IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v12y2024i10p167-d1502500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing Portfolio Decarbonization Through SensitivityVaR and Distorted Stochastic Dominance

Author

Listed:
  • Aniq Rohmawati

    (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
    School of Computing, Telkom University, Bandung 40257, Indonesia)

  • Oki Neswan

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

  • Dila Puspita

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

  • Khreshna Syuhada

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

Abstract

Recent trends in portfolio management emphasize the importance of reducing carbon footprints and aligning investments with sustainable practices. This paper introduces Sensitivity Value-at-Risk (SensitivityVaR), an advanced distortion risk measure that combines Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES) with the Cornish–Fisher expansion. SensitivityVaR provides a more robust framework for managing risk, particularly under extreme market conditions. By incorporating first- and second-order distorted stochastic dominance criteria, we enhance portfolio decarbonization strategies, aligning financial objectives with environmental targets such as the Paris Agreement’s goal of a 7% annual reduction in carbon intensity from 2019 to 2050. Our empirical analysis evaluates the impact of integrating carbon intensity data—including Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions—on portfolio optimization, focusing on key sectors like technology, energy, and consumer goods. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of SensitivityVaR in managing both risk and environmental impact. The methodology led to significant reductions in carbon intensity across different portfolio configurations, while preserving competitive risk-adjusted returns. By optimizing tail risks and limiting exposure to carbon-intensive assets, this approach produced more balanced and efficient portfolios that aligned with both financial and sustainability goals. These findings offer valuable insights for institutional investors and asset managers aiming to integrate climate considerations into their investment strategies without compromising financial performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Aniq Rohmawati & Oki Neswan & Dila Puspita & Khreshna Syuhada, 2024. "Enhancing Portfolio Decarbonization Through SensitivityVaR and Distorted Stochastic Dominance," Risks, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-24, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:12:y:2024:i:10:p:167-:d:1502500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/12/10/167/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/12/10/167/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Artzner, 1999. "Application of Coherent Risk Measures to Capital Requirements in Insurance," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 11-25.
    2. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    3. Bellini, Fabio & Klar, Bernhard & Müller, Alfred & Rosazza Gianin, Emanuela, 2014. "Generalized quantiles as risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 41-48.
    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. Zhiping Chen & Qianhui Hu, 2018. "On Coherent Risk Measures Induced by Convex Risk Measures," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 673-698, June.
    2. Zhiping Chen & Qianhui Hu & Ruiyue Lin, 2016. "Performance ratio-based coherent risk measure and its application," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(5), pages 681-693, May.
    3. Haitham M. Yousof & Yusra Tashkandy & Walid Emam & M. Masoom Ali & Mohamed Ibrahim, 2023. "A New Reciprocal Weibull Extension for Modeling Extreme Values with Risk Analysis under Insurance Data," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-26, February.
    4. Blier-Wong, Christopher & Cossette, Hélène & Marceau, Etienne, 2023. "Risk aggregation with FGM copulas," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 102-120.
    5. Maziar Sahamkhadam, 2021. "Dynamic copula-based expectile portfolios," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 209-223, May.
    6. Zhang, Feipeng & Xu, Yixiong & Fan, Caiyun, 2023. "Nonparametric inference of expectile-based value-at-risk for financial time series with application to risk assessment," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2018. "A theory for combinations of risk measures," Papers 1807.01977, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    8. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Borenstein, Denis, 2018. "A simulation comparison of risk measures for portfolio optimization," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 105-112.
    9. Alessandro Staino & Emilio Russo & Massimo Costabile & Arturo Leccadito, 2023. "Minimum capital requirement and portfolio allocation for non-life insurance: a semiparametric model with Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) constraint," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-32, December.
    10. Albrecht, Peter, 2003. "Risk measures," Papers 03-01, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    11. Geissel Sebastian & Sass Jörn & Seifried Frank Thomas, 2018. "Optimal expected utility risk measures," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 35(1-2), pages 73-87, January.
    12. Daouia, Abdelaati & Girard, Stéphane & Stupfler, Gilles, 2018. "Tail expectile process and risk assessment," TSE Working Papers 18-944, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    13. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Müller, Fernanda Maria & Moresco, Marlon Ruoso, 2020. "On a robust risk measurement approach for capital determination errors minimization," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 199-211.
    14. Weiwei Li & Dejian Tian, 2023. "Robust optimized certainty equivalents and quantiles for loss positions with distribution uncertainty," Papers 2304.04396, arXiv.org.
    15. 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.
    16. Walter Farkas & Ludovic Mathys & Nikola Vasiljević, 2021. "Intra‐Horizon expected shortfall and risk structure in models with jumps," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 772-823, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2019. "A composition between risk and deviation measures," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 282(1), pages 299-313, November.
    19. Marcelo Brutti Righi & Paulo Sergio Ceretta, 2015. "Shortfall Deviation Risk: An alternative to risk measurement," Papers 1501.02007, arXiv.org, revised May 2016.
    20. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.

    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:12:y:2024:i:10:p:167-:d:1502500. 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.