IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/2160963.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Copula parameter estimation: numerical considerations and implications for risk management

Author

Listed:
  • Gregor N. F. Weiß

Abstract

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive simulation study on the finite sample properties of minimum distance and maximum likelihood estimators for bivariate and multivariate parametric copulas. For five popular parametric copulas, classical maximum likelihood is compared to a total of nine different minimum distance estimators. In particular, Cramér-von-Mises, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and L1 variants of the Cramér- von-Mises statistic based on the empirical copula process, Kendall's dependence function and Rosenblatt's probability integral transform are considered. The results presented in this paper show that in most settings canonical maximum likelihood yields smaller estimation biases at less computational effort than any of the minimum distance estimators. There exist, however, some cases (especially when the sample size increases) where minimum distance estimators based on the empirical copula process are superior to the maximum likelihood estimator. Minimum distance estimators based on Kendall's transform, on the other hand, yield only suboptimal results in all configurations of the simulation study. The results of the simulation study are confirmed by empirical examples where the value-at-risk as well as the expected shortfall of 100 bivariate portfolios are computed. Interestingly, the estimates for these risk measures differed considerably depending on the choice of parameter estimator. This result stresses the need for carefully choosing the parameter estimator in contrast to focusing all attention on choosing the parametric copula model.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:2160963
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/import/protected/digital_assets/10379/Copula_parameter_estimation.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

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:rsk:journ4:2160963. 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.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk .

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.