Analysis of financial risk in the cryptocurrency market: Evidence from predicting value at risk

Subject Areas : Journal of Investment Knowledge

Zahra Bozorgtabar Baei ¹ , Reza Aghajan Nashtaei ² , Mohammad Hasan Gholizadeh ³

1 - PhD student of Financial engineering, Department of Management, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
2 - Department of Business Management, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran (Corresponding Author)
3 - Department of Management, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Received: 2023-02-08 Accepted : 2023-05-14 Published : 2024-06-21

Keywords: CAViaR, cryptocurrency, Value at risk, DQR,

Abstract :

Considering the extreme fluctuations of the cryptocurrency market and also the importance of predicting the value at risk in such conditions, the purpose of the present study is to predict the value at risk in the cryptocurrency market and also to compare different models for predicting the value at risk. In addition, the impact of different distributions of model innovation terms has been investigated. In this research, we use different models to predict the value at risk of return of four well-known cryptocurrencies. The data used in the research covers the period from 1/1/2018 to 16/3/2022. This research uses CAViaR and DQR models that directly predict the return distribution quantiles as value at risk. In addition to the mentioned models, several types of common models have been used to predict value at risk. In order to check the performance of the used models, we have used the back-test method, which is one of the common methods for testing the performance of the models. The results show that the models that directly use the quantiles of the return distribution to predict value at risk (specifically CAViaR and DQR models) have a much better performance than other common models for predicting value at risk.

References:

• Akhtaruzzaman, M., Sensoy, A., & Corbet, S. (2020). The influence of bitcoin on portfolio diversification and design. Finance Research Letters, 37, 101344.


• Aloui, C., & Mabrouk, S. (2010). Value-at-risk estimations of energy commodities via long-memory, asymmetry and fat-tailed GARCH models. Energy Policy, 38(5), 2326-2339.


• Bassett Jr, G. W., Koenker, R., & Kordas, G. (2004). Pessimistic portfolio allocation and Choquet expected utility. Journal of financial econometrics, 2(4), 477-492.


• Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of econometrics, 31(3), 307-327.


• Bouoiyour, J., & Selmi, R. (2015). What does Bitcoin look like?. Annals of Economics & Finance, 16(2).


• Brauneis, A., & Mestel, R. (2018). Price discovery of cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin and beyond. Economics Letters, 165, 58-61.


• Creal, D., Koopman, S. J., & Lucas, A. (2013). Generalized autoregressive score models with applications. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28(5), 777-795.


• Dyhrberg, A. H. (2016). Bitcoin, gold and the dollar–A GARCH volatility analysis. Finance Research Letters, 16, 85-92.


• Engle, R. F., & Manganelli, S. (2004). CAViaR: Conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles. Journal of business & economic statistics, 22(4), 367-381.


• Fan, Y., Zhang, Y. J., Tsai, H. T., & Wei, Y. M. (2008). Estimating ‘Value at Risk’of crude oil price and its spillover effect using the GED-GARCH approach. Energy Economics, 30(6), 3156-3171.


• Giot, P., & Laurent, S. (2003). Value‐at‐risk for long and short trading positions. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(6), 641-663.


• Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. E. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. The journal of finance, 48(5), 1779-1801.


• Guesmi, K., Saadi, S., Abid, I., & Ftiti, Z. (2019). Portfolio diversification with virtual currency: Evidence from bitcoin. International Review of Financial Analysis, 63, 431-437.


• Hung, J. C., Lee, M. C., & Liu, H. C. (2008). Estimation of value-at-risk for energy commodities via fat-tailed GARCH models. Energy Economics, 30(3), 1173-1191.


• Junior, P. O., Tiwari, A. K., Tweneboah, G., & Asafo-Adjei, E. (2022). GAS and GARCH based value-at-risk modeling of precious metals. Resources Policy, 75, 102456.


• Kajtazi, A., & Moro, A. (2019). The role of bitcoin in well diversified portfolios: A comparative global study. International Review of Financial Analysis, 61, 143-157.


• Katsiampa, P. (2019). Volatility co-movement between Bitcoin and Ether. Finance Research Letters, 30, 221-227.


• Laporta, A. G., Merlo, L., & Petrella, L. (2018). Selection of value at risk models for energy commodities. Energy Economics, 74, 628-643.


• Li, Z. (2022). Honour Thesis: A Joint Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Combination Framework and its Applications in the Cryptocurrency Market. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10918.


• Marimoutou, V., Raggad, B., & Trabelsi, A. (2009). Extreme value theory and value at risk: application to oil market. Energy Economics, 31(4), 519-530.


• Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Available athttps://Bitcoin.org/Bitcoin.pdf.


• Nelson, D.B., Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach, Econometrica, 1991, 59, 347–370.


• Silahli, B., Dingec, K. D., Cifter, A., & Aydin, N. (2021). Portfolio value-at-risk with two-sided Weibull distribution: Evidence from cryptocurrency markets. Finance Research Letters, 38, 101425.


• Tschorsch, F., & Scheuermann, B. (2016). Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 18(3), 2084-2123.