IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/strimo/v38y2021i1-2p25-46n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the elicitability of range value at risk

Author

Listed:
  • Fissler Tobias

    (Department of Finance, Accounting and Statistics, Institute for Statistics and Mathematics, Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU), Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Ziegel Johanna F.

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Alpeneggstrasse 22, 3012 Bern, Switzerland)

Abstract

The debate of which quantitative risk measure to choose in practice has mainly focused on the dichotomy between value at risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES). Range value at risk (RVaR) is a natural interpolation between VaR and ES, constituting a tradeoff between the sensitivity of ES and the robustness of VaR, turning it into a practically relevant risk measure on its own. Hence, there is a need to statistically assess, compare and rank the predictive performance of different RVaR models, tasks subsumed under the term “comparative backtesting” in finance. This is best done in terms of strictly consistent loss or scoring functions, i.e., functions which are minimized in expectation by the correct risk measure forecast. Much like ES, RVaR does not admit strictly consistent scoring functions, i.e., it is not elicitable. Mitigating this negative result, we show that a triplet of RVaR with two VaR-components is elicitable. We characterize all strictly consistent scoring functions for this triplet. Additional properties of these scoring functions are examined, including the diagnostic tool of Murphy diagrams. The results are illustrated with a simulation study, and we put our approach in perspective with respect to the classical approach of trimmed least squares regression.

Suggested Citation

  • Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:strimo:v:38:y:2021:i:1-2:p:25-46:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/strm-2020-0037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/strm-2020-0037
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/strm-2020-0037?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    2. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    3. Raffaella Giacomini & Halbert White, 2006. "Tests of Conditional Predictive Ability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1545-1578, November.
    4. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    5. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    6. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    7. Rafael Frongillo & Ian A. Kash, 2015. "Elicitation Complexity of Statistical Properties," Papers 1506.07212, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    8. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Coherence And Elicitability," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 901-918, October.
    9. Paul Embrechts & Giovanni Puccetti & Ludger Rüschendorf & Ruodu Wang & Antonela Beleraj, 2014. "An Academic Response to Basel 3.5," Risks, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, February.
    10. Tilmann Gneiting & Fadoua Balabdaoui & Adrian E. Raftery, 2007. "Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(2), pages 243-268, April.
    11. Patton, Andrew J., 2011. "Data-based ranking of realised volatility estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 161(2), pages 284-303, April.
    12. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 593-606.
    13. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    14. Paul Embrechts & Bin Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2015. "Aggregation-robustness and model uncertainty of regulatory risk measures," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 763-790, October.
    15. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Paul Embrechts & Haiyan Liu & Tiantian Mao & Ruodu Wang, 2017. "Quantile-Based Risk Sharing with Heterogeneous Beliefs," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 17-65, Swiss Finance Institute, revised Jan 2018.
    18. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    19. Davis Mark H. A., 2016. "Verification of internal risk measure estimates," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 33(3-4), pages 67-93, December.
    20. Volker Krätschmer & Alexander Schied & Henryk Zähle, 2014. "Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 271-295, April.
    21. Krätschmer, Volker & Schied, Alexander & Zähle, Henryk, 2012. "Qualitative and infinitesimal robustness of tail-dependent statistical functionals," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 35-47, January.
    22. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng & Chris C. Heyde, 2013. "External Risk Measures and Basel Accords," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 393-417, August.
    23. Andrea Cerioli & Marco Riani & Anthony C. Atkinson & Aldo Corbellini, 2018. "The power of monitoring: how to make the most of a contaminated multivariate sample," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 27(4), pages 559-587, December.
    24. Stefan Weber, 2006. "Distribution‐Invariant Risk Measures, Information, And Dynamic Consistency," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 419-441, April.
    25. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    26. Andrew J. Patton, 2020. "Comparing Possibly Misspecified Forecasts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 796-809, October.
    27. Volker Kratschmer & Alexander Schied & Henryk Zahle, 2012. "Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures," Papers 1204.2458, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2014.
    28. Susanne Emmer & Marie Kratz & Dirk Tasche, 2013. "What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measures," Papers 1312.1645, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2015.
    29. Newey, Whitney K & Powell, James L, 1987. "Asymmetric Least Squares Estimation and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 819-847, July.
    30. Hajo Holzmann & Matthias Eulert, 2014. "The role of the information set for forecasting - with applications to risk management," Papers 1404.7653, arXiv.org.
    31. Andrea Cerioli & Marco Riani & Anthony C. Atkinson & Aldo Corbellini, 2018. "Rejoinder to the discussion of “The power of monitoring: how to make the most of a contaminated multivariate sample”," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 27(4), pages 661-666, December.
    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. Jascha Alexander & Christian Laudag'e & Jorn Sass, 2024. "Risk measures based on target risk profiles," Papers 2409.17676, arXiv.org.
    2. Anthony Coache & Sebastian Jaimungal & 'Alvaro Cartea, 2022. "Conditionally Elicitable Dynamic Risk Measures for Deep Reinforcement Learning," Papers 2206.14666, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.

    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. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    2. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    3. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    4. Tobias Fissler & Fangda Liu & Ruodu Wang & Linxiao Wei, 2024. "Elicitability and identifiability of tail risk measures," Papers 2404.14136, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    5. Ruodu Wang & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2014. "Distortion Risk Measures and Elicitability," Papers 1405.3769, arXiv.org, revised May 2014.
    6. Fissler, Tobias & Pesenti, Silvana M., 2023. "Sensitivity measures based on scoring functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1408-1423.
    7. Dimitriadis, Timo & Schnaitmann, Julie, 2021. "Forecast encompassing tests for the expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 604-621.
    8. Pitera, Marcin & Schmidt, Thorsten, 2018. "Unbiased estimation of risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-145.
    9. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    10. Tobias Fissler & Hajo Holzmann, 2022. "Measurability of functionals and of ideal point forecasts," Papers 2203.08635, arXiv.org.
    11. George Tzagkarakis & Frantz Maurer, 2020. "An energy-based measure for long-run horizon risk quantification," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 363-390, June.
    12. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    13. Mucahit Aygun & Fabio Bellini & Roger J. A. Laeven, 2023. "Elicitability of Return Risk Measures," Papers 2302.13070, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    14. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2015. "Higher order elicitability and Osband's principle," Papers 1503.08123, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2015.
    15. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2021. "Backtesting Systemic Risk Forecasts using Multi-Objective Elicitability," Papers 2104.10673, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    16. Carole Bernard & Ludger Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel & Ruodu Wang, 2017. "Risk bounds for factor models," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 631-659, July.
    17. Tobias Fissler & Silvana M. Pesenti, 2022. "Sensitivity Measures Based on Scoring Functions," Papers 2203.00460, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    18. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei & Gordon E. Willmot, 2020. "Characterization, Robustness, and Aggregation of Signed Choquet Integrals," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 993-1015, August.

    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:bpj:strimo:v:38:y:2021:i:1-2:p:25-46:n:3. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.