Volatility forecasting performance of smooth transition exponential smoothing method: Evidence from mutual fund indices in Malaysia

3Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This paper aims to empirically compare the performance of the smooth transition exponential smoothing (STES) method against the well-known generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model in one-step-ahead volatility forecasting. While the GARCH model captured most of the stylized facts of the financial time series, threats of outliers in the leptokurtic distributed series remain unresolved. The study compared volatility forecasting performance of a total of 22 models and methods comprising STES, GARCH, and some ad-hoc forecasting. The daily returns of seven mutual fund indices (derived from 57 individual equity mutual funds) under two different economic conditions (sub-periods) were applied across all competing models. Findings revealed that the STES method with error and absolute error as transition variables emerged as the best post-sample volatility forecasting model in both sub-periods with and without financial crisis impact, as verified by model confidence set (MCS) procedure. The implications based on the results are: (1) both the sign and size of yesterday's news shock have an impact on today's volatility; (2) the STES method is resilient to outliers, and hence superior to GARCH and other volatility forecasting approaches examined. This study contributes an empirical approach in forecasting the risk of mutual funds investment for investors and fund managers, as well as extending the scope of volatility forecasting literature into the less explored mutual funds.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kin, W. C., Chong, C. W., Nassir, A. M., Habibullah, M. S., & Yusop, Z. (2021). Volatility forecasting performance of smooth transition exponential smoothing method: Evidence from mutual fund indices in Malaysia. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 11(10), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.18488/JOURNAL.AEFR.2021.1110.829.859

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free