IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1410.4382.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Verification of internal risk measure estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Mark H. A. Davis

Abstract

This paper concerns sequential computation of risk measures for financial data and asks how, given a risk measurement procedure, we can tell whether the answers it produces are `correct'. We draw the distinction between `external' and `internal' risk measures and concentrate on the latter, where we observe data in real time, make predictions and observe outcomes. It is argued that evaluation of such procedures is best addressed from the point of view of probability forecasting or Dawid's theory of `prequential statistics' [Dawid, JRSS(A)1984]. We introduce a concept of `calibration' of a risk measure in a dynamic setting, following the precepts of Dawid's weak and strong prequential principles, and examine its application to quantile forecasting (VaR -- value at risk) and to mean estimation (applicable to CVaR -- expected shortfall). The relationship between these ideas and `elicitability' [Gneiting, JASA 2011] is examined. We show in particular that VaR has special properties not shared by any other risk measure. Turning to CVaR we argue that its main deficiency is the unquantifiable tail dependence of estimators. In a final section we show that a simple data-driven feedback algorithm can produce VaR estimates on financial data that easily pass both the consistency test and a further newly-introduced statistical test for independence of a binary sequence.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark H. A. Davis, 2014. "Verification of internal risk measure estimates," Papers 1410.4382, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2015.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1410.4382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.4382
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Osband, Kent & Reichelstein, Stefan, 1985. "Information-eliciting compensation schemes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 107-115, June.
    2. Benoit Mandelbrot & Howard M. Taylor, 1967. "On the Distribution of Stock Price Differences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 1057-1062, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Bollerslev, Tim, 1986. "Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 307-327, April.
    5. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 593-606.
    6. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    7. Keith Kuester & Stefan Mittnik & Marc S. Paolella, 2006. "Value-at-Risk Prediction: A Comparison of Alternative Strategies," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 53-89.
    8. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    9. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2013. "Coherence and elicitability," Papers 1303.1690, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2014.
    10. R. Cont, 2001. "Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 223-236.
    11. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    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. Marc S. Paolella, 2017. "The Univariate Collapsing Method for Portfolio Optimization," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-33, May.
    2. Xue Dong He & Xianhua Peng, 2017. "Surplus-Invariant, Law-Invariant, and Conic Acceptance Sets Must be the Sets Induced by Value-at-Risk," Papers 1707.05596, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2018.
    3. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.

    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. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    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. Marcelo Brutti Righi & Fernanda Maria Muller & Marlon Ruoso Moresco, 2022. "A risk measurement approach from risk-averse stochastic optimization of score functions," Papers 2208.14809, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    4. Del Brio, Esther B. & Mora-Valencia, Andrés & Perote, Javier, 2020. "Risk quantification for commodity ETFs: Backtesting value-at-risk and expected shortfall," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Dimitriadis, Timo & Schnaitmann, Julie, 2021. "Forecast encompassing tests for the expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 604-621.
    6. Santos, Douglas G. & Candido, Osvaldo & Tófoli, Paula V., 2022. "Forecasting risk measures using intraday and overnight information," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Chan Jennifer So Kuen & Ng Kok-Haur & Nitithumbundit Thanakorn & Peiris Shelton, 2019. "Efficient estimation of financial risk by regressing the quantiles of parametric distributions: An application to CARR models," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 23(2), pages 1-22, April.
    8. Daniel Velásquez-Gaviria & Andrés Mora-Valencia & Javier Perote, 2020. "A Comparison of the Risk Quantification in Traditional and Renewable Energy Markets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-42, June.
    9. Marie Kratz & Yen H Lok & Alexander J Mcneil, 2016. "Multinomial var backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Working Papers hal-01424279, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Marco Bee & Luca Trapin, 2018. "Estimating and Forecasting Conditional Risk Measures with Extreme Value Theory: A Review," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, April.
    12. Krätschmer Volker & Schied Alexander & Zähle Henryk, 2015. "Quasi-Hadamard differentiability of general risk functionals and its application," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 32(1), pages 25-47, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Francesco Cesarone & Manuel L. Martino & Fabio Tardella, 2023. "Mean-Variance-VaR portfolios: MIQP formulation and performance analysis," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 45(3), pages 1043-1069, September.
    15. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2014. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Papers 1401.4787, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2015.
    16. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    17. Ruodu Wang & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2014. "Distortion Risk Measures and Elicitability," Papers 1405.3769, arXiv.org, revised May 2014.
    18. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2015. "Higher order elicitability and Osband's principle," Papers 1503.08123, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2015.
    19. Matteo Burzoni & Ilaria Peri & Chiara Maria Ruffo, 2016. "On the properties of the Lambda value at risk: robustness, elicitability and consistency," Papers 1603.09491, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    20. Kellner, Ralf & Rösch, Daniel, 2016. "Quantifying market risk with Value-at-Risk or Expected Shortfall? – Consequences for capital requirements and model risk," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 45-63.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:1410.4382. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.