IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/finlet/v55y2023ipbs1544612323003239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjectivity in conventional tail measures: An exploratory model with 'risks & biases’

Author

Listed:
  • Majumder, Debasish

Abstract

Economic models are often based on some input parameters, whose values are decided by judgement. The approach is practical as judgment or intuition reduces complexity to a manageable level. A critical input parameter, for example, in the case of tail measures would have been the risk tolerance level, which was prescribed as 99th percentile or even higher on certain occasions for Value-at-Risk by post-2010 international regulatory bodies. Conversely, our paper proposes a model-based approach for estimation of the same. Our formulation is effective in reducing the biases that can creep into the process through adoption of heuristics in model formulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Majumder, Debasish, 2023. "Subjectivity in conventional tail measures: An exploratory model with 'risks & biases’," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(PB).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:finlet:v:55:y:2023:i:pb:s1544612323003239
    DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2023.103951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612323003239
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103951?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. Kfir Eliaz & Ran Spiegler & Yair Weiss, 2021. "Cheating with Models," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 417-434, December.
    2. Jalal, Amine & Rockinger, Michael, 2008. "Predicting tail-related risk measures: The consequences of using GARCH filters for non-GARCH data," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 868-877, December.
    3. 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.
    4. McNeil, Alexander J. & Frey, Rudiger, 2000. "Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(3-4), pages 271-300, November.
    5. Sebastian Stockl & Michael Hanke, 2014. "Financial Applications of the Mahalanobis Distance," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 1(2), pages 78-84, November.
    6. Thomas Breuer & Martin Jandacka & Klaus Rheinberger & Martin Summer, 2009. "How to Find Plausible, Severe and Useful Stress Scenarios," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 5(3), pages 205-224, September.
    7. Giovanni Barone Adesi & Robert F. Engle & Loriano Mancini, 2014. "A GARCH Option Pricing Model with Filtered Historical Simulation," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Giovanni Barone Adesi (ed.), Simulating Security Returns: A Filtered Historical Simulation Approach, chapter 4, pages 66-108, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Bitar, Mohammad & Tarazi, Amine, 2022. "A note on regulatory responses to COVID-19 pandemic: Balancing banks’ solvency and contribution to recovery," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    9. Kerkhof, Jeroen & Melenberg, Bertrand, 2004. "Backtesting for risk-based regulatory capital," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 1845-1865, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Madhusudan Karmakar, 2013. "Estimation of tail‐related risk measures in the Indian stock market: An extreme value approach," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 79-85, September.
    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. 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.
    2. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Ceretta, Paulo Sergio, 2015. "A comparison of Expected Shortfall estimation models," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 14-47.
    3. Nieto, Maria Rosa & Ruiz, Esther, 2016. "Frontiers in VaR forecasting and backtesting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 475-501.
    4. H. Kaibuchi & Y. Kawasaki & G. Stupfler, 2022. "GARCH-UGH: a bias-reduced approach for dynamic extreme Value-at-Risk estimation in financial time series," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(7), pages 1277-1294, July.
    5. Baum, Christopher F. & Zerilli, Paola & Chen, Liyuan, 2021. "Stochastic volatility, jumps and leverage in energy and stock markets: Evidence from high frequency data," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    6. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    7. Bakshi, Gurdip & Panayotov, George, 2010. "First-passage probability, jump models, and intra-horizon risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 20-40, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Marie Kratz & Yen H Lok & Alexander J Mcneil, 2016. "Multinomial var backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Working Papers hal-01424279, HAL.
    10. Wong, Woon K., 2010. "Backtesting value-at-risk based on tail losses," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 526-538, June.
    11. Santiago Carrillo Menéndez & Bertrand Kian Hassani, 2021. "Expected Shortfall Reliability—Added Value of Traditional Statistics and Advanced Artificial Intelligence for Market Risk Measurement Purposes," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(17), pages 1-20, September.
    12. Taylor, James W., 2020. "Forecast combinations for value at risk and expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 428-441.
    13. Julia S. Mehlitz & Benjamin R. Auer, 2021. "Time‐varying dynamics of expected shortfall in commodity futures markets," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 895-925, June.
    14. Chen, Qian & Gerlach, Richard & Lu, Zudi, 2012. "Bayesian Value-at-Risk and expected shortfall forecasting via the asymmetric Laplace distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 3498-3516.
    15. Fabio Bellini & Ilia Negri & Mariya Pyatkova, 2019. "Backtesting VaR and expectiles with realized scores," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(1), pages 119-142, March.
    16. Zaichao Du & Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2017. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for Tail Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 940-958, April.
    17. Halkos, George & Tsirivis, Apostolos, 2019. "Using Value-at-Risk for effective energy portfolio risk management," MPRA Paper 91674, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Y-H & McNeil, Alexander J., 2016. "Multinomial VaR Backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," ESSEC Working Papers WP1617, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    19. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Yen H. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2018. "Multinomial VaR backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 393-407.
    20. Sofiane Aboura, 2014. "When the U.S. Stock Market Becomes Extreme?," Risks, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-15, May.

    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:eee:finlet:v:55:y:2023:i:pb:s1544612323003239. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/frl .

    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.