I have got clarifications about almost all the aspects of interpretation a DCC model from a post from 2016. But I have a doubt regarding the interpretation of dcca1 and dccb1. The answer there mentions only about the joint (in)significance of the model. But I have obtained some results where dcca1 is insignificant but dccb1 is highly significant.
Does that imply that DCC is inappropriate for my analysis?

One of my results is attached below for reference.

--------------------------------- * DCC GARCH Fit * ---------------------------------

Distribution         :  mvnorm
Model                :  DCC(1,1)
No. Parameters       :  15
[VAR GARCH DCC UncQ] : [0+12+2+1]
No. Series           :  2
No. Obs.             :  201
Log-Likelihood       :  -569.3227
Av.Log-Likelihood    :  -2.83 

Optimal Parameters

                   Estimate  Std. Error  t value Pr(>|t|)
[lnm4d1gr].mu      5.963277    0.505299  11.8015 0.000000
[lnm4d1gr].ar1     0.864758    0.041394  20.8909 0.000000
[lnm4d1gr].ma1     0.321100    0.124583   2.5774 0.009955
[lnm4d1gr].omega   0.183493    0.079986   2.2941 0.021787
[lnm4d1gr].alpha1  0.186084    0.077458   2.4024 0.016289
[lnm4d1gr].beta1   0.692538    0.051244  13.5145 0.000000
[lngdpgr].mu       3.006723    0.346063   8.6884 0.000000
[lngdpgr].ar1      0.812573    0.046041  17.6491 0.000000
[lngdpgr].ma1      0.311830    0.075900   4.1084 0.000040
[lngdpgr].omega    0.037324    0.026482   1.4094 0.158721
[lngdpgr].alpha1   0.211533    0.099433   2.1274 0.033388
[lngdpgr].beta1    0.760996    0.085243   8.9273 0.000000
[Joint]dcca1       0.053790    0.040828   1.3175 0.187680
[Joint]dccb1       0.876877    0.057316  15.2990 0.000000

Information Criteria

Akaike       5.8142
Bayes        6.0607
Shibata      5.8040
Hannan-Quinn 5.9139
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to Cross Validated! What is the post you are referring to? Could you include a link? $\endgroup$ Sep 27, 2018 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ I can help you if you provide the model you are trying to fit which corresponds to the GARCH DCC output in R. $\endgroup$
    – An Duong
    Oct 5, 2018 at 4:24

1 Answer 1


You can test the appropriateness of the DCC-GARCH (or some other) model by

  1. testing joint significance of its coefficients and
  2. testing whether the model residuals satisfy the assumptions that the model puts on them.

Failing the first test would imply the model is not appropriate. (Failing the second test would imply the same.)

Some other comments:

  1. If the conditional correlation were actually constant, you would expect dcca1 to be approximately zero (insignificantly different from zero) and dccb1 to be approximately 1 (insignificantly different from 1, but significantly different from zero). In your case you have the first but not the second.
    If the true process had dcca1=0 and 0<dccb1<1, that would imply the conditional correlation is declining over time and is asymptoting towards (1-dccb1)/dccb1, similarly to the bottom-right graph in this answer.
  2. An important remark here is that no asymptotic theory for the DCC-GARCH model exists (as of 27 September 2018, AFAIK), except for some step towards it made by McAleer in "Stationarity and invertibility of a dynamic correlation matrix" (2018) and a very recent special case, scalar DCC, by Wang and Pan "A scalar dynamic conditional correlation model: Structure and estimation" (2018). Hence, the estimates of statistical significance are questionable. See also Chang et al. "Volatility Spillovers between Energy and Agricultural Markets: A Critical Appraisal of Theory and Practice" (2018).
  • $\begingroup$ One day after posting this answer, I received an update on ResearchGate with Wang & Pan's (2018) paper, published online on 6 September 2018. (What a coincidence.) I have now included it in the answer. $\endgroup$ Sep 28, 2018 at 7:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.