IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v6y2018i1p2-d126009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Simple Traffic Light Approach to Backtesting Expected Shortfall

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Costanzino

    (Barclays Capital, 745 7th Ave, New York, NY 10019, USA
    Department of Finance and Risk Engineering, NYU Tandon School of Engineering, New York, NY 11201, USA)

  • Michael Curran

    (Riskcare, New York, NY 10018, USA)

Abstract

We propose a Traffic Light approach to backtesting Expected Shortfall which is completely consistent with, and analogous to, the Traffic Light approach to backtesting VaR (Value at Risk) initially proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in their 1996 consultative document Basle Committee on Banking Supervision (1996). The approach relies on the generalized coverage test for Expected Shortfall developed in Costanzino and Curran (2015).

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Costanzino & Michael Curran, 2018. "A Simple Traffic Light Approach to Backtesting Expected Shortfall," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:2-:d:126009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/1/2/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/1/2/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    5. James E. Marengo & David L. Farnsworth & Lucas Stefanic, 2017. "A Geometric Derivation of the Irwin-Hall Distribution," International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-6, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Zaichao Du & Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2017. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for Tail Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 940-958, April.
    9. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel & Tilmann Gneiting, 2015. "Expected Shortfall is jointly elicitable with Value at Risk - Implications for backtesting," Papers 1507.00244, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2015.
    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. Lazar, Emese & Zhang, Ning, 2019. "Model risk of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 74-93.
    2. Mateusz Buczynski & Marcin Chlebus, 2024. "GARCHNet: Value-at-Risk Forecasting with GARCH Models Based on Neural Networks," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 63(5), pages 1949-1979, May.
    3. Xuehai Zhang, 2019. "Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall under General Semi-parametric GARCH models," Working Papers CIE 123, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    4. Ophélie Couperier & Jérémy Leymarie, 2020. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall via Multi-Quantile Regression," Working Papers halshs-01909375, HAL.
    5. 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.
    6. Enrique Molina‐Muñoz & Andrés Mora‐Valencia & Javier Perote, 2021. "Backtesting expected shortfall for world stock index ETFs with extreme value theory and Gram–Charlier mixtures," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 4163-4189, July.
    7. Dimitriadis, Timo & Liu, Xiaochun & Schnaitmann, Julie, 2020. "Encompassing tests for value at risk and expected shortfall multi-step forecasts based on inference on the boundary," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 11-2020, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    8. Mateusz Buczyński & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "GARCHNet - Value-at-Risk forecasting with novel approach to GARCH models based on neural networks," Working Papers 2021-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Michał Woźniak & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "HCR & HCR-GARCH – novel statistical learning models for Value at Risk estimation," Working Papers 2021-10, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. 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.
    11. Sebastian Letmathe & Yuanhua Feng & André Uhde, 2021. "Semiparametric GARCH models with long memory applied to Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall," Working Papers CIE 141, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    12. Xuehai Zhang, 2019. "Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall under General Semi-parametric GARCH models," Working Papers CIE 126, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    13. Soren Bettels & Sojung Kim & Stefan Weber, 2022. "Multinomial Backtesting of Distortion Risk Measures," Papers 2201.06319, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    14. Sebastian Bayer & Timo Dimitriadis, 2022. "Regression-Based Expected Shortfall Backtesting [Backtesting Expected Shortfall]," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 437-471.
    15. Ștefan Ionescu & Nora Chiriță & Ionuț Nica & Camelia Delcea, 2023. "An Analysis of Residual Financial Contagion in Romania’s Banking Market for Mortgage Loans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-32, August.
    16. Yuanhua Feng & Jan Beran & Sebastian Letmathe & Sucharita Ghosh, 2020. "Fractionally integrated Log-GARCH with application to value at risk and expected shortfall," Working Papers CIE 137, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Le, Trung H., 2020. "Forecasting value at risk and expected shortfall with mixed data sampling," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1362-1379.
    5. Sullivan Hu'e & Christophe Hurlin & Yang Lu, 2024. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for both duration and severity with bivariate orthogonal polynomials," Papers 2405.02012, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    6. Enrique Molina‐Muñoz & Andrés Mora‐Valencia & Javier Perote, 2021. "Backtesting expected shortfall for world stock index ETFs with extreme value theory and Gram–Charlier mixtures," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 4163-4189, July.
    7. Merlo, Luca & Petrella, Lea & Raponi, Valentina, 2021. "Forecasting VaR and ES using a joint quantile regression and its implications in portfolio allocation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    8. Burzoni, Matteo & Munari, Cosimo & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    9. Ophélie Couperier & Jérémy Leymarie, 2020. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall via Multi-Quantile Regression," Working Papers halshs-01909375, HAL.
    10. Soren Bettels & Sojung Kim & Stefan Weber, 2022. "Multinomial Backtesting of Distortion Risk Measures," Papers 2201.06319, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    11. Luca Merlo & Lea Petrella & Valentina Raponi, 2021. "Forecasting VaR and ES using a joint quantile regression and implications in portfolio allocation," Papers 2106.06518, arXiv.org.
    12. Matteo Burzoni & Cosimo Munari & Ruodu Wang, 2020. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Papers 2007.08829, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    13. Denisa Banulescu-Radu & Christophe Hurlin & Jérémy Leymarie & Olivier Scaillet, 2021. "Backtesting Marginal Expected Shortfall and Related Systemic Risk Measures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5730-5754, September.
    14. Lazar, Emese & Zhang, Ning, 2019. "Model risk of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 74-93.
    15. 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.
    16. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    17. Sebastian Bayer & Timo Dimitriadis, 2018. "Regression Based Expected Shortfall Backtesting," Papers 1801.04112, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    18. Fantazzini, Dean & Shangina, Tamara, 2019. "The importance of being informed: forecasting market risk measures for the Russian RTS index future using online data and implied volatility over two decades," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 55, pages 5-31.
    19. Federico Gatta & Fabrizio Lillo & Piero Mazzarisi, 2024. "CAESar: Conditional Autoregressive Expected Shortfall," Papers 2407.06619, arXiv.org.
    20. 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.

    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:6:y:2018:i:1:p:2-:d:126009. 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.