1 / 22

Dynamic Model for Stock Market Risk Evaluation

Dynamic Model for Stock Market Risk Evaluation. Kasimir Kaliva and Lasse Koskinen Insurance Supervisory Authority Finland. Goal : Stock Market Risk Modelling in Long Horizon. Phenomenon : Stock market bubble Model should work from one quarter to several years

lisabacon
Download Presentation

Dynamic Model for Stock Market Risk Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Dynamic Model for Stock Market Risk Evaluation Kasimir Kaliva and Lasse Koskinen Insurance Supervisory Authority Finland

  2. Goal: Stock Market Risk Modelling in Long Horizon • Phenomenon: Stock market bubble • Model should work from one quarter to several years • Prices should be mean reverting • Fundament: Dividend / Price – ratio • Explanatory factor: Inflation • Usage: Risk Assessment and DFA

  3. Background • Theory: Gordon growth model for dividend Dynamics: Campbell et al, also near Wilkie • Dividend-price-ratio (P/D) time-varying, stationary =>Mean reversion in stock prices Inflation expectation: Modigliani and Cohn (79) • Statistical model: • Logistic Mixture Autoregression with exogenous variable (Wong and Li (01)) • Conditional (dynamic) on P/D -ratio

  4. Data • U.S. quarterly stock market (SP500) and inflation series; Log returns and dividens • Prices and dividends • Period: 1959 –1994 • Structural breaks in dividend series and price/dividend –series in 1958 and 1995 • 1995- 2001 – share repurchases and growth strategies won popularity

  5. Structural Break in Dividends in 1955

  6. Final Model Structure • Two state (S(t)) regime-switching model: If S(t) = 1: Δ p(t) = a1 + e1(t), (RW) If S(t) = 2: Δ p(t) = a2 – by(t-1)+ e2(t), causes mean reversion - e1(t) ∼N(0,σ1), e2(t) ∼N(0,σ2), - y(t) = dividend/price -ratio • State hidden: Prob{ S(t) = 1} = F( f(inflation) ); F is normal distribution, f is a function

  7. Statistical Model for Dividend and Inflation • Dividend: AR(2)-ARCH(4) –model - Dividend is the driving factor. • Inflation: AR(4) –model where dividend is explanatory variable - Note! This is just statistical relation, not causal. See fig on cross-correlation!

  8. Cross-Correlation Inflation vs Dividend Growth

  9. Price Dynamics Log-Likelihood method results in the following significant relation: S(t) = 1: Δ p(t) = 0.027 + e1(t) S(t) = 2: Δ p(t) = 1.078 – 0.357y(t-1)+ e2(t), - e1(t) ∼N(0,0.052), e2(t) ∼N(0,0.077) • Return distribution conditional: State S(t) and y(t) = log(P(t) /D(t))

  10. Model Testing • The model is compared to 1) more general and 2) linear alternatives: - More general LMARX (that include standard RW and more complicated models) is rejected at 5 % level - Information criterion AIC and BIC select the nonlinear model instead of linear one

  11. Model Diagnostic • Quantile (QQ) –plot shows: - Normal distribution assumption for the residuals of the linear model is wrong (fig) • Quantile residual plot shows: - Excellent fit for LMARX See fig. (Can see that it is not from normal distribution?)

  12. QQ-plot for linear model(residuals)

  13. QQ-plot for LMARX(quantile residuals)

  14. Prob{S=2 } as a function of inflation- High inflation is tricker for state-switch

  15. Intrerpretation • Model operates much more often in state 1 than in state 2; that is RW is a good description most of the time • E(Δ d) = 0.014 < 0.027 = E(RW | S =1). => process generates bubbles => switch from S=1 to S=2 causes a market crash, since b < 0 (b is the coefficient of log(P(t) /D(t)) in state 2) => process is mean reverting

  16. UK – data (not in the paper) • Overfitting is a danger especially when nonlinear model is used => We tested also the UK -data =>The model structure remains invariant (heteroscedastic residuals)

  17. Risk Assessment • The proposed model has shape-changing predictive distribution • Shape depends on - prediction horizon - inflation - P/D –ratio => Risk is time-varying

  18. 1-year Predictive Distribution.Log(P/D): a) low 3.2 b) high 3.8

  19. 1-year Predictive Distribution.Log(P/D) is 3.8, Inflation 4 %

  20. 5-year Predictive Distribution.Log(P/D) is 3.8, Inflation 4 %

  21. 10-year Predictive Distribution.Log(P/D) is 3.8, Inflation 4 %

  22. Present Situation • Good: Stock market risk is much lower than in 2000 • Bad: P/D –ratio still high in the U.S.

More Related