What is the Jarque-Bera test and how do you use it to check if financial returns are normal?
My FRM study material mentions the Jarque-Bera test as a formal way to test normality. I know that financial returns often have fat tails and skewness, but I want to understand how the JB statistic is computed and interpreted. Is it just combining skewness and kurtosis into one number?
The Jarque-Bera (JB) test is exactly that — a joint test of whether a sample's skewness and excess kurtosis are consistent with a normal distribution. It is one of the most commonly referenced normality tests in FRM because financial return distributions routinely violate normality.
The JB Statistic
JB = (n/6) x [S^2 + (K-3)^2 / 4]
Where:
- n = number of observations
- S = sample skewness
- K = sample kurtosis (some formulas use excess kurtosis K-3 directly)
For a normal distribution: S = 0 and K = 3 (excess kurtosis = 0). So if the data is perfectly normal, JB = 0.
Under H0 (normality), JB follows a chi-squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom.
Worked Example
Dunmore Capital's risk team analyzes 500 daily returns of their emerging markets fund and finds:
- Sample skewness: S = -0.45 (negative skew — left tail is longer)
- Sample kurtosis: K = 5.20 (leptokurtic — fat tails)
JB = (500/6) x [(-0.45)^2 + (5.20 - 3)^2 / 4]
JB = 83.33 x [0.2025 + 4.84/4]
JB = 83.33 x [0.2025 + 1.21]
JB = 83.33 x 1.4125
= 117.7
Critical value: chi^2(0.05, 2) = 5.99
Since 117.7 >> 5.99, we decisively reject normality. The returns exhibit both significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis.
Why It Matters for Risk Management
- VaR models that assume normality will underestimate tail risk if JB rejects normality
- Negative skewness means extreme losses are more likely than a normal distribution predicts
- Excess kurtosis means both extreme gains and losses occur more frequently
- If JB rejects, consider using t-distributions, EVT, or historical simulation instead of parametric normal VaR
Exam tip: The JB test is always two-tailed (JB >= 0) and uses 2 degrees of freedom regardless of sample size.
Explore our FRM quantitative analysis course for deeper coverage.
Master Part I with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
Why is DV01 so much smaller than dollar duration if both are supposed to measure rate risk?
When should I stop using modified duration and switch to effective duration?
How should I think about the relationship between Macaulay duration and modified duration instead of memorizing two separate definitions?
Why do hedge calculations often use dollar duration or DV01 instead of just modified duration?
When should I prefer historical simulation VaR over delta-normal VaR?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.