IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jforec/v40y2021i7p1179-1189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing liquidity‐adjusted risk forecasts

Author

Listed:
  • Theo Berger
  • Christina Uffmann

Abstract

In this paper, we provide a thorough study on the relevance of liquidity‐adjusted value‐at‐risk (LVaR) and expected shortfall (LES) forecasts. We measure additional liquidity of an asset via the difference between its respective bid and ask prices and we assess the non‐normality of bid–ask spreads, especially in turbulent market times. The empirical assessment comprises German stocks in both calm and turmoil market times, and our results provide evidence that liquidity risk turns out to be crucial for the quality of regulatory risk assessment in turmoil market times. We find that a Cornish–Fisher approximation describes a sensible choice for LVaR forecasts whereas an extreme value approach results in adequate LES forecasts.

Suggested Citation

  • Theo Berger & Christina Uffmann, 2021. "Assessing liquidity‐adjusted risk forecasts," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(7), pages 1179-1189, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jforec:v:40:y:2021:i:7:p:1179-1189
    DOI: 10.1002/for.2758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/for.2758
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/for.2758?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand Candelon & Gilbert Colletaz & Christophe Hurlin & Sessi Tokpavi, 2011. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk: A GMM Duration-Based Test," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 314-343, Spring.
    2. Ramos, Henrique Pinto & Righi, Marcelo Brutti, 2020. "Liquidity, implied volatility and tail risk: A comparison of liquidity measures," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    3. Chui-Chun Tsai & Tsun-Siou Lee, 2017. "Liquidity-Adjusted Value-at-Risk for TWSE Leverage/ Inverse ETFs: A Hellinger Distance Measure Research," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 13(1), pages 53-81, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Dionne, Georges & Pacurar, Maria & Zhou, Xiaozhou, 2015. "Liquidity-adjusted Intraday Value at Risk modeling and risk management: An application to data from Deutsche Börse," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 202-219.
    6. Pierre Giot & Joachim Grammig, 2006. "How large is liquidity risk in an automated auction market?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 867-887, January.
    7. Charles-Olivier Amédée-Manesme & Fabrice Barthélémy & Didier Maillard, 2019. "Computation of the corrected Cornish–Fisher expansion using the response surface methodology: application to VaR and CVaR," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 281(1), pages 423-453, October.
    8. Lakshithe Wagalath & Jorge Zubelli, 2018. "A Liquidation Risk Adjustment For Value At Risk And Expected Shortfall," Post-Print hal-02572794, HAL.
    9. Theo Berger, 2013. "Forecasting value-at-risk using time varying copulas and EVT return distributions," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 133, pages 93-106.
    10. 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.).
    11. Cihan Aktas & Orcan Cortuk & Suat Teker & Burcu Deniz Yildirim, 2012. "Measurement of Liquidity-Adjusted Market Risk by VaR and Expected Shortfall: Evidence from Turkish Banks," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 2(5), pages 1-8.
    12. Hansen, Bruce E, 1994. "Autoregressive Conditional Density Estimation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 35(3), pages 705-730, August.
    13. Sebastian Stange & Christoph Kaserer, 2011. "The Impact of Liquidity Risk: A Fresh Look," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 11(3), pages 269-301, September.
    14. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    15. Lakshithe Wagalath & Jorge P. Zubelli, 2018. "A Liquidation Risk Adjustment For Value At Risk And Expected Shortfall," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-21, May.
    16. repec:cii:cepiei:2013-q1-133-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Berger, T. & Missong, M., 2014. "Financial crisis, Value-at-Risk forecasts and the puzzle of dependency modeling," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 33-38.
    18. Rouetbi Emnal & Mamoghli Chokri, 2014. "Measuring Liquidity Risk in an Emerging Market: Liquidity Adjusted Value at Risk Approach for High Frequency Data," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 4(1), pages 40-53.
    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. Harish Kamal & Samit Paul, 2024. "Liquidity‐adjusted value‐at‐risk using extreme value theory and copula approach," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1747-1769, September.
    2. Mariano González-Sánchez & Eva M. Ibáñez Jiménez & Ana I. Segovia San Juan, 2021. "Market and Liquidity Risks Using Transaction-by-Transaction Information," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-14, July.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Slim, Skander & Koubaa, Yosra & BenSaïda, Ahmed, 2017. "Value-at-Risk under Lévy GARCH models: Evidence from global stock markets," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 30-53.
    5. Leccadito, Arturo & Boffelli, Simona & Urga, Giovanni, 2014. "Evaluating the accuracy of value-at-risk forecasts: New multilevel tests," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 206-216.
    6. Nieto, Maria Rosa & Ruiz, Esther, 2016. "Frontiers in VaR forecasting and backtesting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 475-501.
    7. Zhang, Bangzheng & Wei, Yu & Yu, Jiang & Lai, Xiaodong & Peng, Zhenfeng, 2014. "Forecasting VaR and ES of stock index portfolio: A Vine copula method," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 416(C), pages 112-124.
    8. Dean Fantazzini & Stephan Zimin, 2020. "A multivariate approach for the simultaneous modelling of market risk and credit risk for cryptocurrencies," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(1), pages 19-69, March.
    9. Ahmed BenSaïda & Sabri Boubaker & Duc Khuong Nguyen & Skander Slim, 2018. "Value‐at‐risk under market shifts through highly flexible models," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(8), pages 790-804, December.
    10. Xun Lu & Kin Lai & Liang Liang, 2014. "Portfolio value-at-risk estimation in energy futures markets with time-varying copula-GARCH model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 333-357, August.
    11. 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).
    12. Liu, Xiaochun & Luger, Richard, 2015. "Unfolded GARCH models," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 186-217.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Rosnan, Chotard & Michel, Dacorogna & Marie, Kratz, 2016. "Risk Measure Estimates in Quiet and Turbulent Times:An Empirical Study," ESSEC Working Papers WP1618, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    16. 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).
    17. Chen, Qian & Gerlach, Richard H., 2013. "The two-sided Weibull distribution and forecasting financial tail risk," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 527-540.
    18. Frésard, Laurent & Pérignon, Christophe & Wilhelmsson, Anders, 2011. "The pernicious effects of contaminated data in risk management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2569-2583, October.
    19. Federico Pasquale Cortese, 2019. "Tail Dependence in Financial Markets: A Dynamic Copula Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, November.
    20. 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.

    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:wly:jforec:v:40:y:2021:i:7:p:1179-1189. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/2966 .

    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.