IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibf/gjbres/v6y2012i4p23-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation Of Multi-Asset Value At Risk: Evidence From Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Po-Cheng Wu
  • Cheng-Kun Kuo
  • Chih-Wei Lee

Abstract

Under the internal model approach (IMA) stipulated by Basel II, financial institutions are allowed to develop and employ proprietary internal models to evaluate various risk. However, the flexibility to develop a proprietary model leads to the question of which computing method delivers the most accurate and reliable estimates of value at risk (VaR). This research employs the new backtesting method proposed by Pérignon and Smith (2008) to determine the best method for computing integrated value at risk. It tests three major VaR computation methods — historical simulation, Monte Carlo simulation, and variance-covariance methods. The portfolio on which VaR is computed includes equities, government bonds, foreign exchange, and index options, all of which are commonly traded by financial institutions. The empirical analysis indicates that historical simulation is the best VaR computation method, which is consistent with the result of Pérignon and Smith (2008).

Suggested Citation

  • Po-Cheng Wu & Cheng-Kun Kuo & Chih-Wei Lee, 2012. "Evaluation Of Multi-Asset Value At Risk: Evidence From Taiwan," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 6(4), pages 23-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibf:gjbres:v:6:y:2012:i:4:p:23-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.theibfr2.com/RePEc/ibf/gjbres/gjbr-v6n4-2012/GJBR-V6N4-2012-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert F. Engle & Simone Manganelli, 2004. "CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value at Risk by Regression Quantiles," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 367-381, October.
    2. Morgan, I G, 1976. "Stock Prices and Heteroscedasticity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(4), pages 496-508, October.
    3. Matthew Pritsker, 1997. "Evaluating Value at Risk Methodologies: Accuracy versus Computational Time," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 12(2), pages 201-242, October.
    4. Bollerslev, Tim & Chou, Ray Y. & Kroner, Kenneth F., 1992. "ARCH modeling in finance : A review of the theory and empirical evidence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1-2), pages 5-59.
    5. Boyle, Phelim P., 1977. "Options: A Monte Carlo approach," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 323-338, May.
    6. Engle, Robert F, 1982. "Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 987-1007, July.
    7. Christophe Pérignon & R.D. Smith, 2008. "A New Approach to Comparing VaR Estimation Methods," Post-Print hal-00854087, HAL.
    8. 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.).
    9. Jeff Fleming & Chris Kirby & Barbara Ostdiek, 2001. "The Economic Value of Volatility Timing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(1), pages 329-352, February.
    10. Pritsker, Matthew, 2006. "The hidden dangers of historical simulation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 561-582, February.
    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. Chrétien, Stéphane & Coggins, Frank, 2010. "Performance and conservatism of monthly FHS VaR: An international investigation," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 323-333, December.
    2. Wang, Jying-Nan & Du, Jiangze & Hsu, Yuan-Teng, 2018. "Measuring long-term tail risk: Evaluating the performance of the square-root-of-time rule," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 120-138.
    3. Turan Bali & Panayiotis Theodossiou, 2007. "A conditional-SGT-VaR approach with alternative GARCH models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 241-267, April.
    4. Colletaz, Gilbert & Hurlin, Christophe & Pérignon, Christophe, 2013. "The Risk Map: A new tool for validating risk models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3843-3854.
    5. Benjamin R. Auer & Benjamin Mögel, 2016. "How Accurate are Modern Value-at-Risk Estimators Derived from Extreme Value Theory?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6288, CESifo.
    6. Benjamin Mögel & Benjamin R. Auer, 2018. "How accurate are modern Value-at-Risk estimators derived from extreme value theory?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 979-1030, May.
    7. Charles, Amélie & Darné, Olivier, 2014. "Large shocks in the volatility of the Dow Jones Industrial Average index: 1928–2013," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 188-199.
    8. Nieto, Maria Rosa & Ruiz, Esther, 2016. "Frontiers in VaR forecasting and backtesting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 475-501.
    9. Escanciano, Juan Carlos & Pei, Pei, 2012. "Pitfalls in backtesting Historical Simulation VaR models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2233-2244.
    10. Boucher, Christophe M. & Daníelsson, Jón & Kouontchou, Patrick S. & Maillet, Bertrand B., 2014. "Risk models-at-risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 72-92.
    11. Andersen, Torben G. & Bollerslev, Tim & Christoffersen, Peter F. & Diebold, Francis X., 2005. "Volatility forecasting," CFS Working Paper Series 2005/08, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    12. Lang, Korbinian & Auer, Benjamin R., 2020. "The economic and financial properties of crude oil: A review," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    13. Cheng, Wan-Hsiu & Hung, Jui-Cheng, 2011. "Skewness and leptokurtosis in GARCH-typed VaR estimation of petroleum and metal asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 160-173, January.
    14. Guermat, Cherif & Harris, Richard D. F., 2002. "Forecasting value at risk allowing for time variation in the variance and kurtosis of portfolio returns," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 409-419.
    15. Escanciano, Juan Carlos & Pei, Pei, 2012. "Pitfalls in backtesting Historical Simulation VaR models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2233-2244.
    16. Bali, Turan G. & Mo, Hengyong & Tang, Yi, 2008. "The role of autoregressive conditional skewness and kurtosis in the estimation of conditional VaR," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-282, February.
    17. David Happersberger & Harald Lohre & Ingmar Nolte, 2020. "Estimating portfolio risk for tail risk protection strategies," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 26(4), pages 1107-1146, September.
    18. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Zekokh, Timur, 2019. "Modelling volatility of cryptocurrencies using Markov-Switching GARCH models," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 143-155.
    19. Chen, Cathy W.S. & Gerlach, Richard & Lin, Edward M.H., 2014. "Bayesian estimation of smoothly mixing time-varying parameter GARCH models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 194-209.
    20. repec:syb:wpbsba:03/2011 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Cathy W.S. Chen & Toshiaki Watanabe, 2019. "Bayesian modeling and forecasting of Value‐at‐Risk via threshold realized volatility," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 747-765, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Value-at-Risk (VaR); Backtesting; Unconditional Coverage Test; Internal Model Approach (IMA);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibf:gjbres:v:6:y:2012:i:4:p:23-34. 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: Mercedes Jalbert (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.