IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v8y2020i3p95-d410286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Least Quartic Regression Criterion to Evaluate Systematic Risk in the Presence of Co-Skewness and Co-Kurtosis

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Arbia

    (Department of Statistical Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123 Milan, Italy)

  • Riccardo Bramante

    (Department of Statistical Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123 Milan, Italy)

  • Silvia Facchinetti

    (Department of Statistical Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Gemelli 1, 20123 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

This article proposes a new method for the estimation of the parameters of a simple linear regression model which is based on the minimization of a quartic loss function. The aim is to extend the traditional methodology, based on the normality assumption, to also take into account higher moments and to provide a measure for situations where the phenomenon is characterized by strong non-Gaussian distribution like outliers, multimodality, skewness and kurtosis. Although the proposed method is very general, along with the description of the methodology, we examine its application to finance. In fact, in this field, the contribution of the co-moments in explaining the return-generating process is of paramount importance when evaluating the systematic risk of an asset within the framework of the Capital Asset Pricing Model. We also illustrate a Monte Carlo test of significance on the estimated slope parameter and an application of the method based on the top 300 market capitalization components of the STOXX ® Europe 600. A comparison between the slope coefficients evaluated using the ordinary Least Squares (LS) approach and the new Least Quartic (LQ) technique shows that the perception of market risk exposure is best captured by the proposed estimator during market turmoil, and it seems to anticipate the market risk increase typical of these periods. Moreover, by analyzing the out-of-sample risk-adjusted returns we show that the proposed method outperforms the ordinary LS estimator in terms of the most common performance indices. Finally, a bootstrap analysis suggests that significantly different Sharpe ratios between LS and LQ yields and Value at Risk estimates can be considered more accurate in the LQ framework. This study adds insights into market analysis and helps in identifying more precisely potentially risky assets whose extreme behavior is strongly dependent on market behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Arbia & Riccardo Bramante & Silvia Facchinetti, 2020. "Least Quartic Regression Criterion to Evaluate Systematic Risk in the Presence of Co-Skewness and Co-Kurtosis," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:95-:d:410286
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/8/3/95/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/8/3/95/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Federico Pasquale Cortese, 2019. "Tail Dependence in Financial Markets: A Dynamic Copula Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    3. Ledoit, Oliver & Wolf, Michael, 2008. "Robust performance hypothesis testing with the Sharpe ratio," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 850-859, December.
    4. Jondeau, Eric & Zhang, Qunzi & Zhu, Xiaoneng, 2019. "Average skewness matters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 29-47.
    5. Fernandez-Perez, Adrian & Frijns, Bart & Fuertes, Ana-Maria & Miffre, Joelle, 2018. "The skewness of commodity futures returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 143-158.
    6. Kim, Daeyoung & Kim, Jong-Min & Liao, Shu-Min & Jung, Yoon-Sung, 2013. "Mixture of D-vine copulas for modeling dependence," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-19.
    7. Eric Jondeau & Michael Rockinger, 2006. "Optimal Portfolio Allocation under Higher Moments," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 12(1), pages 29-55, January.
    8. Barone-Adesi, Giovanni, 1985. "Arbitrage Equilibrium with Skewed Asset Returns," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 299-313, September.
    9. Jennifer Conrad & Robert F. Dittmar & Eric Ghysels, 2013. "Ex Ante Skewness and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(1), pages 85-124, February.
    10. Christie-David, Rohan & Chaudhry, Mukesh, 2001. "Coskewness and cokurtosis in futures markets," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 55-81, March.
    11. Zhang, Zhengjun & Huang, James, 2006. "Extremal financial risk models and portfolio evaluation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 2313-2338, December.
    12. Zhu, Dongming & Zinde-Walsh, Victoria, 2009. "Properties and estimation of asymmetric exponential power distribution," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 86-99, January.
    13. Dißmann, J. & Brechmann, E.C. & Czado, C. & Kurowicka, D., 2013. "Selecting and estimating regular vine copulae and application to financial returns," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 52-69.
    14. Chris Brooks, 2005. "Autoregressive Conditional Kurtosis," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 399-421.
    15. McNeil, Alexander J. & Frey, Rudiger, 2000. "Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(3-4), pages 271-300, November.
    16. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2008. "Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2066-2100, December.
    17. Nikoloulopoulos, Aristidis K. & Joe, Harry & Li, Haijun, 2012. "Vine copulas with asymmetric tail dependence and applications to financial return data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3659-3673.
    18. Harvey, Campbell R. & Siddique, Akhtar, 1999. "Autoregressive Conditional Skewness," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 465-487, December.
    19. Barone-Adesi, Giovanni & Talwar, Prem P, 1983. "Market Models and Heteroscedasticity of Residual Security Returns," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(2), pages 163-168, April.
    20. Levy, Haim, 1969. "A Utility Function Depending on the First Three Moments: Comment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 24(4), pages 715-719, September.
    21. Alp, Tansel & Demetrescu, Matei, 2010. "Joint forecasts of Dow Jones stocks under general multivariate loss function," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 2360-2371, November.
    22. Mathieu Bargès & Hélène Cossette & Etienne Marceau, 2009. "TVaR-based capital allocation with copulas," Working Papers hal-00431265, HAL.
    23. So, Mike K.P. & Chan, Raymond K.S., 2014. "Bayesian analysis of tail asymmetry based on a threshold extreme value model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 568-587.
    24. Brian Boyer & Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2010. "Expected Idiosyncratic Skewness," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 169-202, January.
    25. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker & Christian Gollier, 2007. "Optimal Beliefs, Asset Prices, and the Preference for Skewed Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 159-165, May.
    26. Byun, Suk-Joon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2016. "Gambling preference and individual equity option returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 155-174.
    27. Badrinath, S G & Chatterjee, Sangit, 1988. "On Measuring Skewness and Elongation in Common Stock Return Distributions: The Case of the Market Index," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(4), pages 451-472, October.
    28. Hwang, Soosung & Satchell, Stephen E, 1999. "Modelling Emerging Market Risk Premia Using Higher Moments," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(4), pages 271-296, October.
    29. John Lintner, 1965. "Security Prices, Risk, And Maximal Gains From Diversification," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 20(4), pages 587-615, December.
    30. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    31. Qingfu Liu & Pan Jiang & Yunbi An & Keith Cheung, 2020. "The effectiveness of incorporating higher moments in portfolio strategies: evidence from the Chinese commodity futures markets," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 653-668, April.
    32. Gurdip Bakshi & Nikunj Kapadia & Dilip Madan, 2003. "Stock Return Characteristics, Skew Laws, and the Differential Pricing of Individual Equity Options," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 16(1), pages 101-143.
    33. Rubinstein, Mark, 1994. "Implied Binomial Trees," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(3), pages 771-818, July.
    34. Kraus, Alan & Litzenberger, Robert, 1983. "On the Distributional Conditions for a Consumption-Oriented Three Moment CAPM," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 38(5), pages 1381-1391, December.
    35. Mark Rubinstein., 1994. "Implied Binomial Trees," Research Program in Finance Working Papers RPF-232, University of California at Berkeley.
    36. Campbell R. Harvey & Akhtar Siddique, 2000. "Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(3), pages 1263-1295, June.
    37. Kraus, Alan & Litzenberger, Robert H, 1976. "Skewness Preference and the Valuation of Risk Assets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1085-1100, September.
    38. Bargès, Mathieu & Cossette, Hélène & Marceau, Étienne, 2009. "TVaR-based capital allocation with copulas," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 348-361, December.
    39. Sears, R Stephen & Wei, K C John, 1988. "The Structure of Skewness Preferences in Asset Pricing Models with Higher Moments: An Empirical Test," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 23(1), pages 25-38, February.
    40. So, Mike K.P. & Yeung, Cherry Y.T., 2014. "Vine-copula GARCH model with dynamic conditional dependence," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 655-671.
    41. McElroy, Tucker & Jach, Agnieszka, 2012. "Tail index estimation in the presence of long-memory dynamics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 266-282.
    42. Engle, Robert F, 1982. "Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 987-1007, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giuseppe arbia, 2014. "Least quartic Regression Criterion with Application to Finance," Papers 1403.4171, arXiv.org.
    2. Lambert, M. & Hübner, G., 2013. "Comoment risk and stock returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 191-205.
    3. Ayadi, Mohamed A. & Cao, Xu & Lazrak, Skander & Wang, Yan, 2019. "Do idiosyncratic skewness and kurtosis really matter?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Jondeau, Eric & Zhang, Qunzi & Zhu, Xiaoneng, 2019. "Average skewness matters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 29-47.
    5. Hou, Yang & Holmes, Mark, 2017. "On the effects of static and autoregressive conditional higher order moments on dynamic optimal hedging," MPRA Paper 82000, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Dheeraj Misra & Sushma Vishnani & Ankit Mehrotra, 2019. "Four-moment CAPM Model: Evidence from the Indian Stock Market," Journal of Emerging Market Finance, Institute for Financial Management and Research, vol. 18(1_suppl), pages 137-166, April.
    7. Jang, Jeewon & Kang, Jangkoo, 2017. "An intertemporal CAPM with higher-order moments," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 314-337.
    8. Xu, Zhongxiang & Chevapatrakul, Thanaset & Li, Xiafei, 2019. "Return asymmetry and the cross section of stock returns," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 93-110.
    9. Bali, Turan G. & Cakici, Nusret & Whitelaw, Robert F., 2011. "Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 427-446, February.
    10. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, December.
    11. Yang (Greg) Hou & Mark Holmes, 2020. "Do higher order moments of return distribution provide better decisions in minimum-variance hedging? Evidence from US stock index futures," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 240-265, May.
    12. Eric Jondeau & Xuewu Wang & Zhipeng Yan & Qunzi Zhang, 2020. "Skewness and index futures return," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(11), pages 1648-1664, November.
    13. Hollstein, Fabian & Nguyen, Duc Binh Benno & Prokopczuk, Marcel, 2019. "Asset prices and “the devil(s) you know”," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 20-35.
    14. Trung H. Le & Apostolos Kourtis & Raphael Markellos, 2023. "Modeling skewness in portfolio choice," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 734-770, June.
    15. Paul Schneider & Christian Wagner & Josef Zechner, 2020. "Low‐Risk Anomalies?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(5), pages 2673-2718, October.
    16. I-Hsuan Ethan Chiang, 2016. "Skewness And Coskewness In Bond Returns," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 39(2), pages 145-178, June.
    17. Turan G. Bali & Nusret Cakici & Robert F. Whitelaw, 2009. "Maxing Out: Stocks as Lotteries and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," NBER Working Papers 14804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Byun, Suk-Joon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2016. "Gambling preference and individual equity option returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 155-174.
    19. Andreas Oehler & Julian Schneider, 2022. "Gambling with lottery stocks?," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(6), pages 477-503, October.
    20. Langlois, Hugues, 2020. "Measuring skewness premia," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(2), pages 399-424.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:95-:d:410286. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.