The Limits of Machine Learning in Daily Return Forecasting: Evidence from Volatility Regimes, Tail Risk, and Multi-Asset Markets

Article Sidebar

PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.28924/2291-8639-24-2026-359
Published: Oct 26, 2026
Cite as:
Alshaikh A. Shokeralla, The Limits of Machine Learning in Daily Return Forecasting: Evidence from Volatility Regimes, Tail Risk, and Multi-Asset Markets, Int. J. Anal. Appl., 24 (2026), 359.

Main Article Content

Alshaikh A. Shokeralla

Abstract

The study analyzes volatility regimes, tail risk and machine learning forecastability of seven financial assets (BTC, ETH, the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Gold, Crude Oil, and US Dollar Index) from 2017 to 2026. Structural break analysis shows that financial instability is characterized by variance, not by a change in the mean. EGARCH is preferred in five out of seven assets, with significant leverage effects in the equity indices. According to EVT analysis, ETH and BTC are the highest-tail-risk assets, while Crude Oil has the heaviest tail. Kupiec and Christoffersen VaR back testing results show that Gold’ s actual exceedance rate at the 95th percentile is almost twice the expected exceedance rate. XGBoost doesn’ t statistically outperform Linear Regression (DM = \(-\)0.403, p = 0.687), and the most important predictive element is a 5-day rolling mean return. The results show that most predictive information in daily returns is contained in linear autoregressive features.

Article Details

References

  1. T. Bollerslev, Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity, J. Econom. 31 (1986), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1.
  2. P.F. Christoffersen, Evaluating Interval Forecasts, Int. Econ. Rev. 39 (1998), 841–862. https://doi.org/10.2307/2527341.
  3. F.X. Diebold, R.S. Mariano, Comparing Predictive Accuracy, J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 13 (1995), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1995.10524599.
  4. R. Engle, Dynamic Conditional Correlation: A Simple Class of Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity Models, J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 20 (2002), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102288618487.
  5. S. Foley, J.R. Karlsen, T.J. Putniņš, Sex, Drugs, and Bitcoin: How Much Illegal Activity Is Financed through Cryptocurrencies?, Rev. Financ. Stud. 32 (2019), 1798–1853. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz015.
  6. L.R. Glosten, R. Jagannathan, D.E. Runkle, On the Relation between the Expected Value and the Volatility of the Nominal Excess Return on Stocks, J. Finance 48 (1993), 1779–1801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb05128.x.
  7. S. Gu, B. Kelly, D. Xiu, Empirical Asset Pricing via Machine Learning, Rev. Financ. Stud. 33 (2020), 2223–2273. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa009.
  8. D. Harvey, S. Leybourne, P. Newbold, Testing the Equality of Prediction Mean Squared Errors, Int. J. Forecast. 13 (1997), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(96)00719-4.
  9. H. Hong, J.C. Stein, A Unified Theory of Underreaction, Momentum Trading, and Overreaction in Asset Markets, J. Finance 54 (1999), 2143–2184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00184.
  10. N. Jegadeesh, S. Titman, Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency, J. Finance 48 (1993), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04702.x.
  11. R. Killick, P. Fearnhead, I.A. Eckley, Optimal Detection of Changepoints with a Linear Computational Cost, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 107 (2012), 1590–1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745.
  12. P.H. Kupiec, Techniques for Verifying the Accuracy of Risk Measurement Models, J. Deriv. 3 (1995), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1995.407942.
  13. Y. Liu, A. Tsyvinski, X. Wu, Common Risk Factors in Cryptocurrency, J. Finance 77 (2022), 1133–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13119.
  14. S.M. Lundberg, S.-I. Lee, A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, Curran Associates, Inc., pp. 4765–4774, (2017). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/8a20a8621978632d76c43dfd28b67767-Abstract.html.
  15. A.J. McNeil, R. Frey, Estimation of Tail-Related Risk Measures for Heteroscedastic Financial Time Series: An Extreme Value Approach, J. Empir. Finance 7 (2000), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5398(00)00012-8.
  16. A.J. McNeil, R. Frey, P. Embrechts, Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools, Revised ed., Princeton University Press, 2015.
  17. T.J. Moskowitz, Y.H. Ooi, L.H. Pedersen, Time Series Momentum, J. Financ. Econ. 104 (2012), 228–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.11.003.
  18. D.B. Nelson, Conditional Heteroskedasticity in Asset Returns: A New Approach, Econometrica 59 (1991), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938260.
  19. A. Neuhierl, R.T. Varneskov, Frequency Dependent Risk, J. Financ. Econ. 140 (2021), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.007.
  20. W.K. Newey, K.D. West, A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix, Econometrica 55 (1987), 703–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913610.
  21. I. Welch, A. Goyal, A Comprehensive Look at the Empirical Performance of Equity Premium Prediction, Rev. Financ. Stud. 21 (2008), 1455–1508. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhm014.