International Journal of Business and Social Science
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
MODELING STOCK MARKET VOLATILITY USING GARCH MODELS EVIDENCE FROM SUDAN
Ahmed Elsheikh M. Ahmed
Associate Professor of Econometrics
Department of Econometrics & Social Statistics
Faculty of Economic & Social Studies
University of Khartoum
Khartoum, Sudan.
Suliman Zakaria Suliman
Assistant Professor
Department of Quantitative Analysis
College of Business Administration, King Saud University
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
This paper uses the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedastic models to estimate volatility
(conditional variance) in the daily returns of the principal stock exchange of Sudan namely, Khartoum Stock
Exchange (KSE) over the period from January 2006 to November 2010. The models include both symmetric and
asymmetric models that capture the most common stylized facts about index returns such as volatility clustering
and leverage effect. The empirical results show that the conditional variance process is highly persistent
(explosive process), and provide evidence on the existence of risk premium for the KSE index return series which
support the positive correlation hypothesis between volatility and the expected stock returns. Our findings also
show that the asymmetric models provide better fit than the symmetric models, which confirms the presence of
leverage effect. These results, in general, explain that high volatility of index return series is present in Sudanese
stock market over the sample period.
KEY WORDS: Khartoum index; volatility; GARCH models; leverage Effect.
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last few years, modelling and forecasting volatility of a financial time series has become a fertile area for
research, this is simply because volatility is considered as an important concept for many economic and financial
applications, like portfolio optimization, risk management and asset pricing. In simple words, volatility means
“the conditional variance of the underlying asset return” [1]. A special feature of this volatility is that it is not
directly observable, so that financial analysts are especially keen to obtain a precise estimate of this conditional
variance process, and consequently, a number of models have been developed that are especially suited to
estimate the conditional volatility of financial instruments, of which the most well-known and frequently applied
model for this volatility are the conditional heteroscedastic models. The main objective of building these models
is to make a good forecast of future volatility which will therefore, be helpful in obtaining a more efficient
portfolio allocation, having a better risk management and more accurate derivative prices of a certain financial
instrument.
Among these models, the Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (ARCH) model proposed by Engle 1982
[2] and its extension; Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model by Bollerslev
1986 [3], and Taylor 1986 [4] were found to be the first models introduced into the literature and have become
very popular in that they enable the analysts to estimate the variance of a series at a particular point in time Enders
2004 [5].1 Since then, there have been a great number of empirical applications of modelling the conditional
variance of a financial time series (See for example, Nelson 1991 [6], Bollerslev et al. 1992 [7], Engle and Patton
2001 [8], Shin 2005 [9], Alberg et al. 2008 [10], Shamiri and Isa 2009 [11] and Kalu 2010 [12]. These types of
models were designed to explicitly model and forecast the time-varying conditional second order moment
(variance) of a series by using past unpredictable changes in the returns of that series, and have been applied
successfully in economics and finance, but more predominantly in financial market research.
Corresponding author
114
The Special Issue on Arts, Commerce and Social Science
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA
A lot of empirical studies have been done on modelling and forecasting stock market volatility by applying of
ARCH – GARCH specifications and their large extensions, 2 most of these studies focus on developed markets,
and to the best of our knowledge, there are no such empirical studies for the Sudanese stock market, so the current
paper attempts to fill this gap. The main objective of this paper is to model stock return volatility for Khartoum
Stock Exchange (KSE), by applying different univariate specifications of GARCH type models for daily
observations of the KSE index series for the period 2nd January 2006 to 30th November 2010. As well as
describing special features of the market in terms of trading activity and index components and calculations. The
volatility models applied in this paper include the GARCH (1,1), GARCH-M (1,1), EGARCH(1,1),
TGARCH(1,1), and Power GARCH(1,1). The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Following this
introduction, Section 2 provides a general overview of Khartoum Stock Exchange. Section 3 describes the data
and provides the summary statistics. In the fourth section the GARCH methodology is presented, while the results
of the estimation are discussed in section 5, and finally, section 6 concludes the paper.
2. OVERVIEW OF KHARTOUM STOCK EXCHANGE
The Khartoum Stock Exchange is the principal stock exchange of Sudan. It is located in Khartoum and its name is
abbreviated to KSE. The principal stock index of the KSE is the Khartoum Index. KSE officially started operating
in January 1995 with the assistance of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (CoMESA) 3, with the
objective of regulating and controlling the issuance of securities, and mobilizing private savings for investment in
securities. Securities traded in the KSE are ordinary shares and investment units. In addition to that a good
number of mutual funds and Government Investment Certificates are also traded, (KSE Annual report, 2009).
Orders are handled through brokers during trading hours and share prices are quoted in Sudanese Pound (SDG). 4
The trading is processed manually by continuous auction from Sunday to Thursday for one hour from 10.00 am to
11.00 am, with buy and sell orders being relayed to floor-based representatives of registered brokers for
execution, and trading in securities is taking place in two markets, the primary and the secondary markets. 5
As with most of the Sudan financial system, the KSE operates on the basis of Islamic Shariaa and is supervised
and regulated by the Central Bank of Sudan. The key feature of Islamic Shariaa practices in Khartoum Stock
Exchange is that it aimed at the formation of investment portfolios from common stocks of listed companies.
These ideally satisfy three basic criteria: legitimate field of economic activity, interest-free dealings in both assets
and liabilities, and the dominance of real assets. Thus a company must not be engaged in the production of
illegitimate goods like alcoholic drinks; it must not deal with interest rate financing as a means to leverage its
capital structure through fixed debt liabilities, or generate interest income from investment securities. Since a
company’s shares represent equity rights in its assets, the latter should be real assets, not liquid money or
receivable debt as they cannot be sold freely at a profit, like real goods, real estate and machinery [13]
One of the most popular financial instruments introduced by Islamic Shariaa practices in the KSE activities is the
existence of Government Musharakah Certificates (GMCs), which represents an Islamic equivalent of the
conventional bonds (also known as Shahama bonds).6 Through Shahama bonds the state borrows money in the
domestic market instead of printing more banknotes. After one year, holders of GMCs can either cash or extend
them. 7 These bonds are backed by the stocks and shares portfolio of various companies owned by the Ministry of
Finance and therefore are asset-backed. The profitability of GMCs can reach 33 per cent per annum and depends
on the financial results of the companies involved. Hence, the profit of a GMC is variable rather than fixed. The
government issues these bonds on a quarterly basis and their placement is done very quickly- in just six days.
KSE is relatively small market as compared to the stock markets of the developed countries or even to some
countries in the Arab region; the number of listed companies is few and most stocks are infrequently traded,
market capitalization and traded value are very low (See Table 1).
Banks, Communications and Certificates sectors dominate the trading activity of the market in terms of volume of
trading and number of shares (see Table 2). KSE currently lists 53 companies with a total market capitalization of
SDG 6961.9 million (KSE Annual report, 2009). 8 The amount of capitalisation is very small (See Figure 1), but
increased from SDG1.929 million in 2003 to SDG10.121 million in 2007, then declined to SDG8.541 million and
SDG 6961.9 million in 2008 and 2009 respectively (see Table 3). The overall performance of the Khartoum stock
market is measured by the KSE index, which is a market capitalization-weighted index. In September 2003, the
KSE index was established and listed in the Arab Monetary Fund database. At the end of the first month the index
closed at 961.74 points. At December 2005, the index closed at the highest level of 3259.17 points. In November
2010 it is 2365.66.
115
International Journal of Business and Social Science
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
3. THE DATA AND BASIC STATISTICS:
3.1. Data for Analysis
The time series data used for modelling volatility in this paper is the daily closing prices of Khartoum Stock
Exchange (KSE) index over the period from 2nd January 2006 to 30th November 2010, resulting in total
observations of 1326 excluding public holidays. These closing prices have been taken from KSE website. In this
study, daily returns ( rt ) were calculated as the continuously compounded returns which are the first difference in
logarithm of closing prices of KSE-Index of successive days:
P
rt log t
Pt 1
(1)
where Pt and Pt 1 are the closing market index of KSE at the current day and previous day, respectively.
Since October 18, 2009, the index on the Khartoum Stock Market has been declining. In only 16 trading days, the
stock market index fell from 3077.12 October 18, 2009 to 2363.30 on November 10, 2009. Since that time, the
KSE index was reporting to fluctuate around an average value of 2363.23. In order to see the impact of this sharp
fall on the volatility modeling, the full data set is divided into two sub-periods: the first sub-period covers Jan. 2,
2006 to Oct. 18, 2009 with 1042 total observations, while the second sub-period ranges from Nov. 10, 2009 to
Nov. 30 2010 resulting in 269 observations. So, the results will be presented separately in a three periods; for the
period before the sharp fall, the period after that fall and period of the whole data set.
3.2. Basic statistics of KSE returns series
3.2.1. Summary statistics
To specify the distributional properties of the daily KSE return series ( rt ) during the period of this study, various
descriptive statistics were calculated and reported in Table 4. As it can be seen from Table 4, the average return
for the first sub-period is higher than the average of the second sub-period and the full sample period. Skewness
and excess kurtosis are clearly observed for the daily returns of KSE index for the three periods, which represent
the nature of departure from normality.9 Likewise, the Jarque-Bera (J-B) statistic, which is a test for normality,
also confirms that the null hypothesis of normality for the daily KSE returns should be rejected at the 1%
significant level. In summary, the KSE return series do not conform to normal distribution but display positive
skewness (the distribution has a long right tail) for the three periods, in addition to that, a highly leptokurtic
distribution is observed for all periods.The daily prices and returns for KSE index for the period under review are
presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3
3.2.2 A Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) Plot
The Q-Q graphical examination is also employed to check whether the KSE index return series is normally
distributed. Q-Q plot is a scatter plot of the empirical quantiles (vertical axis) against the theoretical quantiles
(horizontal axis) of a given distribution [14]. If the sample observations follow approximately a normal
distribution with mean equal to the empirical mean and standard deviation equal to the empirical standard
deviation , then the resulting plot should be roughly scattered around the 45-degree line with a positive slope,
the greater the departure from this line, the greater the evidence for the conclusion that the series is not normally
distributed. The results of this graphical examination are provided in Figure 4. The Q-Q plot against the normal
distribution in Figure 3 shows that the KSE return data is not dispersed along the line for all specified periods,
which means that the return series is not normally distributed confirming the results in Table 4.
3.2.3 Testing for Stationarity
To investigate whether the daily price index and its returns are stationary series, the Augmented Dickey –Fuller
(ADF) test, Dickey and Fuller 1981 [15] has been applied for both series. The results of the tests are reported in
Table 5. The ADF test for the KSE price index in level form indicates that it is stationary series for two periods
(the first and the second sub-periods), and it was found to be a non-stationary times series for the full sample
period.10 But when applying the same test for return series, the results strongly reject the null hypothesis of a unit
root for all periods. Therefore, we conclude that the return series is stationary at level in all three periods.
116
The Special Issue on Arts, Commerce and Social Science
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA
3.2.4 Testing for Heteroscedasticity
One of the most important issues before applying the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity
(GARCH) methodology is to first examine the residuals for evidence of heteroscedasticity. To test for the
presence of heteroscedasticity in residuals of KSE index return series, the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test for
ARCH effects proposed by Engle (1982) is applied. In summary, the test procedure is performed by first
obtaining the residuals e t from the ordinary least squares regression of the conditional mean equation which
might be an autoregressive (AR) process, moving average (MA) process or a combination of AR and MA
processes; (ARMA) process. For example, in ARMA (1,1) process the conditional mean equation will be as:
rt 1 rt 1 t 1 t 1
(2)
after obtaining the residuals e t , the next step is regressing the squared residuals on a constant and q lags as in the
following equation:
et2 0 1et21 2et22 ... qet2q t
(3)
The null hypothesis that there is no ARCH effect up to order q can be formulated as:
H 0 : 1 2 .. q 0
against the alternative:
H1 : i 0
(4)
(5)
for at least one i = 1, 2, …, q
The test statistic for the joint significance of the q-lagged squared residuals is the number of observations times
the R-squared ( TR 2 ) from the regression. TR 2 is evaluated against 2 (q ) distribution. This is asymptotically
locally most powerful test [16].
In our case, we first employ an autoregressive moving average ARMA (1,1) model for the conditional mean in the
return series as an initial regression, then, test the null hypothesis that there are no ARCH effects in the residual
series from lag 1 up to lag 5. The results of this examination are summarized in Table 6. The ARCH-LM test
results in Table 6 provide strong evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis for all lags included. Rejecting H 0 is
an indication of the existence of ARCH effects in the residuals series and therefore the variance of the return
series of KSE index is non-constant for all periods specified.
4. METHODOLOGY
Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (ARCH) and its generalization (GARCH) models represent the
main methodologies that have been applied in modelling and forecasting stock market volatility. 11 In this paper
different univariate GARCH specifications are employed to model daily stock return volatility in Khartoum
Stock Exchange and these models are GARCH (1,1), GARCH-M (1,1), EGARCH(1,1), TGARCH(1,1) and
PGARCH (1,1). In presenting these different models, there are two distinct equations or specifications, the first
for the conditional mean and the second for the conditional variance, this section briefly reviews this
methodology.
4.1. Volatility Definition and Measurement
It is useful, before starting the description of volatility models to give a brief explanation of the term volatility, at
least for the purpose of clarifying the scope of this paper. Volatility refers to the spread of all likely outcomes of
an uncertain variable. Typically, in financial markets, we are often concerned with the spread of asset returns.
Statistically, volatility is often measured as the sample standard deviation:
ˆ
T
1
T 1
r
t 1
2
t
(6)
where rt is the return on day t and μ is the average return over the T-day period. Sometimes, variance, 2 , is used
also as a volatility measure.Volatility is related to, but not exactly the same as, risk.
117
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
International Journal of Business and Social Science
Risk is associated with undesirable outcome, whereas volatility as a measure strictly for uncertainty could be due
to a positive outcome [17]. In this paper, we use the variance as a measured of volatility.
4.2. Volatility Modeling Techniques
The existing models of volatility can be divided into two main categories, symmetric and asymmetric models. In
the symmetric models, the conditional variance only depends on the magnitude, and not the sign, of the
underlying asset, while in the asymmetric models the shocks of the same magnitude, positive or negative, have
different effect on future volatility.
4.2.1. Symmetric GARCH Models
4.2.1.1. The Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) Model
In this model, the conditional variance is represented as a linear function of its own lags. The simplest model
specification is the GARCH (1,1) model
Mean equation
rt t
Variance equation
(7)
2
t
2
1 t 1
1
2
t 1
(8)
where 0 and 1 0 and 1 0 , and.
rt = return of the asset at time t.
= average return.
t = residual returns, defined as:
t t zt
(9)
where z t is standardized residual returns (i.e. iid random variable with zero mean and variance 1), and t2 is
conditional variance.For GARCH(1,1), the constraints 1 0 and 1 0 are needed to ensure t2 is strictly
positive [17].
In this model, the mean equation is written as a function of constant with an error term. Since t2 is the one –
period ahead forecast variance based on past information, it is called the conditional variance. The conditional
variance equation specified as a function of three terms:
A constant term :
News about volatility from the previous period, measured as the lag of the squared residula from the mean
2
equation: t 1 (the ARCH term)
Last period forecast varince: t21 (the GARCH term).
The conditional variance equation models the time varying nature of volatility of the residuals generated from the
mean equation. This specification is often interpreted in a financial context, where an agent or trader predicts this
period’s variance by forming a weighted average of a long term average (the constant), the forecast variance from
last period (the GARCH term), and information about volatility observed in the previous period (the ARCH term).
If the asset return was unexpectedly large in either the upward or the downward direction, then the trader will
increase the estimate of the variance for the next period.
The general specification of GARCH is, GARCH (p, q) is as:
q
p
j 1
i 1
t2 j t21 i t21
(10)
where, p is the number of lagged 2 terms and q is the number of lagged 2 terms.
4.2.1.2 The GARCH-in-Mean (GARCH-M) Model
In finance, the return of a security may depend on its volatility. To model such a phenomenon one may consider
the GARCH-M Model of Engle, Lilien, and Robins 1987 [18], where "M" stands for GARCH in the mean [1].
118
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA
The Special Issue on Arts, Commerce and Social Science
This model is an extension of the basic GARCH framework which allows the conditional mean of a sequence to
depend on its conditional variance or standard deviation. A simple GARCH-M (1,1) model can be written as :
Mean equation
rt t2 t
(11)
(12)
where and are constants. The parameter is called the risk premium parameter. A positive indicates
Variance equation
2
t
2
t 1
2
t 1
that the return is positively related to its volatility. In other words, a rise in mean return is caused by an increase in
conditional variance as a proxy of increased risk.
Engle, Lilien, and Robins assume that the risk premium is an increasing function of the conditional variance of
t ; in other words, the greater the conditional variance of returns, the greater the compensation necessary to
induce the agent to hold the long – term asset [5]. Other specifications of risk premium have also been used in the
literature, including:
rt t t
(13)
and
rt ln t2 t
(14)
4.2.2. Asymmetric GARCH Models
An interesting feature of asset price is that (bad) news seems to have a more pronounced effect on volatility than
does (good) news. For many stocks, there is strong negative correlation between the current return and the future
volatility. The tendency for volatility to decline when returns rise and to rise when returns fall is often called the
leverage effect [5].
The main drawback of symmetric GARCH models is that the conditional variance is unable
to respond asymmetrically to rises and falls in t and such effects are believed to be important in the behaviour of
stock returns. In the linear GARCH (p,q) model the conditional variance is a function of past conditional
variances and squared innovations; therefore, sign of returns cannot affect the volatilities [19].The symmetric
GARCH models described above cannot account for the leverage effects observed in stock returns, consequently,
a number of models have been introduced to deal with this phenomena. These models are called asymmetric
models. This paper uses EGAECH, TGARCH and PGARCH for capturing the asymmetric phenomena.
4.2.2.1 The Exponential GARCH (EGARCH) Model
This model captures asymmetric responses of the time-varying variance to shocks and, at the same time, ensures
that the variance is always positive. It was developed by Nelson (1991) with the following specification
t 1
2
Ln( t2 ) 1 Ln( t21 ) 1 t 1
t 1
t 1
(15)
where is the asymmetric response parameter or leverage parameter. The sign of is expected to be positive in
most empirical cases so that a negative shock increases future volatility or uncertainty while a positive shock
eases the effect on future uncertainty12. In macroeconomic analysis, financial markets and corporate finance, a
negative shock usually implies bad news, leading to a more uncertain future. Consequently, for example,
shareholders would require a higher expected return to compensate for bearing increased risk in their investment
[20]. Equation (15) is an EGARCH (1,1) model. Higher order EGARCH models can be specified in a similar
way; EGARCH (p, q) is as follows:
p
q
t i
2
Ln( t2 ) j Ln( t2 j ) i t i
i
t i
j 1
i 1
t i
(16)
4.2.2.2. The Threshold GARCH (TGARCH) Model
Another volatility model commonly used to handle leverage effects is the threshold GARCH (or TGARCH)
model; see Glosten, Jagannathan, and Runkle 1993 [21] and Zakoian 1994 [22]. In the TGARCH (1,1) version of
the model13, the specification of the conditional variance is:
t2 1 t21 d t 1 t21 1 t21
(17)
119
International Journal of Business and Social Science
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
where d t 1 is a dummy variable, that is:
1 if t 1 0 ,
d t 1
0 if t 1 0,
bad news
good news
(18)
the coefficient is known as the asymmetry or leverage term. When 0 , the model collapses to the standard
GARCH forms. Otherwise, when the shock is positive (i.e., good news) the effect on volatility is 1 , but when
the news is negative (i.e., bad news) the effect on volatility is 1 . Hence, if is significant and positive,
negative shocks have a larger effect on t2 than positive shocks [23].
In the general specification of this model, TGARCH (p,q), the conditional variance equation is specified as
follows:
q
p
i 1
j 1
t2 ( i i d t i ) t21 j t2 j
(19)
i , i and j are non-negative parameters satisfying conditions similar to those of GARCH models.
4.2.2.3. The Power GARCH (PGARCH) Model
Ding, Granger and Engle 1993 [24] also introduced the Power GARCH (PGARCH) specification to deal with
asymmetry. Unlike other GARCH models, in this model, the standard deviation is rather modelled as against
modelling of variance in most of the GARCH-family of models. In Power GARCH an optional parameter can
be added to account for asymmetry in modelling up to order r. The model also affords one the opportunity to
estimate the power parameter instead of imposing it on the model Ocran and Biekets 2007 [25].
The general asymmetric Power GARCH model specifies t as of the following form:
q
p
j 1
i 1
t j t1 i ( t i i t 1 )
(20)
where i and j are the standard ARCH and GARCH parameters, i are the leverage parameters and is the
parameter for the power term, and:
0 , i 1 for i 1,2,...,r , i 0 for all i r and r p .
The symmetric model sets i 0 for all i .
when 2 , the above equation becomes a classic GARCH model that allows for leverage effects and when
1 the conditional standard deviation will be estimated. In addition, we can increase the flexibility of the
PGARCH model by considering as another coefficient that must also be estimated [26].
5. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
As it was shown in the data description part when the residuals were examined for heteroscedasticity, ARCH-LM
test provides strong evidence of ARCH effects in the residual series, which indicates that we can now proceed
with the modelling of the index return volatility by using GARCH methodology. The results of estimating the
different GARCH models for the KSE index returns are presented in this section for the full sample, first subperiod, and second sub-period, the models are estimated using maximum likelihood method under the assumption
of Gaussian normal distribution. The log likelihood function is maximized using Marquardt numerical iterative
algorithm to search for optimal parameters. To account for the sharp decline of the KSE index in the last part of
October 2009, a dummy variable (DUM) will be introduced into the mean equation of the full sample period,
which is set equal to 0 for the period before the sharp decline and 1 thereafter. Thus, for the full sample, the mean
equation is adjusted as:
rt DUM t
Mean equation
(19)
For the first and second sub-periods, the mean equation will still be used as specified before. Beside the
estimation output of different GARCH models, diagnostics test results of these models are also provided to see
whether there are still ARCH effects left in the estimated model. 14
120
The Special Issue on Arts, Commerce and Social Science
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA
Tables 7 to 11 in the Appendix show the parameter estimates of different GARCH models for the returns of KSE
index for the three specified periods. GARCH (1,1) estimation The results of estimating the GARCH (1,1) model
are reported in Table 7.
Table 7 about here
In the variance equation From Table 7, the first three coefficients (constant), ARCH term ( ) and GARCH
term ( ) for GARCH (1,1) are highly significant and with expected sign for all periods. The significance of
and indicates that lagged conditional variance and squared disturbance has an impact on the conditional
variance, in other words this means that news about volatility from the previous periods has an explanatory power
on current volatility. The sum of the two estimated ARCH and GARCH coefficients (persistence
coefficients) in the estimation process of the second sub-period is less than one, which is required to have a mean
reverting variance process. In contrast, the sum up of these parameters for the first sub-period and full data sample
is larger than one, suggesting that shocks to the conditional variance are highly persistent, i.e. the conditional
variance process is explosive. This implies that large changes in returns tend to be followed by large changes and
small changes tend to be followed by small changes, which will therefore, confirm that volatility clustering is
observed in KSE index returns series. The ARCH-LM test statistics for all periods did not exhibit additional
ARCH effect. This shows that the variance equations are well specified.
GARCH-M (1,1) estimation
The GARCH-M model is estimated by allowing the mean equation of the return series to depend on function of
the conditional variance 2 . Table 3 presents the estimation results for the mean and variance equations.
Table 8 about here
The estimated coefficient (risk premium) of 2 in the mean equation is positive for all periods, which indicates
that the mean of return sequence considerably depends on past innovation and past conditional variance. In other
words, conditional variance used as proxy for risk of return is positively related to the level of return. This result
show that as volatility increases, the returns correspondingly increase by a factor of 0.282, 0.128, and 0.099 for
first, second and full sample periods respectively. These results are consistent with the theory of a positive risk
premium on stock indices which states that the higher returns are expected for asset with higher level of risk. The
ARCH and GARCH coefficients are significant in all periods. The null hypothesis that there is no ARCH effect is
accepted.
EGARCH (1,1) estimation
To investigate the existence of leverage effect in returns of the Khartoum stock market index during the sample
period, the asymmetrical EGARCH (1,1) models were estimated. Results are provided in Table 9 in the
Appendix.
Table 9 about here
The EGARCH(1,1) model estimated for the returns of KSE index in Table 9 indicates that all the estimated
coefficients for all periods are statistically significant at 1% confidence level. The asymmetric (leverage) effect
captured by the parameter estimate is also statistically significant with negative sign for all periods, indicate
that negative shocks imply a higher next period conditional variance than positive shocks of the same sign, which
imply that the existence of leverage effect is observed in returns of the Khartoum stock market index during the
sample period. The null hypothesis of no heteroscedasticity in the residuals is accepted for first and second subperiods, but not for the full sample period.
TGARCH (1,1) estimation
The second model used to test for the asymmetry in the volatility of KSE returns is the TGARCH (1,1) model.
Results of the estimation are in Table 5.
Table 10 about here
In the estimated TGARCH(1,1) model, the coefficient of leverage effect is significant and positive for all periods
which means asymmetry effect is accepted for this period, the significance of this coefficient indicates that
negative shocks (bad news) is larger effect on the conditional variance (volatility) , than positive shocks (good
news) of same magnitude. The null hypothesis that there is no ARCH effect is accepted.
121
International Journal of Business and Social Science
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
Power GARCH (1,1) estimation
Unlike other GARCH models, in this model, the standard deviation is rather modelled as against modelling of
variance in most of the GARCH-family of models. Results of PGARCH (1,1) are presented in Table 11.
Table 11 about here
From the results of PGARCH (1,1) in Table 6, the estimated coefficient is significant and positive for the first
and second sub periods , indicating that positive shocks are associated with higher volatility than negative shocks.
In contract, the estimated coefficient in the full sample period is negative and insignificant. The ARCH-LM test
statistics did not exhibit additional ARCH effect. This shows that the variance equations are well specified.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Modelling and forecasting the volatility of returns in stock markets has become a fertile field of empirical
research in financial markets. This is simply because volatility is considered as an important concept in many
economic and financial applications like asset pricing, risk management and portfolio allocation This paper
attempts to explore the comparative ability of different statistical and econometric volatility forecasting models in
the context of Sudanese stock market namely; Khartoum Stock Exchange (KSE). A total of five different models
were considered in this study. The volatility of the KSE index returns have been modelled by using a univariate
Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedastic (GARCH) models including both symmetric and
asymmetric models that captures most common stylized facts about index returns such as volatility clustering and
leverage effect, these models are GARCH(1,1), GARCH-M(1,1), exponential GARCH(1,1), threshold
GARCH(1,1) and power GARCH(1,1).The first two models are used for capturing the symmetry effect whereas
the second group of models is for capturing the asymmetric effect. The study used a stock market index from
Sudan (KSE index), a country not previously considered in the volatility literature, for the period 2nd January
2006 to 30th November 2010. Based on the empirical results presented, the following can be concluded:
The paper finds strong evidence that daily returns could be characterised by the above mentioned models. KSE
data showed a significant departure from normality and existence of conditional heteroscedasticity in the residuals
series. For all periods specified, the empirical analysis was supportive to the symmetric volatility hypothesis,
which means returns are volatile and that positive and negative shocks (good and bad news) of the same
magnitude have the same impact and effect on the future volatility level. The parameter estimates of the GARCH
(1,1) models ( and ) indicates a high degree of persistent in the conditional volatility of stock returns on the
Khartoum Stock Exchange which means an explosive volatility. The parameter describing the conditional
variance in the mean equation, measuring the risk premium effect for GARCH-M (1,1), is statistically significant
in all periods, and the sign of the risk premium parameter is positive. The implication is that increase in volatility
would increase returns, which is an expected result. To summarize, the results from all GARCH specifications
applied in this paper for three periods explain that explosive volatility process is present in KSE index returns
over the sample period.
Acknowledgements:
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the German Academic Exchange
Service (DAAD).
We are mostly grateful to Dr. Gamar –addaulla Elbooni of the department of English Language Faculty of
Arts – University of Khartoum for revising the grammar of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Tsay R. 2010. Analysis of Financial Time Series. 3rd Ed. New York, United States of America, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2] Engle R. 1982. Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom
Inflation. Econometrica 50(4): 987-1007.
[3] Bollerslev T. 1986. Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity, Journal of Econometrics. 31: 307-327.
[4] Taylor S. 1986. Modelling financial time series, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
[5] Enders W. 2004. Applied Econometric Time Series, 2nd Edition, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.
[6] Nelson D. 1991. Conditional Heteroskedasticity in Asset Returns: A New Approach. Econometrica 59(2): 347 – 370.
[7] Bollerslev T, Chou R, Kroner F. 1992. ARCH modeling in finance. Journal of Econometrics 52: 5-59.
[8] Engle R, Patton A. 2001. What good is a volatility model? Quantitative Finance 1: 237-245.
[9] Shin J. 2005. Stock Returns and Volatility in Emerging Markets. International Journal of Business and Economics 4(1):
31 – 43.
122
The Special Issue on Arts, Commerce and Social Science
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA
[10] Alberg D, H. Shalit R. 2008. Estimating stock market volatility using asymmetric GARCH models. Applied Financial
Economics 18: 1201-1208.
[11] Shamiri A, Isa Z. 2009. Modeling and Forecasting Volatility of the Malaysian Stock Markets. Journal of Mathematics
and Statistics 5(3): 234 – 240.
[12] Kalu O. 2010. Modelling Stock Returns Volatility in Nigeria Using GARCH Models. Munich Personal RePEc Archive,
MPRA Paper No. 22723.
[13] Hassan M, Lewis M. 2007. Handbook of Islamic Banking, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
[14] Alexander C. 2001. Market Models: A Guide to Financial Data Analysis. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
[15] Dickey D, Fuller W. 1981. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica
49: 1057-1072.
[16] Rachev S, Mittnik S, Fabozzi F, Focardi S, Jasic T. 2007. Financial Econometrics: From Basics To Advanced
Modelling Techniques. John Willey and Sons, Inc.
[17] Poon S. 2005. A practical guide to Forecasting financial market Volatility, Wiley Finance, England.
[18] Engle R, Lilien D, Robins R. 1987. Estimating Time Varying Risk Premia in the Term Structure: The ARCH-M Model.
Econometrica 55: 391–407.
[19] Knight J, Satchell S. 2007. Forecasting Volatility in the Financial Markets. 3rd Ed. Butterworth Heinemann.
[20] Wang P. 2003. Financial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Routledge, London and New York.
[21] Glosten L, Jagannathan R, Runkle D. 1993. On the Relation between the Expected Value and the Volatility of the
Nominal Excess Returns on Stocks. Journal of Finance 48(5): 1779-1791.
[22] Zakoian J. 1994. Threshold Heteroscedastic Models. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 18: 931-944.
[23] Carter R, Hill E, William C. 2007. Principles of Econometrics, 3rd Edition, New York. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[24] Ding, Z, Engle, R, Granger C. 1993. Long Memory Properties of Stock Market Returns and a New Model. Journal of
Empirical Finance 1: 83 – 106.
[25] Ocran M, Biekets N. 2007. Forecasting Volatility in Sub-Saharan Africa’s Commodity Markets. Investment
Management and Financial Innovations 4(2): 91-102.
[26] Zivot E. 2008. Practical Issues in the Analysis of Univariate GARCH Models. Handbook of Financial Time Series,
Springer, New York.
[27] Engle R,. Bollerslev T. 1986. Modeling the persistence of conditional variances, Econometric Reviews 5: 1–50.
[28] El-Gamal M. 2006. Islamic Finance: Law, Economics, and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[29] Ayub M. 2007. Understanding Islamic Finance. Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[30] Usmani T. 1998. An Introduction to Islamic Finance. Idaratul Maarif, Karachi.
[31] Perron P. 1989. The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica 57: 1361 – 1401
___________
NOTES
1. A time series is said to be hetroscedastic if its variance changes over time, otherwise it is called homoscedastic.
2. GARCH-M models (Engle, Lilien, and Robins 1987), IGARCH model (Engle and Bollerslev 1986) [27], Exponential
GARCH model (Nelson, 1991),Threshold GARCH model Zakoian (1994) and (Glosten et al., 1993) and Power ARCH
model (Ding et al., 1993),
3. Member states are: Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
4. SDG is the Sudanese Gunaih (Sudanese new pound), which replaced the old Sudanese Dinar (SDD) in 2007, (1$=2.4986
SDG as in 22 December 2010).
5. The Primary Market deals with the trading of new securities. When a company issues securities for the first time (i.e. IPO)
, they are traded in the Primary Market through the help of issuing houses, Dealing /Brokerage Firms, Investment
Bankers and or Underwriters. The acronym IPO stands for Initial Public Offering, which means the first time a company
is offering securities to the general public for subscription. Once the securities (shares) of a company are in the hands the
general public, they can be traded in the Secondary Market to enhance liquidity amongst holders of such financial
securities. Thus, the Secondary Market facilitates the buying and selling of securities that are already in the hands of the
general public (investors).
6. For a detailed discussion of the Islamic Shariaa principles and its practices on stock exchange see for example: El-Gamal
2006 [28] and Ayub 2007 [29].
7. “Musharakah” is a word of Arabic origin which literally means sharing. In the context of business and trade it means a
joint enterprise in which all the partners share the profit or loss of the joint venture. It is an ideal alternative for the
interest-based financing with far reaching effects on both production and distribution Usmani 1998 [30]
8. Out of this listed number there are 20 banks, 8 Insurance companies, 6 commercial companies, 2 in the industrial sector
and 3 companies in the agricultural sector, 4 in the communication sector, 5 in services sector and 5 other companies
with various activities.
123
International Journal of Business and Social Science
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
9. In a normally distributed series, skewness is 0 and kurtosis is 3. Positive or negative skewness indicate asymmetry in the
series and less than or greater than 3 kurtosis coefficient suggest flatness and peakedness, respectively, in the returns
data.)
10. It is very important to point out that, there might be some bias towards accepting the null hypothesis of a unit root for the
index series in level for the full sample period, this simply because of the clear existence of the break points in the series
at the end of October 2009 (see Figure 2). ADF test fails in case of structural break and it has low power, one way to
account for these structural breaks, Perron 1989 [31] introduced a dummy variable to the ADF test. For a detailed
discussion of the structural breaks in unit root test see for example Mills and Markellos (2008)
11. The main feature of ARCH model is to describe the conditional variance as an autoregression process. However, most
empirical time series require using long-lag length ARCH models and a large number of parameters must be estimated.
The solution of the problem was GARCH models which gave better results (see Engle and Bollerslev 1986; Nelson
1991).
12. This is in contrast to the standard GARCH model where shocks of the same magnitude, positive or negative, have the
same effect on future volatility.
13. The model uses zero as its threshold to separate the impacts of past shocks. Other threshold can also be used; see (Tsay
2010 ) for the general concepts of threshold models.
14- If the variance equation of GARCH model is correctly specified, there should be no ARCH effect left in the residuals
APPENDIX
Table 1. Trading Activity in some Arab Stock markets (2009)
Market
Abu Dhabi
Amman
Bahrain
Beirut
Casablanca
Khartoum
Doha
Dubai
Egypt
Kuwait
Saudi
Tunis
Value Traded
(U.S.$)
18,698.35
13,615.91
460.01
934.60
8,598.67
949.21
24,234.02
46,659.87
50,812.70
74,161.61
322,432.10
1,206.26
Shares Traded
(Million)
36,870.11
5,991.44
831.36
50.92
233.90
172
3,903.37
109,646.92
28,234.25
104,540.98
54,443.71
169.89
Market Capitalization
(U.S.$)
72,967.81
31,985.19
16,141.33
18,297.99
60,694.46
2,979.25
87,931.99
58,829.91
86,267.22
104,226.22
318,784.68
9,399.05
No. of
Transactions
730742
2954322
29784
35505
286269
8069
1630407
1965131
13300653
19063774
12197799
349700
No. of Listed
Companies
67
272
49
11
73
53
44
67
306
205
135
52
Source: Compiled by authors based on data from Arab Monetary Fund website and KSE annual report.
Table 2. Volume of Trading in Khartoum Stock Exchange by Sectors (2003 – 2009)
Sector
Banks
Insurance
Commercial
Industry
Agriculture
Communication
Services
Funds
Certificates
Others
Total
2003
39.7
0.1
1.9
0.01
0.0
7.4
62.7
132.3
244.1
2004
7.8
0.01
39.3
39
0.0
2.8
113.7
245.1
447.7
Volume of trading (SDG millions)
2005
2006
2007
2008
11.1
91.4
139.7
135.8
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.8
18.3
22.3
22.0
6.2
48.2
57.0
4.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0. 1
432.2
320.1
0.8
7.6
47.1
120.2
130.3
123.5
194.4
799.9
1068.5
1283.2
897.7
977.3
0.1
0.04
1216.8
2068.1
1799.6
1879.04
Source: Compiled by authors based on data from Central Bank of Sudan annual reports.
124
2009
81.5
0.1
15.1
25.4
0.0
122.5
0.9
164.8
1836.3
0.0
2246.6
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA
The Special Issue on Arts, Commerce and Social Science
Table 3. Summary of Trading Activity in Khartoum Stock Exchange Secondary market
No. Of
No. Of
Market
Volume of
No. of
Certificates traded
Listed
traded shares Capitalization
trading
transaction
(In thousands)
Year
companies
(In
(SDG
(SDG
s
*
thousands)
millions)
millions)
2003
47
9.745.457
1.929.85
244.104
3109
2004
48
2.186.127
3.689.88
447.723
3534
102.108
2005
49
1.731.670
7.473.27
1.216.833
3673
308.1
2006
52
7.567.782
9.312.42
2.068.054
5842
1,472.4
2007
53
9.411.559
10.121.6
1.799.600
7195
2,016.5
2008
53
289.008
8.541.5
1.879.410
8569
2,421.1
2009
53
172.359
6.961.9
2.246.600
8069
3,417.7
* The number of listed companies does not include Funds & Certificates.
Source: Compiled by authors based on data from KSE and Central Bank of Sudan annual reports.
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of the KSE returns series
STATISTICS
First Sub-period
0.01%
0%
21%
-11%
1.47%
2.57
65.31
169550.4
0.000
1042
Mean %
Median %
Maximum %
Minimum %
Standard deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Jarque- Bera
Prob. of Jarque-Bera
No. of observations
Second Sub-period
0.00%
0%
1%
-1%
0.71%
3.52
82.71
71496.33
0.000
269
Full Sample Period
-0.02%
0%
21%
-12%
1.37%
1.76
73.72
276573.2
0.000
1326
Table 5. ADF Unit Root Test Output for the Price index and return Series
Period
KSE index Series
ADF
Critical Values
statistic
1%
5%
10%
-2.390(6)
-3.438 -2.864 -2.568
-2.671(5)*
-3.436 -2.864 -2.568
-7.469(0)** -3.455 -2.872 -2.572
KSE Return Series
ADF statistic
Critical Values
1%
5%
10%
-18.584(5)** -3.965 -3.413 -3.129
-29.419(1)** -3.463 -2.864 -2.568
-20.352(2)** -3.455 -2.872 -2.572
Full Period
First sub-period
Second sub-period
Notes:
- Figures in parentheses denote the optimal lag lengths, which were automatically selected based on Schwarz
Information Criterion (SIC).
- Critical values for unit root test are referred to MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-value.
- * and ** indicate significant at 5% and 1% respectively.
- ADF test includes a constant term without trend.
Table 6. ARCH-LM Test for residuals of returns on KSE and CASE markets
2
ARCH-LM test statistic ( TR )
Prob. Chi-square (5)
First Sub-period
13.59
0.0184
Second Sub-period
43.97
0.0000
Full Sample Period
59.02
0.0000
125
International Journal of Business and Social Science
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
Table 7. Estimation results of GARCH (1,1) model
Parameters
Mean
equation
(Constant)
Variance
equation
(Constant)
(ARCH effect)
(GARCH effect)
First Sub-period
0.000192
Period
Second Sub-period
-1.18E-05
3.52E-05*
0.739287*
0.406875*
6.00E-08*
0.124267*
0.650981*
DUM
Log likelihood
1.146162
0.775248
3303.647
1627.045
ARCH-LM Test for heteroscedasticity
2
ARCH-LM test statistic( N * R )
Prob. Chi-Square(5)
0.171356
0.9994
3.341550
0.6475
Full sample period
0.000248
-0.000293
3.19E-05*
0.695345*
0.428239*
1.123584
4398.309
0.129301
0.9997
* Indicates significance at 1% level
Table 8. Estimation results of GARCH-M (1,1) model
Parameters
(Constant)
Mean
equation
DUM
(risk premium)
(Constant)
(ARCH effect)
(GARCH effect)
Variance
equation
Log likelihood
2
ARCH-LM test statistic( N * R )
Prob. Chi-Square
First Sub-period
-0.002410*
Period
Second Sub-period
-7.09E-05*
Full sample period
-0.000752*
0.282394*
3.70E-05*
0.714649*
0.377463*
0.127631*
6.05E-08*
0.128282*
0.646581*
0.099496*
2.32E-05*
0.888347*
0.420817*
1.092112
0.774863
1.309164
3309.044
1627.207
ARCH-LM Test for heteroscedasticity
0.120292
2.982367
4419.219
0.9997
0.7027
0.115306
0.9998
* Indicates significance at 1% level
Table 9. Estimation results of EGARCH (1,1) model
Parameters
First Sub-period
0.000572*
Period
Second Sub-period
-1.90E-05
Full sample period
Mean
equation
(Constant)
Variance
equation
(Constant)
(ARCH effect)
(GARCH effect)
-3.952504*
0.862935*
0.605742*
-1.581487*
0.171235*
0.900153*
9.27E-05*
-5.523160*
0.183655*
0.417255*
(Leverage effect)
-0.127306*
-0.123552*
-0.017766*
DUM
1.468677
1.071388
3309.860
1608.297
ARCH-LM Test for heteroscedasticity
Log likelihood
2
ARCH-LM test statistic( N * R )
Prob. Chi-Square
* Indicates significance at 1% level
126
0.205917
0.9990
0.901964
0.9701
0.60091
4059.788
27.03379
0.0001*
© Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA
The Special Issue on Arts, Commerce and Social Science
Table 10. Estimation results of TGARCH (1,1) model
Parameters
First Sub-period
7.72E-05
Mean
equation
(Constant)
Variance
equation
(Constant)
(ARCH effect)
(GARCH effect)
Period
Second Sub-period
-2.18E-05
DUM
(Leverage effect)
Log likelihood
2
ARCH-LM test statistic( N * R )
Prob. Chi-Square
3.55E-05**
5.82E-08**
0.487554**
0.083005**
0.399900**
0.657500**
0.524922**
0.086663*
0.887454
0.740505
3307.803
1627.809
ARCH-LM Test for heteroscedasticity
0.151712
1.741300
0.9995
Full sample period
8.91E-05
-8.25E-05
2.90E-05**
0.656613**
0.426983**
0.239591**
1.083596
4409.251
0.095918
0.8837
0.9999
* and ** indicate significant at 5% and 1% respectively.
Table 11. Estimation results of PowerGARCH (1,1) model
First Sub-period
0.000128
Period
Second Sub-period
-1.31E-05
Full sample period
0.000536
8.64E-07
0.865**
0.327**
4.01E-08
0.122**
0.640**
-0.000475
0.000183*
0.417**
0.520**
0.190**
2.794**
1.192
0.058**
2.057**
0.762
-0.0386
1.666**
0.937
3307.977
1636.926
ARCH-LM Test for heteroscedasticity
2
0.161
2.633
ARCH-LM test statistic( N * R )
Prob. Chi-Square
0.999
0.756
4333.934
Parameters
Mean
equation
(Constant)
Variance
equation
(Constant)
(ARCH effect)
(GARCH effect)
DUM
(Leverage effect)
(Power Parameter)
Log likelihood
0.288
0.999
* , ** indicate significant at 5% and 1% respectively.
Figure 1. Stock market capitalization for some Arab countries during 2009
Source: Compiled by author based on data from Arab Monetary Fund wesite and KSE annual report.
127
Vol. 2 No. 23 [Special Issue – December 2011]
International Journal of Business and Social Science
Figure 2. The trend graph of daily prices for the KSE index Jan.2006 – Nov.2010
3,200
3,100
3,000
2,900
2,800
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,400
2,300
250
500
750
1000
1250
Figure 3. The trend graph of daily returns for the KSE index Jan.2006 – Nov.2010
.24
.20
.16
.12
.08
.04
.00
-.04
-.08
-.12
250
500
750
1000
1250
Figure 4. Normal Quantile-Quantile Plots for the Daily Stock Return 2006 – 2010:
Q Q Plot of Returns (Second Sub-period)
Q Q Plot of Returns (First Sub-period)
.06
.04
.04
.004
.003
.02
.00
-.02
Quantiles of Normal
.002
Quantiles of Normal
Quantiles of Normal
Q Q plot of Retrun (Full Period)
.06
.02
.00
-.02
.001
.000
-.001
-.002
-.04
-.04
-.003
-.06
-.2
-.1
.0
.1
Quantiles of RETURN
128
.2
.3
-.06
-.2
-.1
.0
.1
Quantiles of RETURN
.2
.3
-.004
-.010
-.005
.000
.005
Quantiles of RETURN
.010
.015