[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/62002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why risk is so hard to measure

Author

Listed:
  • Danielsson, Jon
  • Zhou, Chen
Abstract
This paper analyzes the robustness of standard risk analysis techniques, with a special emphasis on the specifications in Basel III. We focus on the difference between Value– at–Risk and expected shortfall, the small sample properties of these risk measures and the impact of using an overlapping approach to construct data for longer holding periods. Overall, risk forecasts are extremely uncertain at low sample sizes. By comparing the estimation uncertainty, we find that Value–at–Risk is superior to expected shortfall and the time-scaling approach for risk forecasts with longer holding periods is preferable to using overlapping data.

Suggested Citation

  • Danielsson, Jon & Zhou, Chen, 2015. "Why risk is so hard to measure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62002, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:62002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62002/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yamai, Yasuhiro & Yoshiba, Toshinao, 2005. "Value-at-risk versus expected shortfall: A practical perspective," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 997-1015, April.
    2. Danielsson, Jon & James, Kevin R. & Valenzuela, Marcela & Zer, Ilknur, 2016. "Model risk of risk models," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 79-91.
    3. Jansen, Dennis W & de Vries, Casper G, 1991. "On the Frequency of Large Stock Returns: Putting Booms and Busts into Perspective," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(1), pages 18-24, February.
    4. Danielsson, Jon & Jorgensen, Bjorn N. & Sarma, Mandira & de Vries, Casper G., 2006. "Comparing downside risk measures for heavy tailed distributions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 202-208, August.
    5. Yamai, Yasuhiro & Yoshiba, Toshinao, 2002. "Comparative Analyses of Expected Shortfall and Value-at-Risk: Their Estimation Error, Decomposition, and Optimization," Monetary and Economic Studies, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan, vol. 20(1), pages 87-121, January.
    6. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    7. Sun, Pengfei & Zhou, Chen, 2014. "Diagnosing the distribution of GARCH innovations," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 287-303.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandra-Maria Chiper, 2023. "Financial Risk Optimisation Methods: A Survey," Review of Economic and Business Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 31, pages 155-168, June.
    2. Fabio Caccioli & Imre Kondor & G'abor Papp, 2015. "Portfolio Optimization under Expected Shortfall: Contour Maps of Estimation Error," Papers 1510.04943, arXiv.org.
    3. Bengtsson, Elias & Grothe, Magdalena & Lepers, Etienne, 2020. "Home, safe home: Cross-country monitoring framework for vulnerabilities in the residential real estate sector," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    4. Kubitza, Christian & Gründl, Helmut, 2016. "Systemic risk: Time-lags and persistence," ICIR Working Paper Series 20/16, Goethe University Frankfurt, International Center for Insurance Regulation (ICIR).
    5. Magdalena Grothe, 2020. "Monitoring Vulnerabilities in the Residential Real Estate Sector in Poland," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 2, pages 5-24.
    6. Semih Atakan & Kerem Bülbül & Nilay Noyan, 2017. "Minimizing value-at-risk in single-machine scheduling," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 248(1), pages 25-73, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danielsson, Jon & Zhou, Chen, 2015. "Why risk is so hard to measure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62002, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Marco Rocco, 2011. "Extreme value theory for finance: a survey," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 99, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    3. Osmundsen, Kjartan Kloster, 2018. "Using expected shortfall for credit risk regulation," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 80-93.
    4. James Ming Chen, 2018. "On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.
    5. Farkas, Walter & Fringuellotti, Fulvia & Tunaru, Radu, 2020. "A cost-benefit analysis of capital requirements adjusted for model risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    6. Roger W. Barnard & Kent Pearce & A. Alexandre Trindade, 2018. "When is tail mean estimation more efficient than tail median? Answers and implications for quantitative risk management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(1), pages 47-65, March.
    7. Benjamin Mögel & Benjamin R. Auer, 2018. "How accurate are modern Value-at-Risk estimators derived from extreme value theory?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 979-1030, May.
    8. Sobreira, Nuno & Louro, Rui, 2020. "Evaluation of volatility models for forecasting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in the Portuguese stock market," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    9. Ben Salem, Ameni & Safer, Imene & Khefacha, Islem, 2022. "Value-at-Risk (VAR) Estimation Methods: Empirical Analysis based on BRICS Markets," MPRA Paper 113350, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2022.
    10. Radu Tunaru, 2015. "Model Risk in Financial Markets:From Financial Engineering to Risk Management," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 9524, December.
    11. Daníelsson, Jón & Jorgensen, Bjørn N. & Samorodnitsky, Gennady & Sarma, Mandira & de Vries, Casper G., 2013. "Fat tails, VaR and subadditivity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 283-291.
    12. Wei Jiang & Steven Kou, 2021. "Simulating risk measures via asymptotic expansions for relative errors," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 907-942, July.
    13. Zaichao Du & Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2017. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for Tail Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 940-958, April.
    14. Mario Brandtner, 2016. "Spektrale Risikomaße: Konzeption, betriebswirtschaftliche Anwendungen und Fallstricke," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 75-115, April.
    15. Ameni Ben Salem & Imene Safer & Islem Khefacha, 2021. "Value at Risk Estimation For the BRICS Countries : A Comparative Study," Post-Print hal-03502428, HAL.
    16. Sofiane Aboura, 2014. "When the U.S. Stock Market Becomes Extreme?," Risks, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-15, May.
    17. Rostagno, Luciano Martin, 2005. "Empirical tests of parametric and non-parametric Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) measures for the Brazilian stock market index," ISU General Staff Papers 2005010108000021878, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Pais, Amelia & Stork, Philip A., 2011. "Contagion risk in the Australian banking and property sectors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 681-697, March.
    19. Denisa Banulescu-Radu & Christophe Hurlin & Jérémy Leymarie & Olivier Scaillet, 2021. "Backtesting Marginal Expected Shortfall and Related Systemic Risk Measures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5730-5754, September.
    20. Maarten R C van Oordt & Chen Zhou, 2019. "Estimating Systematic Risk under Extremely Adverse Market Conditions," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 432-461.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    value–at–risk; expected shortfall; finite sample properties; Basel II;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:62002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.