10.2 Bollerslev’s GARCH Model

An important extension of the ARCH(p) model proposed by Bollerslev (1986) replaces the AR(p) representation of σ2t in (10.10) with an ARMA(p,q) formulation giving the GARCH(p,q) model: σ2t=ω+pi=1αiε2ti+qj=1βjσ2tj In order for σ2t>0, it is assumed that ω>0 and the coefficients αi (i=0,,p) and βj (j=1,,q) are all non-negative.55 When q=0, the GARCH(p,q) model (10.14) reduces to the ARCH(p) model. In general, the GARCH(p,q) model can be shown to be equivalent to a particular ARCH() model.

Usually the GARCH(1,1) model, σ2t=ω+α1ε2t1+β1σ2t1, with only three parameters in the conditional variance equation is adequate to obtain a good model fit for daily asset returns. Indeed, Hansen and Lund (2004) provided compelling evidence that is difficult to find a volatility model that outperforms the simple GARCH(1,1). Hence, for many purposes the GARCH(1,1) model is the de facto volatility model of choice for daily returns.

10.2.1 Statistical Properties of the GARCH(1,1) Model

The statistical properties of the GARCH(1,1) model are derived in the same way as the properties of the ARCH(1) model and are summarized below:

  1. {Rt} is a covariance stationary and ergodic process provided α1+β1<1.
  2. var(Rt)=E(ϵ2t)=E(σ2t)=ω/(1α1β1)=ˉσ2.
  3. The distribution of Rt conditional on It1 is normal with mean μ and variance σ2t.
  4. The unconditional (marginal) distribution of Rt is not normal and kurt(Rt)=3(1+α1+β1)(1α1β1)12α1β13α21β213.
  5. {R2t} and {ε2t} have an ARMA(1,1) representation ε2t=ω+(α1+β1)ε2t1+utβ1ut1, with ut=ε2tσ2t. The persistence of the autocorrelations is given by α1+β1.
  6. σ2t has an AR() representation σ2t=ω1β1+α1j=0βj1ε2tj1.

The derivations of these properties are left as end-of-chapter exercise.

  • Need some comments here: more flexible autocorrelations structure for R2t than ARCH(p) and with fewer parameters.
Example 10.1 (Simulate GARCH(1,1) model using rugarch)

Consider simulating T=1000 observations from the GARCH(1,1) model Rt=εt=σtzt, ztiid N(0,1)σ2t=0.01+0.07R2t1+0.92σ2t1 This process is covariance stationary since α1+β1=0.07+0.92=0.9<1, and ˉσ2=ω/(1α1β1)=0.01/0.01=1. This GARCH(1,1) model has the same unconditional variance as the ARCH(5) model from the previous example but has much higher persistence. This model can be specified using the rugarch ugarchspec() function as follows:

garch11.spec = ugarchspec(variance.model = list(garchOrder=c(1,1)), 
                          mean.model = list(armaOrder=c(0,0)),
                          fixed.pars=list(mu = 0, omega=0.1, 
                                          alpha1=0.1, beta1 = 0.8))

This model has the same unconditional variance and persistence as the ARCH(5) model in the previous example. Simulated values for Rt and σt, using the same random number seed as the ARCH(5) simulations, are created using

set.seed(123)
garch11.sim = ugarchpath(garch11.spec, n.sim=1000)

and are displayed in Figure xxx. The simulated GARCH(1,1) values of Rt and σt are quite different from the simulated ARCH(1) values. In particular, the simulated returns Rt show fewer extreme values than the ARCH(1) returns and the simulated volatilities σt values appear to show more persistence than the ARCH(1) volatilities. The sample autocorrelations in Figure xxx show the interesting result that R2t exhibits little autocorrelation whereas σ2t exhibits substantial positive autocorrelation.

sd(garch11.sim@path$seriesSim)
## [1] 0.9628771
kurtosis(garch11.sim@path$seriesSim)
## [1] 0.04431907

References

Conrad, C., and B. R. Haag. 2006. Inequality Constraints in the Fractionally Integrated Garch Model. Journal of Financial Econometrics. Vol. 4.

Nelson, D. B., and Charles Q. Cao. 1992. Inequality Constraints in the Univariate Garch Model. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. Vol. 10.


  1. Positive coefficients are sufficient but not necessary conditions for the positivity of conditional variance. See (Nelson and Cao 1992) and (Conrad and Haag 2006) for more general conditions.↩︎