IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/5311726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inefficiency and bias of modified value-at-risk and expected shortfall

Author

Listed:
  • R. Douglas Martin
  • Rohit Arora

Abstract

Modified value-at-risk (mVaR) and modified expected shortfall (mES) are risk estimators that can be calculated without modeling the distribution of asset returns. These modified estimators use skewness and kurtosis corrections to normal distribution parametric VaR and ES formulas to obtain more accurate risk measurement for non-normal return distributions. Use of skewness and kurtosis corrections can result in reduced bias, but these also lead to inflated mVaR and mES estimator standard errors. We compare modified estimators with their respective parametric counterparts in three ways. First, we assess the magnitude of standard error inflation by deriving formulas for the large-sample standard errors of mVaR and mES using the multivariate delta method. Monte Carlo simulation is then used to determine sample sizes and tail probabilities for which our asymptotic variance formula can be reliably used to compute finite-sample standard errors. Second, to evaluate the large-sample bias, we derive formulas for the asymptotic bias of modified estimators for t-distributions. Third, we analyze the finite-sample performance of the modified estimators for normal and t -distributions using their root-mean-squared-error efficiency relative to the parametric VaR and ES maximum likelihood estimators using Monte Carlo simulation. Our results show that the modified estimators are inefficient for both normal and t-distributions: the more so for t-distributions.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:5311726
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2017-08/Inefficiency_and_bias_of_modified_VaR_and_ES.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:journ4:5311726. 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.