Value at Risk estimation using GAS models with heavy tailed distributions for cryptocurrencies
Stephanie Danielle Subramoney · Knowledge Chinhamu · Retius Chifurira
International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies · 2021 · Vol. 10 / Issue 4 · 40-54
Publication metrics
External links open provider records or DOI searches. Provider counts are not combined. Mendeley readership measures saves, not citations.
Dimensions
Live provider badge. If unavailable, use the Dimensions link above.
Observed 21 Oct 2026, 00:21 UTC
Observed 21 Oct 2026 00:22 UTC
Observed 21 Oct 2026 23:53 UTC
OpenAlex and Mendeley observations refresh on article visits, at most once per 24 hours. Unavailable data is not zero. Google Scholar opens a DOI search.
Citations received by this article, grouped by the year of the citing work. Crossref and OpenAlex lifetime totals remain separate in Publication metrics.
2017–2026 Annual history last updated:
Citations received
OpenAlex · year of the citing work
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
View data & coverage
2026 is incomplete. Within a successfully fetched ten-year window, omitted years mean zero. Years beyond a saved observation’s window remain unknown (—). Older citations are excluded, so this chart’s sum may differ from the OpenAlex lifetime total. The date above belongs to this annual history; an unsuccessful refresh keeps the previous observation.
Abstract
Risk management and prediction of market losses of cryptocurrencies are of notable value to risk managers, portfolio managers, financial market researchers and academics. One of the most common measures of an asset’s risk is Value-at-Risk (VaR). This paper evaluates and compares the performance of generalized autoregressive score (GAS) combined with heavy-tailed distributions, in estimating the VaR of two well-known cryptocurrencies’ returns, namely Bitcoin returns and Ethereum returns. In this paper, we proposed a VaR model for Bitcoin and Ethereum returns, namely the GAS model combined with the generalized lambda distribution (GLD), referred to as the GAS-GLD model. The relative performance of the GAS-GLD models was compared to the models proposed by Troster et al. (2018), in other words, GAS models combined with asymmetric Laplace distribution (ALD), the asymmetric Student’s t-distribution (AST) and the skew Student’s t-distribution (SSTD). The Kupiec likelihood ratio test was used to assess the adequacy of the proposed models. The principal findings suggest that the GAS models with heavy-tailed innovation distributions are, in fact, appropriate for modelling cryptocurrency returns, with the GAS-GLD being the most adequate for the Bitcoin returns at various VaR levels, and both GAS-SSTD, GAS-ALD and GAS-GLD models being the most appropriate for the Ethereum returns at the VaR levels used in this study.
Keywords: {'name': 'Cryptocurrency'}, {'name': 'GAS'}, {'name': 'Generalised Lambda Distribution'}, {'name': 'Value at Risk'}
Authors & affiliations
Stephanie Danielle Subramoney
Affiliation not supplied
Knowledge Chinhamu
Affiliation not supplied
Retius Chifurira
Affiliation not supplied
Deposited references
Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.
DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2018.08.009
DOI: 10.32614/RJ-2018-064
Bouoiyour, J., Selmi, R., Tiwari, A., & Olayeni, O. (2016). What drives Bitcoin price? Economics Bulletin, 36, 843-850.
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3028486
Chalabi Y., Scott, D.J., & Wuertz, D. (2012). Flexible distribution modelling with the generalized lambda distribution. MPRA Paper No. 43333.
DOI: 10.3390/jrfm10020012
DOI: 10.2307/2527341
DOI: 10.3390/jrfm10040017
DOI: 10.3390/jrfm11020023
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.248696
DOI: 10.1002/jae.1279
DOI: 10.3905/jod.1997.407971
DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2015.10.008
DOI: 10.2307/2999632
Jorion, P., (2000). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk.
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.023
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0173-1
DOI: 10.3905/jod.1995.407942
DOI: 10.3905/jod.1995.407942
DOI: 10.20448/2002.11.71.75
DOI: 10.1016/S1574-0706(05)01016-5
DOI: 10.1145/360827.360840
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-11460-6_22
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2018.04.046
DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2018.09.014