IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v11y2023i6p100-d1160157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Generalised Pareto Distribution Model Approach to Comparing Extreme Risk in the Exchange Rate Risk of BitCoin/US Dollar and South African Rand/US Dollar Returns

Author

Listed:
  • Thabani Ndlovu

    (Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa)

  • Delson Chikobvu

    (Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa)

Abstract

Cryptocurrencies are said to be very risky, and so are the currencies of emerging economies, including the South African rand. The steady rise in the movement of South Africans’ investments between the rand and BitCoin warrants an investigation as to which of the two currencies is riskier. In this paper, the Generalised Pareto Distribution (GPD) model is employed to estimate the Value at Risk (VaR) and the Expected Shortfall (ES) for the two exchange rates, BitCoin/US dollar (BitCoin) and the South African rand/US dollar (ZAR/USD). The estimated risk measures are used to compare the riskiness of the two exchange rates. The Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method is used to find the optimal parameters of the GPD model. The higher extreme value index estimate associated with the BTC/USD when compared with the ZAR/USD estimate, suggests that the BTC/USD is riskier than the ZAR/USD. The computed VaR estimates for losses of $0.07, $0.09, and $0.16 per dollar invested in the BTC/USD at 90%, 95%, and 99% compared to the ZAR/USD’s $0.02, $0.02, and $0.03 at the respective levels of significance, confirm that BitCoin is riskier than the rand. The ES (average losses) of $0.11, $0.13, and $0.21 per dollar invested in the BTC/USD at 90%, 95%, and 99% compared to the ZAR/USD’s $0.02, $0.02, and $0.03 at the respective levels of significance further confirm the higher risk associated with BitCoin. Model adequacy is confirmed using the Kupiec test procedure. These findings are helpful to risk managers when making adequate risk-based capital requirements more rational between the two currencies. The argument is for more capital requirements for BitCoin than for the South African rand.

Suggested Citation

  • Thabani Ndlovu & Delson Chikobvu, 2023. "The Generalised Pareto Distribution Model Approach to Comparing Extreme Risk in the Exchange Rate Risk of BitCoin/US Dollar and South African Rand/US Dollar Returns," Risks, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:11:y:2023:i:6:p:100-:d:1160157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/11/6/100/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/11/6/100/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohamed Ibrahim & Walid Emam & Yusra Tashkandy & M. Masoom Ali & Haitham M. Yousof, 2023. "Bayesian and Non-Bayesian Risk Analysis and Assessment under Left-Skewed Insurance Data and a Novel Compound Reciprocal Rayleigh Extension," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Bouri, Elie & Molnár, Peter & Azzi, Georges & Roubaud, David & Hagfors, Lars Ivar, 2017. "On the hedge and safe haven properties of Bitcoin: Is it really more than a diversifier?," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 192-198.
    3. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    4. 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.
    5. Paul H. Kupiec, 1995. "Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    6. 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.
    7. Delson Chikobvu & Thabani Ndlovu, 2023. "The Generalised Extreme Value Distribution Approach to Comparing the Riskiness of BitCoin/US Dollar and South African Rand/US Dollar Returns," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-16, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Gerlach, Richard & Wang, Chao, 2020. "Semi-parametric dynamic asymmetric Laplace models for tail risk forecasting, incorporating realized measures," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 489-506.
    3. Peña, Juan Ignacio & Rodríguez, Rosa & Mayoral, Silvia, 2020. "Tail risk of electricity futures," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Maziar Sahamkhadam, 2021. "Dynamic copula-based expectile portfolios," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 209-223, May.
    5. Jiménez, Inés & Mora-Valencia, Andrés & Perote, Javier, 2022. "Semi-nonparametric risk assessment with cryptocurrencies," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    6. Alfonso Novales & Laura Garcia-Jorcano, 2019. "Backtesting Extreme Value Theory models of expected shortfall," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2019-24, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    7. Timo Dimitriadis & Xiaochun Liu & Julie Schnaitmann, 2020. "Encompassing Tests for Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Multi-Step Forecasts based on Inference on the Boundary," Papers 2009.07341, arXiv.org.
    8. Annalisa Molino & Carlo Sala, 2021. "Forecasting value at risk and conditional value at risk using option market data," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(7), pages 1190-1213, November.
    9. Silvia Stanescu & Radu Tunaru, 2013. "Quantifying the uncertainty in VaR and expected shortfall estimates," Chapters, in: Adrian R. Bell & Chris Brooks & Marcel Prokopczuk (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Empirical Finance, chapter 15, pages 357-372, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    11. Bruzda, Joanna, 2019. "Quantile smoothing in supply chain and logistics forecasting," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 122-139.
    12. Chan Jennifer So Kuen & Ng Kok-Haur & Nitithumbundit Thanakorn & Peiris Shelton, 2019. "Efficient estimation of financial risk by regressing the quantiles of parametric distributions: An application to CARR models," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 23(2), pages 1-22, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Richard Gerlach & Declan Walpole & Chao Wang, 2017. "Semi-parametric Bayesian tail risk forecasting incorporating realized measures of volatility," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 199-215, February.
    15. Thiele, Stephen, 2019. "Detecting underestimates of risk in VaR models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 12-20.
    16. Daniel Velásquez-Gaviria & Andrés Mora-Valencia & Javier Perote, 2020. "A Comparison of the Risk Quantification in Traditional and Renewable Energy Markets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-42, June.
    17. Li, Dan & Clements, Adam & Drovandi, Christopher, 2023. "A Bayesian approach for more reliable tail risk forecasts," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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:jrisks:v:11:y:2023:i:6:p:100-:d:1160157. 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.