distribute dividends in the market, this paper denied this interpretation by studying two S&P 500 sub-indices. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to test the prediction models’ ability for these sub-indices.

This chapter develops a predictive approach to Granger causality (GC) testing that utilizes k -fold cross-validation and posterior simulation to perform out-of-sample testing. A Monte Carlo study indicates that the cross-validation predictive procedure has improved power in comparison to previously available out-of-sample testing procedures, matching the performance of the in-sample F-test while retaining the credibility of post- sample inference. An empirical application to the Phillips curve is provided evaluating the evidence on GC between inflation and unemployment rates.

We investigate predictive abilities of nonlinear models for stock returns when density forecasts are evaluated and compared instead of the conditional mean point forecasts. The aim of this paper is to show whether the in-sample evidence of strong nonlinearity in mean may be exploited for out-of-sample prediction and whether a nonlinear model may beat the martingale model in out-of-sample prediction. We use the Kullback–Leibler Information Criterion (KLIC) divergence measure to characterize the extent of misspecification of a forecast model. The reality check test of White (2000) using the KLIC as a loss function is conducted to compare the out-of-sample performance of competing conditional mean models. In this framework, the KLIC measures not only model specification error but also parameter estimation error, and thus we treat both types of errors as loss. The conditional mean models we use for the daily closing S&P 500 index returns include the martingale difference, ARMA, STAR, SETAR, artificial neural network, and polynomial models. Our empirical findings suggest the out-of-sample predictive abilities of nonlinear models for stock returns are asymmetric in the sense that the right tails of the return series are predictable via many of the nonlinear models, while we find no such evidence for the left tails or the entire distribution.

Value at risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES) are popular market risk measurements. The former is not coherent but robust, whereas the latter is coherent but less interpretable, only conditionally backtestable and less robust. In this chapter, we compare an innovative artificial neural network (ANN) model with a time series model in the context of forecasting VaR and ES of the univariate time series of four asset classes: US large capitalization equity index, European large cap equity index, US bond index, and US dollar versus euro exchange rate price index for the period of January 4, 1999, to December 31, 2018. In general, the ANN model has more favorable backtesting results as compared to the autoregressive moving average, generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARMA-GARCH) time series model. In terms of forecasting accuracy, the ANN model has much fewer in-sample and out-of-sample exceptions than those of the ARMA-GARCH model.

The optimization of investment portfolios is a topic of major importance in financial decision making, with many relevant models available in the relevant literature. The purpose of this paper is to perform a thorough comparative assessment of different bi-objective models as well as multi-objective one, in terms of the performance and robustness of the whole set of Pareto optimal portfolios.

In this study, three bi-objective models are considered (mean-variance (MV), mean absolute deviation, conditional value-at-risk (CVaR)), as well as a multi-objective model. An extensive comparison is performed using data from the Standard and Poor’s 500 index, over the period 2005–2016, through a rolling-window testing scheme. The results are analyzed using novel performance indicators representing the deviations between historical (estimated) efficient frontiers, actual out-of-sample efficient frontiers and realized out-of-sample portfolio results.

The obtained results indicate that the well-known MV model provides quite robust results compared to other bi-objective optimization models. On the other hand, the CVaR model appears to be the least robust model. The multi-objective approach offers results which are well balanced and quite competitive against simpler bi-objective models, in terms of out-of-sample performance.

This is the first comparative study of portfolio optimization models that examines the performance of the whole set of efficient portfolios, proposing analytical ways to assess their stability and robustness over time. Moreover, an extensive out-of-sample testing of a multi-objective portfolio optimization model is performed, through a rolling-window scheme, in contrast static results in prior works. The insights derived from the obtained results could be used to design improved and more robust portfolio optimization models, focusing on a multi-objective setting.

This paper aims to present several Bayesian specification tests for both in- and out-of-sample situations.

The authors focus on the Bayesian equivalents of the frequentist approach for testing heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation and functional form specification. For out-of-sample diagnostics, the authors consider several tests to evaluate the predictive ability of the model.

The authors demonstrate the performance of these tests using an application on the relationship between price and occupancy rate from the hotel industry. For purposes of comparison, the authors also provide evidence from traditional frequentist tests.

There certainly exist other issues and diagnostic tests that are not covered in this paper. The issues that are addressed, however, are critically important and can be applied to most modeling situations.

With the increased use of the Bayesian approach in various modeling contexts, this paper serves as an important guide for diagnostic testing in Bayesian analysis. Diagnostic analysis is essential and should always accompany the estimation of regression models.

Automated valuation models (AVMs) are statistical asset pricing models omnipresent in residential real estate markets, where they inform property tax assessment, mortgage underwriting and marketing. Use of these asset pricing models outside of residential real estate is rare. The purpose of the paper is to explore key characteristics of commercial office lease contracts and test an application in estimating office market rental prices using an AVM.

The authors apply a semi-log ordinary least squares hedonic regression approach to estimate either contract rent or the total costs of occupancy (TOC) (“grossed up” rent). Furthermore, the authors adopt a training/test split in the observed leasing data to evaluate the accuracy of using these pricing models for prediction. In the study, 80% of the samples are randomly selected to train the AVM and 20% was held back to test accuracy out of sample. A naive prediction model is used to establish accuracy prediction benchmarks for the AVM using the out-of-sample test data. To evaluate the performance of the AVM, the authors use a Monte Carlo simulation to run the selection process 100 times and calculate the test dataset's mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), median absolute percentage error (MdAPE), coefficient of dispersion (COD) and the training model's r-squared statistic (R²) for each run.

Using a sample of office lease transactions in Sydney CBD (Central Business District), Australia, the authors demonstrate accuracy statistics that are comparable to those used in residential valuation and outperform a naive model.

AVMs in an office leasing context have significant implications for practice. First, an AVM can act as an impartial arbiter in market rent review disputes. Second, the technology may enable frequent market rent reviews as a lease negotiation strategy that allows tenants and property owners to share market risk by limiting concerns over high costs and adversarial litigation that can emerge in a market rent review dispute.

This paper aims to investigate whether the best statistical model also corresponds to the best empirical performance in the volatility modeling of financialized commodity markets.

The authors use various p and q values in Value-at-Risk (VaR) GARCH(p, q) estimation and perform backtesting at different confidence levels, different out-of-sample periods and different data frequencies for eight financialized commodities.

They find that the best fitted GARCH(p,q) model tends to generate the best empirical performance for most financialized commodities. Their findings are consistent at different confidence levels and different out-of-sample periods. However, the strong results occur for both daily and weekly returns series. They obtain weak results for the monthly series.

Their research method is limited to the GARCH(p,q) model and the eight discussed financialized commodities.

They conclude that they should continue to rely on the log-likelihood statistical criteria for choosing a GARCH(p,q) model in financialized commodity markets for daily and weekly forecasting horizons.

The log-likelihood statistical criterion has strong predictive power in GARCH high-frequency data series (daily and weekly). This finding justifies the importance of using statistical criterion in financial market modeling.

First, this paper investigates whether the best statistical model corresponds to the best empirical performance. Second, this paper provides an indirect test for evaluating the accuracy of volatility modeling by using the VaR approach.

Under the classical mean-variance framework, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the properties of the instability of minimal variance portfolio and then propose a novel penalized expected risk criterion (PERC) for optimal portfolio selection.

The proposed method considers not only a portfolio’s expected risk, but also its instability that is quantified by the variance of the estimated portfolio weights. This study tests the out-of-sample performance of various portfolio selection methods on both China and US stock markets.

It is very useful to control portfolio stability in real application of portfolio selection. The empirical results on both US and China stock markets show that PERC portfolio effectively controls turnover and consequently the transaction cost, and that is why it is so competing compared with other alternative methods.

The findings suggest that the rebalancing turnover and the associated transaction cost that is usually ignored in theoretical analysis play a very important role in real investment.

For investors, especially institutional investors, the rebalancing turnover and corresponding transaction cost must be carefully addressed. The variance of the estimated portfolio weights is a good candidate to quantify portfolio instability.

This study addresses the important role of portfolio instability and proposes a novel expected risk criterion for portfolio selection after the quantitative definition of portfolio instability.

In this paper the authors examine evidence on exchange rate predictability through commodity prices for a set of countries categorized as commodity import- and export-dependent developed and emerging countries.

The authors perform in-sample and out-of-sample forecasting analysis. The commodity prices are modeled to predict the exchange rate and to analyze whether this commodity price model can perform better than the random walk model (RWM) or not. These two models are compared and evaluated in terms of exchange rate forecasting abilities based on mean squared forecast error and Theil inequality coefficient.

The authors find that primary commodity prices better predict exchange rates in almost two-thirds of export-dependent developed countries. In contrast, the RWM shows superior performance in the majority of export-dependent emerging, import-dependent emerging and developed countries.

Previous studies examined the exchange rate of commodity export-dependent developed countries mainly. This study examines both developed and emerging countries and finds for which one the changes in prices of export commodities (in case of commodity export-dependent country) or prices of major importing commodities (in case of import-dependent countries) can significantly predict the exchange rate.