# Analysis of Factors Influencing Stock Market Volatility Based on GARCH-MIDAS Model

Authors: Dan Ma; Tianxing Yang; Liping Liu; Yi He
Journal: Complexity
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

This paper further extends the existing GARCH-MIDAS model to deal with the effect of microstructure noise in mixed frequency data. This paper has two highlights. First, according to the estimation of the long-term volatility components of the GARCH-MIDAS model, rAVGRV is adopted to substitute for the RV estimator. rAVGRV uses the rich data sources in tick-by-tick data and significantly corrects the impact of the microstructure noise on volatility estimation. Second, besides introducing macroeconomic variables (i.e., macroeconomic consistency index (MCI), deposits in financial institutions (DFI), industrial value-added (IVA), and M2), Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index and Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) are introduced in the long-run volatility component of the GARCH-MIDAS model. As indicated by the results of this paper, the rAVGRV-based GARCH-MIDAS is slightly better than the RV model-based GARCH-MIDAS. In addition to the common macroeconomic variables significantly impacting stock market volatility, CEPU also substantially impacts stock market volatility. Nevertheless, the effect of EMV on the stock market is insignificant.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Traditional econometric models have been extensively used to analyze macroeconomic and financial consistent sampling frequency data. On the whole, the research methods using such data consist of VAR-type models, GARCH-type models, cointegration tests, and Granger causality tests. Most of the mentioned studies complied with low-frequency data models to examine the correlation between macroeconomics and stock market volatility. Over the past few years, among the studies on modeling problems of variables at different sampling frequencies, the Mixed Data Sampling (MIDAS) proposed by Ghysels et al. [1] has aroused the biggest attention. Such a model can develop a linear correlation between high-frequency explanatory variables and low-frequency explanatory variables, and it has been extensively applied in studies on macroeconomics, stock market, and crude oil futures for its ability to fully draw upon available information. Based on the MIDAS regression model, Engel et al. [2] developed a GARCH-MIDAS model, decomposing volatility into long-term and short-term components. Their model is adopted to study the correlation between stock market volatility and macroeconomic variables. Subsequently, Asgharian et al. [3] examined the effect of U.S. macroeconomic variables on stock market volatility by adopting the GARCH-MIDAS model.The reason why this model outperforms the conventional GARCH-class models is that it can decompose the total conditional variance of the conventional GARCH model into two parts, that is, short-term volatility at a high frequency captured by a GARCH process and long-term volatility at a low frequency. To calculate the sum of squares of intraday yield data, Andersen et al. [4] proposed the GARCH-MIDAS model with a long-run component based on realized volatility (RV). For the RV estimator, most scholars exploited return data with a 5-minute sampling frequency to determine high-frequency realized volatility (Wang and Ghysels [5]; Conrad and Kleen [6]). Though intraday high-frequency data involves sufficient data information and can increase the estimation efficiency of stock volatility, it is difficult to estimate due to considerable data. Moreover, when high-frequency data are used to estimate the stock market volatility, prices are sampled at finer intervals, and microstructure issues turn out to be more pronounced.RV proposed by Andersen et al. [4] is justified based on the assumption of a continuous stochastic process to meet the challenge from market microstructure noise in practical applications (Aït-Sahalia et al. [7]). Zhang et al. [8] proposed realized volatility through subsample averaging (rAVGRV) that exploited the abundant sources in tick-by-tick data; to a great extent, it could correct the effect of the microstructure noise on volatility estimation. As indicated by Liu et al. [9], rAVGRV is a more theoretically and empirically reliable estimator than RV.When predicting financial market volatility, macroeconomic indicators are important (Andersen et al. [4]; Conrad and Loch [10]; Dorion [11]). The GARCH-MIDAS model has been the most popular model adopted to investigate the correlations between aggregate financial volatility and macroeconomic or financial variables (Conrad et al. [12]; Conrad et al. [13]; Pan et al. [14]; Su et al. [15]; Conrad and Kleen [6]; Opschoor et al. [16]; Dominicy and Vander Elst [17]; Lindblad [18]; Amendola et al. [19]; Conrad et al. [12]; and Borup and Jakobsen [20]).The study is different from existing studies, and the long-run volatility component of the GARCH-MIDAS model is impacted by realized volatility and other explanatory variables. The explanatory variables here included the macroeconomic variables, that is, macroeconomic consistency index (MCI), deposits in financial institutions (DFI), industrial value-added (IVA), and M2, as well as Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index and Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV). The reason for selecting CEPU and EMV variables is twofold. On the one hand, although China’s stock market has been leaping forward over the past two decades, it is still emerging. It is not sufficiently mature to require the government to stabilize it by releasing and implementing necessary policies. The government’s policies are overly frequent, and the constant modifications in policies increase internal and external uncertainties, thereby increasing stock market volatility. On the other hand, the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in December 2019 has significantly affected global macroeconomy and financial markets. Intuitively, stock market reacts to such a pandemic more promptly and directly than other sectors in economic and financial system. Accordingly, the two mentioned variables should be included in this paper.The paper further extends the existing studies, and the highlights focus on two aspects. (1) In the estimation of the long-term volatility components of the GARCH-MIDAS model, rAVGRV is used to replace the RV estimator. rAVGRV uses the rich sources in tick-by-tick data and to a great extent corrects the effect of the microstructure noise on volatility estimation. Accordingly, the rAVGRV-based GARCH-MIDAS model should be able to characterize the volatility of the stock market more effectively. As a matter of fact, the study by Liu et al. [9] confirmed that rAVGRV exhibited a better performance than RV. (2) Besides introducing macroeconomic variables MCI, IVA, DFI, and M2, CPEU and EMV were also introduced in the long-run volatility component of the GARCH-MIDAS model. The Chinese government’s policies are too frequent, and the constant modifications in policies increase internal and external uncertainties. Moreover, COVID-19 has imposed great burden on global macroeconomy and financial markets. For this reason, CEPU and EMV should be introduced.The rest of the study is organized as follows. The second section elucidates the GARCH-MIDAS model. The third section refers to an empirical study that explores the estimation, forecasting the GARCH-MIDAS model built in the study at several levels. The fourth section presents the application of the model to the portfolio. The fifth section is the robustness analysis of this paper. The last section concludes the present study.


## 2. GARCH-MIDAS Model

In accordance with Campbell [21], the correlation between the variations of unanticipated and expected returns in the stock market can be set below:(1)ri,t−Ei−1,tri,t=Ei,t−Ei−1,t∑j=0∞ρjΔdi+j,t−Ei,t−Ei−1,t∑j=1∞ρjΔdi+j,t,where ri,t denotes the logarithmic stock return on day i of month t; di,t expresses the logarithmic dividend on day i of month t; di,t represents the discount factor; Ei−1,t. denotes the conditional expectation for a given set of information Ii−1,t up to moment i−1.Engle and Rangel [22] argued that unanticipated returns can be determined based on future cash flows or expected returns:(2)ri,t−Ei−1,tri,t=τtgi.tεi,t,where the volatility consists of at least two components, and the volatility of stock returns falls into short-term gi,t and long-term τt components, where gi,t represents the volatility on day i of month t, and τt denotes the volatility at month t. Moreover, it is assumed that the random perturbation term εi,t follows with the conditional standard normal distribution, that is, εi,t|Ii−1,t∼N0,1.Thus, the conditional variance of stock returns is written as(3)σi,t2=Eri,t−Ei−1,tri,t2=τtgi,t.Assume thatEi−1,tri,t = u, so equation (2) can be written as(4)ri,t=μ+τtgi.tεi,t.For the short-term volatility component, it follows a mean-reverting unit-variance GJR-GARCH (1, 1) process:(5)gi,t=1−α−β−0.5γ+α+γIri−1,t<0ri−1,t−μ2τt+βgi−1,t,where I{} is an indicator function, which means that the function takes a value of one if the condition is satisfied and zero otherwise. The short-run parameters are subject to α > 0; β ≥ 0; γ ≥ 0; α + β + γ/2 < 1. Parameter γ contains the information of asymmetry.The long-term volatility component with a single explanatory variable takes the following form:(6)logτt=m+θ∑j=1K∅jω1,ω2RVt−j,RVt=∑i=1Niri,t2,where K denotes the number of periods over which the volatility is smoothed. If t represents a day, RVt denotes daily realized volatility; if the sampling frequency of intraday high-frequency data is 5 min, the value of Ni is 48; if t represents a month, the monthly realized volatility is written as(7)RVt=122∑i=122RVi,t.Compared with daily return data, intraday high-frequency data containing rich data information and realized volatility estimation based on high-frequency data can significantly increase the estimation efficiency of volatility, whereas the effect of market microstructural noise on realized volatility cannot be ignored. When noise is present, the estimator RV is biased, and applying it to the GARCH-MIDAS model will adversely affect the estimation of this model. To address the mentioned problem, this paper also considered applying the RV via subsample averaging (rAVGRV) proposed by Zhang et al. [8] to the GARCH-MIDAS model to substitute for the RV estimator. Thus, the single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model is expressed as(8)logτt=m+θ∑j=1K∅jω1,ω2rAVGRVt−j.The rAVGRV estimator can effectively eliminate the effect of noise. rAVGRV is defined as follows.Assume that, in periodt, there are N equispaced returns ri,t and Δ is set to equal alignPeriod. For i≥Δ, the subsampled Δ-period return is defined as(9)r˜i,t=∑k=0Δ−1ri−k,t.It is defined thatN∗j=N/Δ if j=0; otherwise, N∗j=N/Δ−1. The j-th component of the rAVGRV estimator is expressed by(10)RVtj=∑i=1N∗jr˜j+i−Δ2.Take the average across the differentRVtj,j=0,…,Δ−1, and the rAVGRV estimator is defined.WhenYt is the MIDAS term, the long-run component of the GARCH-MIDAS model is(11)logτt=m+θ∑j=1K∅jω1,ω2Yt−j,where Y denotes the macroeconomic variable.In the GARCH-MIDAS model expressed in equations (8) and (11), ∅jω1,ω2 is obtained from the weight function proposed by Ghysels et al. [1], and the equation is expressed as(12)∅jω1,ω2=j/Kω1−11−j/Kω2−1∑i=1Ki/Kω1−11−i/Kω2−1.To ensure that the weights of the lagged variables are in a decaying form,w1=1 is generally fixed. Thus, equation (12) can be defined as(13)∅jω2=1−j/Kω2−1∑i=1K1−i/Kω2−1.The single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model presented in the previous section considers only the rAVGRV volatility estimator or macroeconomic variable in the MIDAS term. However, numerous studies have shown that both realized volatility and macroeconomic variables have a significant impact on stock market volatility. WithY denoting the macroeconomic variable, as inspired by Engle et al. [2], equation (4) can be modified as(14)ri,t=μ+τYtgi,tεi,t.As a result, the long-run volatility component expressed in equations (8) and (11) can be rewritten as(15)logτt=m+θ1∑j=1K∅jω1,R,ω2,RrAVGRVt−j+θ2∑j=1K∅j′ω1,ω2Yt−j.Equations (14) and (15) represent multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model.


## 3. Empirical Analysis

### 3.1. Data

#### 3.1.1. Stock Market Data

This paper considers daily log-returns on the SSE Composite Index, calculated asri,t=100∗lnpi,t−lnpi,t−1, for the 2006 : M1 to 2021 : M6 period. To assess the volatility forecasts, this paper employed daily realized variances RVi,t and rAVGRVi,t, where RVi,t is calculated from 5 min intraday log-returns. The data can be obtained from Wind database.


#### 3.1.2. Explanatory Variables

Explanatory variables consist of macroeconomic consistency index (MCI), deposits in financial institutions (DFI), industrial value-added (IVA), and M2, as well as economic policy uncertainty index (EPUI) and Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV). They are monthly data.The monthly data of the Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index built by Huang et al. [23] are used. The index using 10 mainland Chinese newspapers can capture a wide range of uncertainty timely [24]. The Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) was built by Baker et al. [25]. Note that this paper aims to investigate whether and how infectious disease pandemic can affect the stock market volatility from a long-term perspective, instead of focusing on a single public health emergency, so the data from January 2006 to June 2021 are selected.Table1 reports the descriptive statistics of these time series. EMV is found with much larger standard deviation than those of stock indices. All the series have significant autocorrelation up to 10th lag, and they are not normally distributed.Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
RVtrAVGRVtMCIIVAM2DFICEPUEMVFrequencyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMean2.2941.9991.9920.1015.9745.9752.284−0.294Std0.2170.0740.0180.0460.2570.2550.3690.491Skewness2.582∗∗∗2.043∗∗∗−0.935∗∗∗0.532∗∗∗−0.384∗∗∗−0.355∗∗∗0.194∗∗∗2.259∗∗∗Kurtosis11.113∗∗∗6.930∗∗∗4.310∗∗∗2.185∗∗∗1.894∗∗1.887∗∗2.2108.708∗∗∗JB stat693.668∗∗∗241.078∗∗∗39.153∗∗∗13.477∗∗∗13.593∗∗∗13.085∗∗∗5.810∗397.347∗∗∗Q (5)232.73∗∗∗226.1∗∗∗517.89∗∗∗627.17∗∗∗814.5∗∗∗814.36∗∗∗556.5∗∗∗398.03∗∗∗Q (10)322.64∗∗∗324.34∗∗∗623.98∗∗∗1045.6∗∗∗1493∗∗∗1494.6∗∗∗917.41∗∗∗486.07∗∗∗Notes: the Jarque-Bera statistic test for the null hypothesis of normality in sample returns distribution.Q (n) is the Ljung-Box statistics of the return series for up to nth order serial correlation. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗ indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.The entire sample falls into two parts (i.e., estimation and forecast), in which the length of the estimation interval is from January 2006 to December 2020 (total 3647 days). The size of the forecast interval is from January 2021 to June 2021 (total 118 days). Both the daily closing rate data and the intraday high-frequency data are obtained from the RESSET database. Notably, when forecasting the volatility of SSE Composite Index, this paper uses a one-step forward rolling time window method. In other words, the first estimation intervalt=1,2,…,3647 is adopted to estimate the parameters of the GARCH-MIDAS model to determine the volatility value of SSE Composite Index, which is used as the volatility prediction value on day 3648. By keeping the length of the estimation interval constant, the estimated sample interval is shifted back one day, and the second estimation interval is t=2,3,…,3648, in which the parameters of the GARCH-MIDAS model are estimated again, and the volatility of the 3649th day is predicted. Next, the volatility prediction of the 118th day is conducted.


### 3.2. In-Sample Performance

#### 3.2.1. Analysis Based on Single-Factor GARCH-MIDAS Model

In the estimation of the GARCH-MIDAS model, the choice of weightsw and lags K is of high significance. For the choice of weights, this paper follows the study by Engle et al. [2], in which the first weight is taken, and the second weight is chosen during the estimation of the model to ensure that the weights decrease with the increase in the number of lags. K is the number of lags in MIDAS; since we use monthly data in the MIDAS equation, the lag order K can be taken as 12 according to Engle et al. [2].The single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model considers only the rAVGRV (RV) estimator or macroeconomic variable in the MIDAS term. The estimation results of single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model are listed in Table2.Table 2
Estimation results of single-factor GARCH-MIDAS (K = 12).
αβγmθw2MSEQLIKEGARCH-MIDAS0.0457∗∗∗0.951∗∗∗0.0062.031∗∗∗0.434∗∗1.328∗∗∗42.2171.632(RV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.606)(≤0.001)(0.049)(0.002)GARCH-MIDAS0.045∗∗∗0.951∗∗∗0.0052.013∗∗∗0.456∗1.558∗∗∗41.6591.601(rAVGRV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)0.642(≤0.001)(0.084)(0.005)GARCH-MIDAS0.0650.933∗∗∗0.0032.061−16.0707.55342.1971.628(MCI)(0.128)(0.966)(0.966)(0.341)(0.944)(0.973)GARCH-MIDAS0.062∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0082.147∗∗∗9.062∗∗∗4.965∗∗∗42.0871.628(IVA)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.655)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.152∗∗∗1.296∗2.31242.1891.629(M2)(0.024)(≤0.001)(0.782)(0.001)(0.095)(0.997)GARCH-MIDAS0.063∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.095∗∗∗−1.598∗∗∗1.928∗∗∗42.1901.629(DFI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.766)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.060∗∗∗0.935∗∗∗0.0072.096∗∗∗−3.480∗∗2.359∗∗∗42.2061.626(CEPU)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.667)(≤0.001)(0.019)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.081∗∗∗0.4382.801∗∗∗42.2351.629(EMV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.766)(≤0.001)(0.448)(≤0.001)Notes: the bracketed numbers are thep value of the estimations. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗ indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.From Table2, the following conclusions are drawn: (1) besides macroeconomic variable MCI, macroeconomic variables IVA, M2, and DFI are significant, thereby demonstrating that they significantly impact the volatility of the stock market. (2) Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index significantly impacts stock market volatility. The government’s policies are overly frequent, and the constant changes in policies increase internal and external uncertainties, thereby increasing stock market volatility. (3) Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) does not significantly impact the stock market, probably because timely actions by the Chinese authorities can reduce the volatility of their stock market, as also verified by Ali et al. [26] in the recent COVID-19 pandemic. (4) The coefficients θ corresponding to RV and rAVGRV are significant and are taken as positive values, which demonstrates that RV and rAVGRV can significantly improve the volatility of the Chinese stock market. Moreover, the loss functions MSE and QLIKE values of the GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model are smaller, which demonstrates that the model can be made better by using the rAVGRV estimator instead of the RV estimator in the GARCH-MIDAS model.


#### 3.2.2. Analysis Based on Multifactor GARCH-MIDAS Model

The multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model built with equations (14) and (15) is estimated using data within the sample interval, and the estimation results are listed in Table 3.Table 3
Estimation results of multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model (K = 12).
αβmθ1θ2ω1ω2LLFGARCH-MIDAS0.070∗∗∗0.909∗∗∗−0.0170.342∗∗∗0.1421.858∗∗∗4.433−5902.481(rAVGRV + MCI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.998)(≤0.001)(0.971)(≤0.001)(0.917)GARCH-MIDAS0.069∗∗∗0.898∗∗∗−0.585∗0.325∗∗∗7.403∗∗∗2.017∗∗∗1.001−5894.395(rAVGRV + IVA)(0.002)(≤0.001)(0.083)(0.001)(0.006)(0.001)(0.920)GARCH-MIDAS0.068∗∗∗0.897∗∗∗6.035∗0.306∗∗∗−0.972∗2.292∗∗∗2.037−5896.277(rAVGRV + M2)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.086)(≤0.001)(0.093)(≤0.001)(0.386)GARCH-MIDAS0.067∗∗∗0.898∗∗∗7.458∗∗0.289∗∗∗−1.207∗∗2.182∗∗∗1.608−5895.538(rAVGRV + DFI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.032)(≤0.001)(0.035)(≤0.001)(0.354)GARCH-MIDAS0.067∗∗∗0.906∗∗∗1.872∗∗∗0.332∗∗∗−0.724∗∗∗1.941∗∗∗38.808−5894.433(rAVGRV + CEPU)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.001)(≤0.001)(0.003)(≤0.001)(0.248)GARCH-MIDAS0.069∗∗∗0.909∗∗∗0.2820.341∗∗∗0.0841.891∗∗∗4.151−5902.443(rAVGRV + EMV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.528)(≤0.001)(0.748)(≤0.001)(0.763)Notes: LLF indicates maximum likelihood function value. The bracketed numbers are thep value of the estimations. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.According to Table3, (1) for all multifactor GARCH-MIDAS models, the rAVGRV estimator still significantly improves the Chinese stock market. (2) Consistent with the results of the single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model shown in Table 2, macroeconomic variables IVA, M2, and DFI significantly impact the volatility of the stock market. Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index significantly impacts stock market volatility. Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) insignificantly impacts the stock market.Figure1 illustrates the long-term components of stock market volatility of the GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating significant macroeconomic variables and CEPU, basically complying with the overall trend of the total conditional variance. Thus, the GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating macroeconomic variables and CEPU is suggested to have high goodness of fit.Figure 1
Fitting of conditional variance and long-run components of volatility for the multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating macroeconomic variables and CEPU. (a) rAVGRV + IVA. (b) rAVGRV + M2. (c) rAVGRV + DFI. (d) rAVGRV + CEPU.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.3. Forecast Comparisons

To assess the predictive performance exhibited by different models, the following loss functions are employed in the study:(16)MSE=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t2,MAE=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t,MSD=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t2,MAD=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t,QLIKE=1N∑t=1Nhth^t−loghth^t.N in the loss function represents the length of the prediction interval, with N = 118 days. ht and h^t denote the actual and predicted values of stock market volatility, respectively. Since the actual value of stock market volatility is unobservable, as suggested by Pan et al. [27], an estimate of RV based on the 5 min frequency was used instead of ht. A minor loss function indicates higher accuracy and better out-of-sample predictive power of the model. To verify whether the differences between the different prediction models are significant, the MCS proposed by Hansen et al. [28] is introduced for testing. The first step of the MCS test takes M=M0, M0 denotes the candidate model, and the significant level is set to a. If the null hypothesis is rejected, the worse-performing prediction model will be eliminated. The process continues till there is no more rejection of the null hypothesis to obtain the set of surviving models, which will be recorded as M^a∗. The model contained in M^a∗ refers to the optimal prediction model at the 1 − a confidence level. A condition for a model belonging to M is that its p value of the MCS test exceeds the significant level. In other words, the larger the p value of the prediction model is, the stronger the model’s predictive power will be. Table 4 lists the results of the MCS tests based on different models.Table 4
The MCS tests of GARCH-MIDAS model.
Loss functionMSEMAEMSDMADQLIKERank_MGARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV)0.8450.7930.8450.7620.8132GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + MCI)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + MCI)0.7430.8030.7900.7460.8022GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + IVA)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + IVA)0.7510.6980.8210.7920.8802GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + M2)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + M2)0.7970.8130.7960.8080.7792GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + DFI)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + DFI)0.8620.7870.7940.8380.7452GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + CEPU)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + CEPU)0.8120.7990.8520.8840.8022Notes: numbers in the table indicate thep values of the MCS test based on different loss functions. Rank_M indicates the ranking of the model.The benchmarkp value of the MCS test is set to 0.1. Given the principle of the MCS test, if the corresponding p value of the model is less than 0.10, the out-of-sample predictive ability of the model will be poor and will be rejected in the MCS test process. A larger p value reveals that the out-of-sample predictive ability of the model is better. As indicated by the above Table, the p value of the GARCH-MIDAS model based on the rAVGRV statistic is also slightly larger than the p value of the GARCH-MIDAS model based on the RV statistic, and the ranking of the model is higher after a two-by-two comparison. Thus, the results above demonstrate that the GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model can be better than the GARCH-MIDAS (RV) model to some extent, since the rAVGRV statistic removes the effect of noise in the estimation, and the estimated realized volatility can be more accurate.


## 3.1. Data

### 3.1.1. Stock Market Data

This paper considers daily log-returns on the SSE Composite Index, calculated asri,t=100∗lnpi,t−lnpi,t−1, for the 2006 : M1 to 2021 : M6 period. To assess the volatility forecasts, this paper employed daily realized variances RVi,t and rAVGRVi,t, where RVi,t is calculated from 5 min intraday log-returns. The data can be obtained from Wind database.


### 3.1.2. Explanatory Variables

Explanatory variables consist of macroeconomic consistency index (MCI), deposits in financial institutions (DFI), industrial value-added (IVA), and M2, as well as economic policy uncertainty index (EPUI) and Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV). They are monthly data.The monthly data of the Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index built by Huang et al. [23] are used. The index using 10 mainland Chinese newspapers can capture a wide range of uncertainty timely [24]. The Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) was built by Baker et al. [25]. Note that this paper aims to investigate whether and how infectious disease pandemic can affect the stock market volatility from a long-term perspective, instead of focusing on a single public health emergency, so the data from January 2006 to June 2021 are selected.Table1 reports the descriptive statistics of these time series. EMV is found with much larger standard deviation than those of stock indices. All the series have significant autocorrelation up to 10th lag, and they are not normally distributed.Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
RVtrAVGRVtMCIIVAM2DFICEPUEMVFrequencyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMean2.2941.9991.9920.1015.9745.9752.284−0.294Std0.2170.0740.0180.0460.2570.2550.3690.491Skewness2.582∗∗∗2.043∗∗∗−0.935∗∗∗0.532∗∗∗−0.384∗∗∗−0.355∗∗∗0.194∗∗∗2.259∗∗∗Kurtosis11.113∗∗∗6.930∗∗∗4.310∗∗∗2.185∗∗∗1.894∗∗1.887∗∗2.2108.708∗∗∗JB stat693.668∗∗∗241.078∗∗∗39.153∗∗∗13.477∗∗∗13.593∗∗∗13.085∗∗∗5.810∗397.347∗∗∗Q (5)232.73∗∗∗226.1∗∗∗517.89∗∗∗627.17∗∗∗814.5∗∗∗814.36∗∗∗556.5∗∗∗398.03∗∗∗Q (10)322.64∗∗∗324.34∗∗∗623.98∗∗∗1045.6∗∗∗1493∗∗∗1494.6∗∗∗917.41∗∗∗486.07∗∗∗Notes: the Jarque-Bera statistic test for the null hypothesis of normality in sample returns distribution.Q (n) is the Ljung-Box statistics of the return series for up to nth order serial correlation. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗ indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.The entire sample falls into two parts (i.e., estimation and forecast), in which the length of the estimation interval is from January 2006 to December 2020 (total 3647 days). The size of the forecast interval is from January 2021 to June 2021 (total 118 days). Both the daily closing rate data and the intraday high-frequency data are obtained from the RESSET database. Notably, when forecasting the volatility of SSE Composite Index, this paper uses a one-step forward rolling time window method. In other words, the first estimation intervalt=1,2,…,3647 is adopted to estimate the parameters of the GARCH-MIDAS model to determine the volatility value of SSE Composite Index, which is used as the volatility prediction value on day 3648. By keeping the length of the estimation interval constant, the estimated sample interval is shifted back one day, and the second estimation interval is t=2,3,…,3648, in which the parameters of the GARCH-MIDAS model are estimated again, and the volatility of the 3649th day is predicted. Next, the volatility prediction of the 118th day is conducted.


## 3.1.1. Stock Market Data

This paper considers daily log-returns on the SSE Composite Index, calculated asri,t=100∗lnpi,t−lnpi,t−1, for the 2006 : M1 to 2021 : M6 period. To assess the volatility forecasts, this paper employed daily realized variances RVi,t and rAVGRVi,t, where RVi,t is calculated from 5 min intraday log-returns. The data can be obtained from Wind database.


## 3.1.2. Explanatory Variables

Explanatory variables consist of macroeconomic consistency index (MCI), deposits in financial institutions (DFI), industrial value-added (IVA), and M2, as well as economic policy uncertainty index (EPUI) and Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV). They are monthly data.The monthly data of the Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index built by Huang et al. [23] are used. The index using 10 mainland Chinese newspapers can capture a wide range of uncertainty timely [24]. The Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) was built by Baker et al. [25]. Note that this paper aims to investigate whether and how infectious disease pandemic can affect the stock market volatility from a long-term perspective, instead of focusing on a single public health emergency, so the data from January 2006 to June 2021 are selected.Table1 reports the descriptive statistics of these time series. EMV is found with much larger standard deviation than those of stock indices. All the series have significant autocorrelation up to 10th lag, and they are not normally distributed.Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
RVtrAVGRVtMCIIVAM2DFICEPUEMVFrequencyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMean2.2941.9991.9920.1015.9745.9752.284−0.294Std0.2170.0740.0180.0460.2570.2550.3690.491Skewness2.582∗∗∗2.043∗∗∗−0.935∗∗∗0.532∗∗∗−0.384∗∗∗−0.355∗∗∗0.194∗∗∗2.259∗∗∗Kurtosis11.113∗∗∗6.930∗∗∗4.310∗∗∗2.185∗∗∗1.894∗∗1.887∗∗2.2108.708∗∗∗JB stat693.668∗∗∗241.078∗∗∗39.153∗∗∗13.477∗∗∗13.593∗∗∗13.085∗∗∗5.810∗397.347∗∗∗Q (5)232.73∗∗∗226.1∗∗∗517.89∗∗∗627.17∗∗∗814.5∗∗∗814.36∗∗∗556.5∗∗∗398.03∗∗∗Q (10)322.64∗∗∗324.34∗∗∗623.98∗∗∗1045.6∗∗∗1493∗∗∗1494.6∗∗∗917.41∗∗∗486.07∗∗∗Notes: the Jarque-Bera statistic test for the null hypothesis of normality in sample returns distribution.Q (n) is the Ljung-Box statistics of the return series for up to nth order serial correlation. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗ indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.The entire sample falls into two parts (i.e., estimation and forecast), in which the length of the estimation interval is from January 2006 to December 2020 (total 3647 days). The size of the forecast interval is from January 2021 to June 2021 (total 118 days). Both the daily closing rate data and the intraday high-frequency data are obtained from the RESSET database. Notably, when forecasting the volatility of SSE Composite Index, this paper uses a one-step forward rolling time window method. In other words, the first estimation intervalt=1,2,…,3647 is adopted to estimate the parameters of the GARCH-MIDAS model to determine the volatility value of SSE Composite Index, which is used as the volatility prediction value on day 3648. By keeping the length of the estimation interval constant, the estimated sample interval is shifted back one day, and the second estimation interval is t=2,3,…,3648, in which the parameters of the GARCH-MIDAS model are estimated again, and the volatility of the 3649th day is predicted. Next, the volatility prediction of the 118th day is conducted.


## 3.2. In-Sample Performance

### 3.2.1. Analysis Based on Single-Factor GARCH-MIDAS Model

In the estimation of the GARCH-MIDAS model, the choice of weightsw and lags K is of high significance. For the choice of weights, this paper follows the study by Engle et al. [2], in which the first weight is taken, and the second weight is chosen during the estimation of the model to ensure that the weights decrease with the increase in the number of lags. K is the number of lags in MIDAS; since we use monthly data in the MIDAS equation, the lag order K can be taken as 12 according to Engle et al. [2].The single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model considers only the rAVGRV (RV) estimator or macroeconomic variable in the MIDAS term. The estimation results of single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model are listed in Table2.Table 2
Estimation results of single-factor GARCH-MIDAS (K = 12).
αβγmθw2MSEQLIKEGARCH-MIDAS0.0457∗∗∗0.951∗∗∗0.0062.031∗∗∗0.434∗∗1.328∗∗∗42.2171.632(RV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.606)(≤0.001)(0.049)(0.002)GARCH-MIDAS0.045∗∗∗0.951∗∗∗0.0052.013∗∗∗0.456∗1.558∗∗∗41.6591.601(rAVGRV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)0.642(≤0.001)(0.084)(0.005)GARCH-MIDAS0.0650.933∗∗∗0.0032.061−16.0707.55342.1971.628(MCI)(0.128)(0.966)(0.966)(0.341)(0.944)(0.973)GARCH-MIDAS0.062∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0082.147∗∗∗9.062∗∗∗4.965∗∗∗42.0871.628(IVA)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.655)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.152∗∗∗1.296∗2.31242.1891.629(M2)(0.024)(≤0.001)(0.782)(0.001)(0.095)(0.997)GARCH-MIDAS0.063∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.095∗∗∗−1.598∗∗∗1.928∗∗∗42.1901.629(DFI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.766)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.060∗∗∗0.935∗∗∗0.0072.096∗∗∗−3.480∗∗2.359∗∗∗42.2061.626(CEPU)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.667)(≤0.001)(0.019)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.081∗∗∗0.4382.801∗∗∗42.2351.629(EMV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.766)(≤0.001)(0.448)(≤0.001)Notes: the bracketed numbers are thep value of the estimations. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗ indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.From Table2, the following conclusions are drawn: (1) besides macroeconomic variable MCI, macroeconomic variables IVA, M2, and DFI are significant, thereby demonstrating that they significantly impact the volatility of the stock market. (2) Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index significantly impacts stock market volatility. The government’s policies are overly frequent, and the constant changes in policies increase internal and external uncertainties, thereby increasing stock market volatility. (3) Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) does not significantly impact the stock market, probably because timely actions by the Chinese authorities can reduce the volatility of their stock market, as also verified by Ali et al. [26] in the recent COVID-19 pandemic. (4) The coefficients θ corresponding to RV and rAVGRV are significant and are taken as positive values, which demonstrates that RV and rAVGRV can significantly improve the volatility of the Chinese stock market. Moreover, the loss functions MSE and QLIKE values of the GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model are smaller, which demonstrates that the model can be made better by using the rAVGRV estimator instead of the RV estimator in the GARCH-MIDAS model.


### 3.2.2. Analysis Based on Multifactor GARCH-MIDAS Model

The multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model built with equations (14) and (15) is estimated using data within the sample interval, and the estimation results are listed in Table 3.Table 3
Estimation results of multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model (K = 12).
αβmθ1θ2ω1ω2LLFGARCH-MIDAS0.070∗∗∗0.909∗∗∗−0.0170.342∗∗∗0.1421.858∗∗∗4.433−5902.481(rAVGRV + MCI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.998)(≤0.001)(0.971)(≤0.001)(0.917)GARCH-MIDAS0.069∗∗∗0.898∗∗∗−0.585∗0.325∗∗∗7.403∗∗∗2.017∗∗∗1.001−5894.395(rAVGRV + IVA)(0.002)(≤0.001)(0.083)(0.001)(0.006)(0.001)(0.920)GARCH-MIDAS0.068∗∗∗0.897∗∗∗6.035∗0.306∗∗∗−0.972∗2.292∗∗∗2.037−5896.277(rAVGRV + M2)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.086)(≤0.001)(0.093)(≤0.001)(0.386)GARCH-MIDAS0.067∗∗∗0.898∗∗∗7.458∗∗0.289∗∗∗−1.207∗∗2.182∗∗∗1.608−5895.538(rAVGRV + DFI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.032)(≤0.001)(0.035)(≤0.001)(0.354)GARCH-MIDAS0.067∗∗∗0.906∗∗∗1.872∗∗∗0.332∗∗∗−0.724∗∗∗1.941∗∗∗38.808−5894.433(rAVGRV + CEPU)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.001)(≤0.001)(0.003)(≤0.001)(0.248)GARCH-MIDAS0.069∗∗∗0.909∗∗∗0.2820.341∗∗∗0.0841.891∗∗∗4.151−5902.443(rAVGRV + EMV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.528)(≤0.001)(0.748)(≤0.001)(0.763)Notes: LLF indicates maximum likelihood function value. The bracketed numbers are thep value of the estimations. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.According to Table3, (1) for all multifactor GARCH-MIDAS models, the rAVGRV estimator still significantly improves the Chinese stock market. (2) Consistent with the results of the single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model shown in Table 2, macroeconomic variables IVA, M2, and DFI significantly impact the volatility of the stock market. Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index significantly impacts stock market volatility. Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) insignificantly impacts the stock market.Figure1 illustrates the long-term components of stock market volatility of the GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating significant macroeconomic variables and CEPU, basically complying with the overall trend of the total conditional variance. Thus, the GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating macroeconomic variables and CEPU is suggested to have high goodness of fit.Figure 1
Fitting of conditional variance and long-run components of volatility for the multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating macroeconomic variables and CEPU. (a) rAVGRV + IVA. (b) rAVGRV + M2. (c) rAVGRV + DFI. (d) rAVGRV + CEPU.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.2.1. Analysis Based on Single-Factor GARCH-MIDAS Model

In the estimation of the GARCH-MIDAS model, the choice of weightsw and lags K is of high significance. For the choice of weights, this paper follows the study by Engle et al. [2], in which the first weight is taken, and the second weight is chosen during the estimation of the model to ensure that the weights decrease with the increase in the number of lags. K is the number of lags in MIDAS; since we use monthly data in the MIDAS equation, the lag order K can be taken as 12 according to Engle et al. [2].The single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model considers only the rAVGRV (RV) estimator or macroeconomic variable in the MIDAS term. The estimation results of single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model are listed in Table2.Table 2
Estimation results of single-factor GARCH-MIDAS (K = 12).
αβγmθw2MSEQLIKEGARCH-MIDAS0.0457∗∗∗0.951∗∗∗0.0062.031∗∗∗0.434∗∗1.328∗∗∗42.2171.632(RV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.606)(≤0.001)(0.049)(0.002)GARCH-MIDAS0.045∗∗∗0.951∗∗∗0.0052.013∗∗∗0.456∗1.558∗∗∗41.6591.601(rAVGRV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)0.642(≤0.001)(0.084)(0.005)GARCH-MIDAS0.0650.933∗∗∗0.0032.061−16.0707.55342.1971.628(MCI)(0.128)(0.966)(0.966)(0.341)(0.944)(0.973)GARCH-MIDAS0.062∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0082.147∗∗∗9.062∗∗∗4.965∗∗∗42.0871.628(IVA)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.655)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.152∗∗∗1.296∗2.31242.1891.629(M2)(0.024)(≤0.001)(0.782)(0.001)(0.095)(0.997)GARCH-MIDAS0.063∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.095∗∗∗−1.598∗∗∗1.928∗∗∗42.1901.629(DFI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.766)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.060∗∗∗0.935∗∗∗0.0072.096∗∗∗−3.480∗∗2.359∗∗∗42.2061.626(CEPU)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.667)(≤0.001)(0.019)(≤0.001)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗∗0.933∗∗∗0.0052.081∗∗∗0.4382.801∗∗∗42.2351.629(EMV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.766)(≤0.001)(0.448)(≤0.001)Notes: the bracketed numbers are thep value of the estimations. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗ indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.From Table2, the following conclusions are drawn: (1) besides macroeconomic variable MCI, macroeconomic variables IVA, M2, and DFI are significant, thereby demonstrating that they significantly impact the volatility of the stock market. (2) Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index significantly impacts stock market volatility. The government’s policies are overly frequent, and the constant changes in policies increase internal and external uncertainties, thereby increasing stock market volatility. (3) Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) does not significantly impact the stock market, probably because timely actions by the Chinese authorities can reduce the volatility of their stock market, as also verified by Ali et al. [26] in the recent COVID-19 pandemic. (4) The coefficients θ corresponding to RV and rAVGRV are significant and are taken as positive values, which demonstrates that RV and rAVGRV can significantly improve the volatility of the Chinese stock market. Moreover, the loss functions MSE and QLIKE values of the GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model are smaller, which demonstrates that the model can be made better by using the rAVGRV estimator instead of the RV estimator in the GARCH-MIDAS model.


## 3.2.2. Analysis Based on Multifactor GARCH-MIDAS Model

The multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model built with equations (14) and (15) is estimated using data within the sample interval, and the estimation results are listed in Table 3.Table 3
Estimation results of multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model (K = 12).
αβmθ1θ2ω1ω2LLFGARCH-MIDAS0.070∗∗∗0.909∗∗∗−0.0170.342∗∗∗0.1421.858∗∗∗4.433−5902.481(rAVGRV + MCI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.998)(≤0.001)(0.971)(≤0.001)(0.917)GARCH-MIDAS0.069∗∗∗0.898∗∗∗−0.585∗0.325∗∗∗7.403∗∗∗2.017∗∗∗1.001−5894.395(rAVGRV + IVA)(0.002)(≤0.001)(0.083)(0.001)(0.006)(0.001)(0.920)GARCH-MIDAS0.068∗∗∗0.897∗∗∗6.035∗0.306∗∗∗−0.972∗2.292∗∗∗2.037−5896.277(rAVGRV + M2)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.086)(≤0.001)(0.093)(≤0.001)(0.386)GARCH-MIDAS0.067∗∗∗0.898∗∗∗7.458∗∗0.289∗∗∗−1.207∗∗2.182∗∗∗1.608−5895.538(rAVGRV + DFI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.032)(≤0.001)(0.035)(≤0.001)(0.354)GARCH-MIDAS0.067∗∗∗0.906∗∗∗1.872∗∗∗0.332∗∗∗−0.724∗∗∗1.941∗∗∗38.808−5894.433(rAVGRV + CEPU)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.001)(≤0.001)(0.003)(≤0.001)(0.248)GARCH-MIDAS0.069∗∗∗0.909∗∗∗0.2820.341∗∗∗0.0841.891∗∗∗4.151−5902.443(rAVGRV + EMV)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.528)(≤0.001)(0.748)(≤0.001)(0.763)Notes: LLF indicates maximum likelihood function value. The bracketed numbers are thep value of the estimations. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.According to Table3, (1) for all multifactor GARCH-MIDAS models, the rAVGRV estimator still significantly improves the Chinese stock market. (2) Consistent with the results of the single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model shown in Table 2, macroeconomic variables IVA, M2, and DFI significantly impact the volatility of the stock market. Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index significantly impacts stock market volatility. Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) insignificantly impacts the stock market.Figure1 illustrates the long-term components of stock market volatility of the GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating significant macroeconomic variables and CEPU, basically complying with the overall trend of the total conditional variance. Thus, the GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating macroeconomic variables and CEPU is suggested to have high goodness of fit.Figure 1
Fitting of conditional variance and long-run components of volatility for the multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model incorporating macroeconomic variables and CEPU. (a) rAVGRV + IVA. (b) rAVGRV + M2. (c) rAVGRV + DFI. (d) rAVGRV + CEPU.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.3. Forecast Comparisons

To assess the predictive performance exhibited by different models, the following loss functions are employed in the study:(16)MSE=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t2,MAE=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t,MSD=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t2,MAD=1N∑t=1Nht−h^t,QLIKE=1N∑t=1Nhth^t−loghth^t.N in the loss function represents the length of the prediction interval, with N = 118 days. ht and h^t denote the actual and predicted values of stock market volatility, respectively. Since the actual value of stock market volatility is unobservable, as suggested by Pan et al. [27], an estimate of RV based on the 5 min frequency was used instead of ht. A minor loss function indicates higher accuracy and better out-of-sample predictive power of the model. To verify whether the differences between the different prediction models are significant, the MCS proposed by Hansen et al. [28] is introduced for testing. The first step of the MCS test takes M=M0, M0 denotes the candidate model, and the significant level is set to a. If the null hypothesis is rejected, the worse-performing prediction model will be eliminated. The process continues till there is no more rejection of the null hypothesis to obtain the set of surviving models, which will be recorded as M^a∗. The model contained in M^a∗ refers to the optimal prediction model at the 1 − a confidence level. A condition for a model belonging to M is that its p value of the MCS test exceeds the significant level. In other words, the larger the p value of the prediction model is, the stronger the model’s predictive power will be. Table 4 lists the results of the MCS tests based on different models.Table 4
The MCS tests of GARCH-MIDAS model.
Loss functionMSEMAEMSDMADQLIKERank_MGARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV)0.8450.7930.8450.7620.8132GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + MCI)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + MCI)0.7430.8030.7900.7460.8022GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + IVA)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + IVA)0.7510.6980.8210.7920.8802GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + M2)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + M2)0.7970.8130.7960.8080.7792GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + DFI)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + DFI)0.8620.7870.7940.8380.7452GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + CEPU)1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001GARCH-MIDAS (RV + CEPU)0.8120.7990.8520.8840.8022Notes: numbers in the table indicate thep values of the MCS test based on different loss functions. Rank_M indicates the ranking of the model.The benchmarkp value of the MCS test is set to 0.1. Given the principle of the MCS test, if the corresponding p value of the model is less than 0.10, the out-of-sample predictive ability of the model will be poor and will be rejected in the MCS test process. A larger p value reveals that the out-of-sample predictive ability of the model is better. As indicated by the above Table, the p value of the GARCH-MIDAS model based on the rAVGRV statistic is also slightly larger than the p value of the GARCH-MIDAS model based on the RV statistic, and the ranking of the model is higher after a two-by-two comparison. Thus, the results above demonstrate that the GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model can be better than the GARCH-MIDAS (RV) model to some extent, since the rAVGRV statistic removes the effect of noise in the estimation, and the estimated realized volatility can be more accurate.


## 4. Application in the Portfolio

To verify the effectiveness of various types of volatility forecasting models in practice, they can be applied to a portfolio. It is assumed that the investor invests his money in equities and risk-free assets, respectively. In a standard mean-variance portfolio, the optimal weighting of an investor’s investment in a stock is determined a priori based on the predicted variance. A volatility timing strategy popular in forecasting literature (Campbell and Thompson [29]; Ferreira and Santa-Clara [30]; Neely et al. [31]) is adopted in this paper. To be specific, at the end of day t, the investor calculates the optimal weight of the stock index according to the following equation for the next day t + 1:(17)wt=1δR^t+1−Rf,th^t+1.In the above equation,δ denotes the risk aversion coefficient, R^t+1 represents the predicted value of stock returns that exceed the risk-free rate Rf,t, and here this paper selected the benchmark bank 1-year time deposit rate in place of the risk-free rate. h^t+1 expresses the predicted value of stock market volatility. The weight of an investor’s investment in equities is expressed as wt, and the remainder weight 1−wt is assigned to the risk-free asset. Certainly, the optimal weight of stock is affected by the value of risk coefficient δ. For robustness check, four different δ’s of 5, 10, 15, and 20 are adopted.Then the return of the portfolio is expressed as(18)Rp,t+1=wtRt+1+Rf,t.To assess the portfolio performance, the measure of certainty equivalent return (CER) is adopted as follows:(19)CERp=μp−12δσp2,where μp and σp2 denote the mean and variance of the portfolio returns, respectively. The CER values of the portfolios by using different volatility models are listed in the tables below.Tables5 and 6 list the annualized percentage values. (1) The economic value corresponding to the GARCH-MIDAS model significantly exceeds that of the GARCH model, so the GARCH-MIDAS model can have high performance in the portfolio, regardless of the risk aversion coefficient. (2) GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model is slightly better than GARCH-MIDAS (RV) model, and the application of the GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model to a portfolio can create a higher economic value.Table 5
Investment performance of different models based on RV.
δGARCHGARCH-MIDAS (RV)GARCH-MIDAS (RV + MCI)GARCH-MIDAS (RV + IVA)GARCH-MIDAS (RV + M2)GARCH-MIDAS (RV + DFI)GARCH-MIDAS (RV + CEPU)51.5451.6701.8011.7901.8401.8051.796101.3291.5031.6641.5951.6991.6861.599151.2601.3321.4931.3201.5821.4801.436201.0651.2521.3251.2951.3991.3731.311Table 6
Investment performance of different models based on rAVGRV.
δGARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV)GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + MCI)GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + IVA)GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + M2)GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + DFI)GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV + CEPU)51.7891.8801.8221.9001.8731.815101.5851.6621.7181.8261.8001.770151.3301.4651.6041.6841.6121.592201.1121.3401.4821.5261.4931.391


## 5. Robustness Checks

To verify whether it is better to use rAVGRV instead of the RV estimator in the GARCH-MIDAS model, the GARCH-MIDAS-X model (Amendola et al. [24]; Engle and Patton [32]) is applied for further analysis. GARCH-MIDAS-X models are built for MCI, IVA, DFI, CEPU, EWV, and M2, respectively. RV or rAVGRV is included as a daily lagged variable in the short-run component (the so-called “–X” term). In this paper, the SSE Composite Index data from January 2006 to December 2020 are still used. The estimation results of the GARCH-MIDAS-X model are listed in Table 7.Table 7
Estimation results of GARCH-MIDAS-X (K = 12).
Xβzmθw2MSEQLIKEGARCH-MIDAS-X (MCI)RV0.800∗∗0.0811.072∗∗∗−4.976∗∗∗2.26352.4882.02rAVGRV0.928∗∗∗0.024∗∗1.033∗∗∗−20.493∗∗∗1.61846.3801.913GARCH-MIDAS-X (IVA)RV0.808∗∗∗0.0781.076∗∗∗7.5699.130∗∗∗52.4352.021rAVGRV0.926∗∗∗0.027∗∗1.040∗∗∗8.172∗∗∗9.013∗∗∗46.8001.931GARCH-MIDAS-X (DFI)RV0.798∗∗∗0.081∗1.071∗∗∗0.264∗∗1.96752.3632.02rAVGRV0.925∗∗∗0.025∗1.037∗∗∗0.825∗∗∗2.08846.3221.913GARCH-MIDAS-X (CEPU)RV0.801∗∗∗0.081.0740∗∗∗−0.138.928∗∗∗52.3612.021rAVGRV0.930∗∗∗0.0211.055∗∗∗−0.893∗∗5.67445.4881.878GARCH-MIDAS-X (EMV)RV0.801∗∗∗0.081.068∗∗∗0.5742.025∗∗52.1892.021rAVGRV0.930∗∗∗0.004∗1.462∗∗∗−0.632∗1.001∗∗42.9071.689GARCH-MIDAS-X (M2)RV0.797∗∗∗0.0821.071∗∗∗1.710∗∗∗2.287∗∗∗52.7592.024rAVGRV0.927∗∗∗0.024∗∗0.950∗∗∗16.540∗18.302∗∗46.0041.896Notes:∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively. X represents RV or rAVGRV. z represents the coefficients corresponding to X term. Other parameters are consistent with Table 2.As indicated by the results in Table7, (1) for all GARCH-MIDAS-X models, the corresponding loss functions MSE and QLIKE are significantly smaller when the X term is the rAVGRV estimator, which demonstrates that the GARCH-MIDAS-X model built based on rAVGRV is better. (2) According to the parameter term z, when the X term is the rAVGRV estimator, it significantly impacts the Chinese stock market in most cases.To test the robustness of the research results in the previous section, CSI 300 index is also used as a proxy variable for the Chinese stock market. The selected data estimation interval remains from January 2006 to December 2020. Moreover, the estimation results are listed in Table8.Table 8
Estimation results of multifactor GARCH-MIDAS model based on CSI 300 (K = 12).
αβγmθ1θ2ω1ω2LLFGARCH-MIDAS0.065∗∗∗0.914∗∗∗0.016−0.7000.302∗∗∗0.5621.827∗∗∗1.003−6201.200(rAVGRV + MCI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.321)(0.650)(0.001)(0.393)(≤0.001)(0.782)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗∗0.911∗∗∗0.015−0.3210.276∗∗∗7.175∗∗∗1.838∗∗∗6.663∗∗−6193.656(rAVGRV + IVA)(0.001)(≤0.001)(0.360)(0.251)(≤0.001)(0.004)(0.001)(0.037)GARCH-MIDAS0.061∗∗∗0.909∗∗∗0.0189.231∗∗0.217∗∗−1.461∗∗2.059∗∗∗2.576−6194.839(rAVGRV + M2)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.265)(0.026)(0.014)(0.030)(0.002)(0.665)GARCH-MIDAS0.061∗∗∗0.908∗∗∗0.0188.742∗∗0.228∗∗∗−1.382∗∗2.096∗∗∗4.214−6194.75(rAVGRV + DFI)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.261)(0.031)(0.008)(0.036)(0.001)(0.481)GARCH-MIDAS0.061∗∗∗0.915∗∗∗0.017∗∗∗2.200∗∗∗0.277∗∗∗−0.780∗∗∗1.868∗∗∗56.843∗∗∗−6191.956(rAVGRV + CEPU)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.006)(≤0.001)(≤0.001)(0.001)(≤0.001)(0.002)GARCH-MIDAS0.064∗∗∗0.917∗∗∗0.0150.5340.282∗∗∗0.0731.710∗∗3.458−6201.44(rAVGRV + EMV)(0.001)(≤0.001)(0.389)(0.484)(0.003)(0.803)(0.048)(0.684)Notes: LLF indicates maximum likelihood function value. The bracketed numbers are thep value of the estimations. ∗∗∗, ∗∗, and ∗indicate rejection at the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.According to Table8, (1) the coefficients θ1 corresponding to rAVGRV are significant and are taken as a positive value, so rAVGRV estimator can exert a significantly positive effect on the volatility of the Chinese stock market. (2) Variables IVA, M2, DFI, and CEPU still significantly impact the volatility of the stock market, and the impact of EMV on the stock market remains insignificant. In brief, the conclusions drawn from Table 8 comply with Table 3. Thus, the findings of this paper are verified to be robust.


## 6. Conclusion

We further extend the existing GARCH-MIDAS model. This paper has two highlights. First, the rAVGRV estimator considering noise effects is adopted to estimate the long-term volatility components of the GARCH-MIDAS model. Second, in the GARCH-MIDAS model, the Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) and Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index are introduced besides macroeconomic variables to more comprehensively analyze the factors of Chinese stock market volatility based on the research in the study. Moreover, the following conclusions are drawn:The GARCH-MIDAS (rAVGRV) model is slightly better than the GARCH-MIDAS (RV) model, since the effect of noise on the stock market in high-frequency data cannot be ignored. rAVGRV statistic removes the effect of noise in the estimation. As a result, the estimated realized volatility can be more accurate.In single-factor GARCH-MIDAS model, the coefficientsθ corresponding to RV and rAVGRV are significant and are taken as positive values, which demonstrates that RV and rAVGRV significantly improve the volatility of the Chinese stock market.For all GARCH-MIDAS models, macroeconomic variables IVA, M2, and DFI significantly impact stock market volatility. Likewise, Chinese Economic Policy Uncertainty (CEPU) index impacts stock market volatility significantly, the government’s policies are overly frequent, and the constant changes in policies cause more internal and external uncertainties, which increases stock market volatility. Besides, Infectious Disease Equity Market Volatility Tracker (EMV) insignificantly impacts the stock market, since timely actions by the Chinese authorities can reduce the volatility of their stock market, which is also verified by Amendola et al. [24] in the recent COVID-19 pandemic.



---

*Source: 6176451-2022-01-17.xml*