Comparing the estimation of Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall with LSTM and EGARCH family members
Shujie Li ()
Additional contact information
Shujie Li: Paderborn University
No 173, Working Papers CIE from Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics
Abstract:
This paper aims to compare the performance of traditional GARCH-type models and an LSTM-based approach for forecasting Value at Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES) under different symmetric and skewed distributions. To assess model performance, eight stock indices from diverse international markets are analyzed. The models are evaluated using three backtesting approaches and a model selection criterion, the Weighted Absolute Deviation (WAD). The results indicate that the selected indices exhibit heavy tails and asymmetry. In general, the results obtained under skewed distributions generally outperform those obtained under symmetric distributions. In most cases, the LSTM model is selected as the top performing model. However, some models from the EGARCH family remain strong competitors, especially under the asymmetry distributions, and might be preferred for certain indices.
Keywords: GARCH-type models; EGF; LSTM; VaR; ES; Backtesting (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C45 G52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 53
Date: 2026-03
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
http://groups.uni-paderborn.de/wp-wiwi/RePEc/pdf/ciepap/WP173.pdf (application/pdf)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pdn:ciepap:173
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers CIE from Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by WP-WiWi-Info ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ) and ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).