IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijfss/v12y2024i3p80-d1457590.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing Value-at-Risk with Credible Expected Risk Models

Author

Listed:
  • Khreshna Syuhada

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Rizka Puspitasari

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • I Kadek Darma Arnawa

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Lailatul Mufaridho

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Elonasari Elonasari

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Miftahul Jannah

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Aniq Rohmawati

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

Abstract

Accurate risk assessment is crucial for predicting potential financial losses. This paper introduces an innovative approach by employing expected risk models that utilize risk samples to capture comprehensive risk characteristics. The innovation lies in the integration of classical credibility theory with expected risk models, enhancing their stability and precision. In this study, two distinct expected risk models were developed, referred to as Model Type I and Model Type II. The Type I model involves independent and identically distributed random samples, while the Type II model incorporates time-varying stochastic processes, including heteroscedastic models like GARCH(p,q). However, these models often exhibit high variability and instability, which can undermine their effectiveness. To mitigate these issues, we applied classical credibility theory, resulting in credible expected risk models. These enhanced models aim to improve the accuracy of Value-at-Risk (VaR) forecasts, a key risk measure defined as the maximum potential loss over a specified period at a given confidence level. The credible expected risk models, referred to as CreVaR, provide more stable and precise VaR forecasts by incorporating credibility adjustments. The effectiveness of these models is evaluated through two complementary approaches: coverage probability, which assesses the accuracy of risk predictions; and scoring functions, which offer a more nuanced evaluation of prediction accuracy by comparing predicted risks with actual observed outcomes. Scoring functions are essential in further assessing the reliability of CreVaR forecasts by quantifying how closely the forecasts align with the actual data, thereby providing a more comprehensive measure of predictive performance. Our findings demonstrate that the CreVaR risk measure delivers more reliable and stable risk forecasts compared to conventional methods. This research contributes to quantitative risk management by offering a robust approach to financial risk prediction, thereby supporting better decision making for companies and financial institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Khreshna Syuhada & Rizka Puspitasari & I Kadek Darma Arnawa & Lailatul Mufaridho & Elonasari Elonasari & Miftahul Jannah & Aniq Rohmawati, 2024. "Enhancing Value-at-Risk with Credible Expected Risk Models," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijfss:v:12:y:2024:i:3:p:80-:d:1457590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/12/3/80/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/12/3/80/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    3. Bollerslev, Tim, 2023. "Reprint of: Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(S), pages 25-37.
    4. Ewald, Christian & Hadina, Jelena & Haugom, Erik & Lien, Gudbrand & Størdal, Ståle & Yahya, Muhammad, 2023. "Sample frequency robustness and accuracy in forecasting Value-at-Risk for Brent Crude Oil futures," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PA).
    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. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2024. "How to Compare Copula Forecasts?," Papers 2410.04165, arXiv.org.
    2. Borowska, Agnieszka & Hoogerheide, Lennart & Koopman, Siem Jan & van Dijk, Herman K., 2020. "Partially censored posterior for robust and efficient risk evaluation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 217(2), pages 335-355.
    3. Karlsson, Sune & Mazur, Stepan & Nguyen, Hoang, 2023. "Vector autoregression models with skewness and heavy tails," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. Takaaki Koike & Cathy W. S. Chen & Edward M. H. Lin, 2024. "Forecasting and Backtesting Gradient Allocations of Expected Shortfall," Papers 2401.11701, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    5. Santos, Douglas G. & Candido, Osvaldo & Tófoli, Paula V., 2022. "Forecasting risk measures using intraday and overnight information," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Rehman, Mobeen Ur & Owusu Junior, Peterson & Ahmad, Nasir & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2022. "Time-varying risk analysis for commodity futures," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. Tamás Kiss & Stepan Mazur & Hoang Nguyen & Pär Österholm, 2023. "Modeling the relation between the US real economy and the corporate bond‐yield spread in Bayesian VARs with non‐Gaussian innovations," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(2), pages 347-368, March.
    8. Gordy, Michael B. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2020. "Spectral backtests of forecast distributions with application to risk management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Ardia, David & Bluteau, Keven & Boudt, Kris & Catania, Leopoldo, 2018. "Forecasting risk with Markov-switching GARCH models:A large-scale performance study," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 733-747.
    10. Anne Opschoor & André Lucas & István Barra & Dick van Dijk, 2021. "Closed-Form Multi-Factor Copula Models With Observation-Driven Dynamic Factor Loadings," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 1066-1079, October.
    11. Tamás Kiss & Hoang Nguyen & Pär Österholm, 2023. "Modelling Okun’s law: Does non-Gaussianity matter?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2183-2213, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Nonejad, Nima, 2022. "Equity premium prediction using the price of crude oil: Uncovering the nonlinear predictive impact," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Simon Fritzsch & Maike Timphus & Gregor Weiss, 2021. "Marginals Versus Copulas: Which Account For More Model Risk In Multivariate Risk Forecasting?," Papers 2109.10946, arXiv.org.
    15. Jian, Zhihong & Li, Xupei & Zhu, Zhican, 2020. "Sequential forecasting of downside extreme risk during overnight and daytime: Evidence from the Chinese Stock Market☆," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Johanna M. Orozco-Castañeda & Sebastián Alzate-Vargas & Danilo Bedoya-Valencia, 2024. "Evaluating Volatility Using an ANFIS Model for Financial Time Series Prediction," Risks, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Nima Nonejad, 2021. "Using the conditional volatility channel to improve the accuracy of aggregate equity return predictions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 973-1009, August.
    19. Patton, Andrew J. & Ziegel, Johanna F. & Chen, Rui, 2019. "Dynamic semiparametric models for expected shortfall (and Value-at-Risk)," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 388-413.
    20. Pierre J. Venter & Eben Maré, 2021. "Univariate and Multivariate GARCH Models Applied to Bitcoin Futures Option Pricing," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, June.

    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:gam:jijfss:v:12:y:2024:i:3:p:80-:d:1457590. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.