When regressing a variable on a constant of 1, the coefficient of this constant is the mean. However, when I specified that the residuals follow a GARCH(1,1) model, the coefficient of the constant does not anymore represent the mean in my model. In my opinion this makes no sense since the residuals are defined to have a mean of zero. The mu in the example below should be the same as the mean of R_d.

Small Example in R:

getSymbols('C', from = '2000-01-01')
C = adjustOHLC(C, use.Adjusted = TRUE)
R_d = ROC(Cl(C), na.pad = FALSE)

spec = ugarchspec(mean.model = list(armaOrder = c(0, 0)), variance.model = list(model = 'sGARCH', garchOrder = c(1, 1)), distribution = 'norm')
fit = ugarchfit(data = R_d, spec = spec)

mu: 0.000430648533256351
omega: 2.11481883824743e-06
alpha1: 0.0871525584932368
beta1: 0.911847414938857

For egarch or gjr, I get also different results for mu..

  • $\begingroup$ It really depends on how they implement it. I was looking at the documentation for rugarch and I see two things that stand out. 1) In mean.model, try replacing armaOrder with include.mean and see if there result is different. 2) there is a method called uncmean, not sure if that gives anything different. $\endgroup$ – John Jun 7 '16 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your replay. I added the include.mean at the GARCH model, the results is the same since the default value is TRUE. The method uncmean just returns the value of mu. $\endgroup$ – Filippo Scopel Jun 7 '16 at 17:56

When calculating the simple arithmetic mean, each observation has an equal weight:

$$ \hat \mu^{simple} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T x_t.$$

If the observations are $i.i.d.$, $\hat \mu^{simple}$ is an efficient estimator of the population mean.

When estimating the mean of a GARCH process, $\hat \mu^{simple}$ is no longer efficient. It makes sense to downweight the noisy observations relative to the low-noise observations so as to gain efficiency. So you fit a GARCH model and use inverse fitted standard deviations as weights:

$$ \hat \mu^{GARCH} = \frac{1}{\sum_{t=1}^T \hat \sigma_t}\sum_{t=1}^T \frac{x_t}{\hat \sigma_t}.$$

Generally the case of estimated weights gives a different number than the case of equal weights:

$$\hat \mu^{simple} \not\equiv \hat \mu^{GARCH}.$$

  • $\begingroup$ I am glad I could help! $\endgroup$ – Richard Hardy Jun 10 '16 at 14:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.