IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aolpei/120240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coherent Quantitative Analysis of Risks in Agribusiness: Case of Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Tarasov, Arthur

Abstract

Modern methods of quantitative risk analysis, specifically value-at-risk and expected shortfall approach, provide comprehensive and coherent risk evaluation throughout entire distribution of outcomes and can take agricultural business from the realm of uncertainty to specific, quantified risks. Monte Carlo simulation with autocorrelation of standard deviation shows the best results in risk modeling and is used for this research. The analysis showed that production risk is systemic within climatic regions of Ukraine with coefficients of correlation ranging from 0.25 to 0.85. Yield correlation among crops in several oblasts is low to negative, creating opportunities for diversification. However, positive price-yield correlation is dominant for agricultural products in Ukraine due to high dependency on global prices and a large share of export. It is hypothesized that price-yield correlation is directly proportional to the share of country’s international trade in that agricultural product.

Suggested Citation

  • Tarasov, Arthur, 2011. "Coherent Quantitative Analysis of Risks in Agribusiness: Case of Ukraine," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 3(4), pages 1-7, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aolpei:120240
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.120240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/120240/files/agris_on-line_2011_4_tarasov.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.120240?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Wyn Morgan & John Cotter & Kevin Dowd, 2012. "Extreme Measures of Agricultural Financial Risk," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 65-82, February.
    4. Bollerslev, Tim, 1986. "Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 307-327, April.
    5. Filip Iorgulescu, 2009. "Value at Risk: A Comparative Analysis," Advances in Economic and Financial Research - DOFIN Working Paper Series 25, Bucharest University of Economics, Center for Advanced Research in Finance and Banking - CARFIB.
    6. Wong, Woon K., 2010. "Backtesting value-at-risk based on tail losses," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 526-538, June.
    7. Ibrahim Onour, "undated". "Forecasting Volatility in Global Food Commodity Prices," API-Working Paper Series 1101, Arab Planning Institute - Kuwait, Information Center.
    8. Herwartz, Helmut, 2009. "Exact inference in diagnosing Value-at-Risk estimates -- A Monte Carlo device," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 160-162, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nieto, Maria Rosa & Ruiz, Esther, 2016. "Frontiers in VaR forecasting and backtesting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 475-501.
    2. Chang, Chia-Lin & Jimenez-Martin, Juan-Angel & Maasoumi, Esfandiar & McAleer, Michael & Pérez-Amaral, Teodosio, 2019. "Choosing expected shortfall over VaR in Basel III using stochastic dominance," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 95-113.
    3. 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.
    4. Juan Carlos Escanciano & Zaichao Du, 2015. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for Tail Risk," CAEPR Working Papers 2015-001, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    5. Chen, Cathy W.S. & Hsu, Hsiao-Yun & Watanabe, Toshiaki, 2023. "Tail risk forecasting of realized volatility CAViaR models," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Gianna Figà-Talamanca & Marco Patacca, 2024. "An explorative analysis of sentiment impact on S&P 500 components returns, volatility and downside risk," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 342(3), pages 2095-2117, November.
    8. Benjamin R. Auer & Benjamin Mögel, 2016. "How Accurate are Modern Value-at-Risk Estimators Derived from Extreme Value Theory?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6288, CESifo.
    9. Aditya Banerjee & Samit Paul, 2024. "Idiosyncrasies of Intraday Risk in Emerging and Developed Markets: Efficacy of the MCS-GARCH Model and Extreme Value Theory," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 25(2), pages 468-490, April.
    10. Sander Barendse & Erik Kole & Dick van Dijk, 2023. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in the Presence of Estimation Error," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 528-568.
    11. Čermák, M. & Malec, K. & Maitah, M., 2017. "Price Volatility Modelling – Wheat: GARCH Model Application," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 9(4).
    12. Lönnbark, Carl, 2013. "On the role of the estimation error in prediction of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 847-853.
    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. 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.
    15. Timotheos Angelidis & Stavros Degiannakis, . "Backtesting VaR models:a two-stage procedure," Journal of Risk Model Validation, Journal of Risk Model Validation.
    16. Chia-Lin Chang & Juan-Ángel Jiménez-Martín & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Michael McAleer & Teodosio Pérez-Amaral, 2015. "A Stochastic Dominance Approach to the Basel III Dilemma: Expected Shortfall or VaR?," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2015-16, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    17. Małgorzata Just & Aleksandra Łuczak, 2020. "Assessment of Conditional Dependence Structures in Commodity Futures Markets Using Copula-GARCH Models and Fuzzy Clustering Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, March.
    18. Weiß, Gregor N.F., 2011. "Are Copula-GoF-tests of any practical use? Empirical evidence for stocks, commodities and FX futures," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 173-188, May.
    19. Chikashi Tsuji, 2016. "Does the fear gauge predict downside risk more accurately than econometric models? Evidence from the US stock market," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1220711-122, December.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Production Economics; Risk and Uncertainty;

    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:ags:aolpei:120240. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fevszcz.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.