<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">global-journal-of-management-and-business-research-c-finance</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Global Journal of Management and Business Research - C: Finance</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn publication-format="print">0975-5853</issn>
<issn publication-format="electronic">2249-4588</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Global Journals Publishing Group Incorporated</publisher-name></publisher>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://globaljournals.org/journal-seo-export/jats/56700.xml" />
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">56700</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Estimating the United States Dollar Index Returnsâ€™ Value at Risk: Empirical Evidence from RiskMetrics and Simultaneous Bootstrap Quantile Regression Methods</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Charme</surname><given-names>Musolongo Mawete</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1" />
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="aff1">CHINA, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics</aff>
<pub-date publication-format="electronic" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2020-01-15">
<day>15</day>
<month>01</month>
<year>2020</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>20</volume>
<issue>C1</issue>
<fpage>21</fpage>
<lpage>30</lpage>
<abstract><p>Two methods, namely simultaneous bootstrap quantile regression and RiskMetrics, are backtesting and compared to establish which one is a better Value at Risk (VaR) estimate for the United States dollar index returns. Using daily closing prices and the nearby contract settlement prices from 20 November 1985 to 15 February 2017, the results of this empirical research point out that at 5% of the significance level, RiskMetrics with IGARCH (1, 1) underestimates VaR for the next trading day. From the backtest findings, the number of violations in the RiskMetrics method is more than in simultaneous bootstrap quantile regression even after controlling for marginal effects of the index futures returns and volatilities in both spot and futures markets.</p></abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-generated">
<kwd>value at risk</kwd>
<kwd>riskmetrics</kwd>
<kwd>simultaneous bootstrap quantile regression</kwd>
<kwd>backtest</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume20/3-Estimating-the-United-States.pdf" />
<self-uri content-type="html" xlink:href="https://globaljournals.org/scholarly-articles/estimating-the-united-states-dollar-index-returns-value-at-risk-empirical-evidence-from-riskmetrics-and-simultaneous-bootstrap-quantile-regression-methods/" />
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec>
<title>Full Text</title>
<p>Two methods, namely simultaneous bootstrap quantile regression and RiskMetrics, are backtesting and compared to establish which one is a better Value at Risk (VaR) estimate for the United States dollar index returns. Using daily closing prices and the nearby contract settlement prices from 20 November 1985 to 15 February 2017, the results of this empirical research point out that at 5% of the significance level, RiskMetrics with IGARCH (1, 1) underestimates VaR for the next trading day. From the backtest findings, the number of violations in the RiskMetrics method is more than in simultaneous bootstrap quantile regression even after controlling for marginal effects of the index futures returns and volatilities in both spot and futures markets</p>
</sec>
</body>
</article>