IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/risman/v25y2023i1d10.1057_s41283-022-00106-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the importance of the choice threshold in quantifying market risk under the POT approach (EVT)

Author

Listed:
  • Sonia Benito

    (National Distance Education University (UNED))

  • Carmen López-Martín

    (National Distance Education University (UNED))

  • Mª Ángeles Navarro

    (National Distance Education University (UNED))

Abstract

From a theoretical point of view, the selection of thresholds is a critical issue in the framework of the Peaks Over Threshold (POT) approach, which is why in the last decade numerous methodologies have been proposed for its selection. In this paper, we address this subject from an empirical point of view by assessing to what extent the selection of the threshold is decisive in quantifying the market risk. For measuring market risk, we use the Value at Risk (VaR) and the Expected Shortfall (ES) measures. The results obtained indicate that there is a large set of thresholds that provide similar Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD) quantiles estimators and as a consequence similar market risk measures. Just only, for large thresholds, those corresponding to the 98th and 99th percentile of the GPD some differences are found. It means that the choice of threshold in the framework of the POT method may not be relevant in quantifying market risk when we use the VaR and ES measures for this task.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonia Benito & Carmen López-Martín & Mª Ángeles Navarro, 2023. "Assessing the importance of the choice threshold in quantifying market risk under the POT approach (EVT)," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(1), pages 1-31, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:risman:v:25:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41283-022-00106-w
    DOI: 10.1057/s41283-022-00106-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41283-022-00106-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41283-022-00106-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Linyin Cheng & Amir AghaKouchak & Eric Gilleland & Richard Katz, 2014. "Non-stationary extreme value analysis in a changing climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 353-369, November.
    2. Loretan, Mico & Phillips, Peter C. B., 1994. "Testing the covariance stationarity of heavy-tailed time series: An overview of the theory with applications to several financial datasets," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 211-248, January.
    3. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    4. 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.).
    5. Abad, Pilar & Benito, Sonia, 2013. "A detailed comparison of value at risk estimates," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 258-276.
    6. Chang, Chia-Lin & Jimenez-Martin, Juan-Angel & Maasoumi, Esfandiar & McAleer, Michael & Pérez-Amaral, Teodosio, 2019. "Choosing expected shortfall over VaR in Basel III using stochastic dominance," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 95-113.
    7. McNeil, Alexander J. & Frey, Rudiger, 2000. "Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(3-4), pages 271-300, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Marco Moscadelli, 2004. "The modelling of operational risk: experience with the analysis of the data collected by the Basel Committee," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 517, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    10. Christoffersen, Peter F, 1998. "Evaluating Interval Forecasts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 841-862, November.
    11. V. Kharin & F. Zwiers & X. Zhang & M. Wehner, 2013. "Changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in the CMIP5 ensemble," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 345-357, July.
    12. J. L. Wadsworth & J. A. Tawn, 2012. "Likelihood-based procedures for threshold diagnostics and uncertainty in extreme value modelling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 74(3), pages 543-567, June.
    13. Sonia Benito Muela & Carmen López-Martín & Mª Ángeles Navarro, 2017. "The Role of the Skewed Distributions in the Framework of Extreme Value Theory (EVT)," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(11), pages 88-102, November.
    14. Bekiros, Stelios D. & Georgoutsos, Dimitris A., 2005. "Estimation of Value-at-Risk by extreme value and conventional methods: a comparative evaluation of their predictive performance," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 209-228, July.
    15. Ergün, A. Tolga & Jun, Jongbyung, 2010. "Time-varying higher-order conditional moments and forecasting intraday VaR and Expected Shortfall," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 264-272, August.
    16. Hall, Peter, 1990. "Using the bootstrap to estimate mean squared error and select smoothing parameter in nonparametric problems," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 177-203, February.
    17. Ana Cebrián & Michel Denuit & Philippe Lambert, 2003. "Generalized Pareto Fit to the Society of Actuaries’ Large Claims Database," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 18-36.
    18. Andreas Jobst, 2007. "Operational Risk: The Sting is Still in the Tail But the Poison Dependson the Dose," IMF Working Papers 2007/239, International Monetary Fund.
    19. V. Chavez‐Demoulin & P. Embrechts, 2004. "Smooth Extremal Models in Finance and Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 71(2), pages 183-199, June.
    20. Ada Ho & Alan Wan, 2002. "Testing for covariance stationarity of stock returns in the presence of structural breaks: an intervention analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(7), pages 441-447.
    21. MacDonald, A. & Scarrott, C.J. & Lee, D. & Darlow, B. & Reale, M. & Russell, G., 2011. "A flexible extreme value mixture model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 2137-2157, June.
    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. Marco Rocco, 2011. "Extreme value theory for finance: a survey," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 99, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    2. Sonia Benito Muela & Mª Ángeles Navarro, 2018. "Assessing the importance of the choice threshold in quantifying market risk under the POT method (EVT)," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2018-20, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    3. Wilson Calmon & Eduardo Ferioli & Davi Lettieri & Johann Soares & Adrian Pizzinga, 2021. "An Extensive Comparison of Some Well‐Established Value at Risk Methods," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 89(1), pages 148-166, April.
    4. Krzysztof Echaust & Małgorzata Just, 2020. "Value at Risk Estimation Using the GARCH-EVT Approach with Optimal Tail Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Jimenez-Martin, Juan-Angel & McAleer, Michael & Pérez-Amaral, Teodosio & Santos, Paulo Araújo, 2013. "GFC-robust risk management under the Basel Accord using extreme value methodologies," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 223-237.
    7. Stelios Bekiros & Nikolaos Loukeris & Iordanis Eleftheriadis & Christos Avdoulas, 2019. "Tail-Related Risk Measurement and Forecasting in Equity Markets," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(2), pages 783-816, February.
    8. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    9. Polanski, Arnold & Stoja, Evarist, 2017. "Forecasting multidimensional tail risk at short and long horizons," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 958-969.
    10. Gonzalo Cortazar & Alejandro Bernales & Diether Beuermann, 2005. "Methodology and Implementation of Value-at-Risk Measures in Emerging Fixed-Income Markets with Infrequent Trading," Finance 0512030, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Wagner Piazza Gaglianone & Luiz Renato Lima & Oliver Linton & Daniel R. Smith, 2011. "Evaluating Value-at-Risk Models via Quantile Regression," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 150-160, January.
    12. Wu, Qi & Yan, Xing, 2019. "Capturing deep tail risk via sequential learning of quantile dynamics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Lin, Chu-Hsiung & Changchien, Chang-Cheng & Kao, Tzu-Chuan & Kao, Wei-Shun, 2014. "High-order moments and extreme value approach for value-at-risk," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 421-434.
    14. Carol Alexander & Emese Lazar & Silvia Stanescu, 2011. "Analytic Approximations to GARCH Aggregated Returns Distributions with Applications to VaR and ETL," ICMA Centre Discussion Papers in Finance icma-dp2011-08, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Sander Barendse & Erik Kole & Dick van Dijk, 2023. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in the Presence of Estimation Error," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 528-568.
    18. 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.
    19. Abad, Pilar & Benito, Sonia, 2013. "A detailed comparison of value at risk estimates," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 258-276.
    20. Bayer, Sebastian, 2018. "Combining Value-at-Risk forecasts using penalized quantile regressions," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-77.

    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:pal:risman:v:25:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41283-022-00106-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.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.