IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1603.09491.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the properties of the Lambda value at risk: robustness, elicitability and consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Burzoni
  • Ilaria Peri
  • Chiara Maria Ruffo

Abstract

Recently, financial industry and regulators have enhanced the debate on the good properties of a risk measure. A fundamental issue is the evaluation of the quality of a risk estimation. On the one hand, a backtesting procedure is desirable for assessing the accuracy of such an estimation and this can be naturally achieved by elicitable risk measures. For the same objective, an alternative approach has been introduced by Davis (2016) through the so-called consistency property. On the other hand, a risk estimation should be less sensitive with respect to small changes in the available data set and exhibit qualitative robustness. A new risk measure, the Lambda value at risk (Lambda VaR), has been recently proposed by Frittelli et al. (2014), as a generalization of VaR with the ability to discriminate the risk among P&L distributions with different tail behaviour. In this article, we show that Lambda VaR also satisfies the properties of robustness, elicitability and consistency under some conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1603.09491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.09491
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Embrechts & Marius Hofert, 2013. "A note on generalized inverses," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 77(3), pages 423-432, June.
    2. Paul Embrechts & Giovanni Puccetti & Ludger Rüschendorf & Ruodu Wang & Antonela Beleraj, 2014. "An Academic Response to Basel 3.5," Risks, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    5. Volker Krätschmer & Alexander Schied & Henryk Zähle, 2014. "Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 271-295, April.
    6. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    7. Fabio Bellini & Valeria Bignozzi, 2015. "On elicitable risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 725-733, May.
    8. Volker Kratschmer & Alexander Schied & Henryk Zahle, 2012. "Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures," Papers 1204.2458, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2014.
    9. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2013. "Coherence and elicitability," Papers 1303.1690, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2014.
    10. 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.
    11. Krätschmer, Volker & Schied, Alexander & Zähle, Henryk, 2012. "Qualitative and infinitesimal robustness of tail-dependent statistical functionals," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 35-47, January.
    12. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2015. "Higher order elicitability and Osband's principle," Papers 1503.08123, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2015.
    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. Silvana M. Pesenti & Steven Vanduffel, 2023. "Optimal Transport Divergences induced by Scoring Functions," Papers 2311.12183, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    2. Tim J. Boonen & Yuyu Chen & Xia Han & Qiuqi Wang, 2024. "Optimal insurance design with Lambda-Value-at-Risk," Papers 2408.09799, arXiv.org.
    3. Matthias Fischer & Thorsten Moser & Marius Pfeuffer, 2018. "A Discussion on Recent Risk Measures with Application to Credit Risk: Calculating Risk Contributions and Identifying Risk Concentrations," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-28, December.
    4. Javier Ojea-Ferreiro, 2021. "Deconstructing Systemic Risk: A Reverse Stress Testing Approach," Springer Books, in: Marco Corazza & Manfred Gilli & Cira Perna & Claudio Pizzi & Marilena Sibillo (ed.), Mathematical and Statistical Methods for Actuarial Sciences and Finance, pages 369-375, Springer.
    5. Fabio Bellini & Ilaria Peri, 2021. "An axiomatization of $\Lambda$-quantiles," Papers 2109.02360, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    6. Christopher P. Chambers & Alan D. Miller, 2023. "Multiple Adjusted Quantiles," Papers 2305.06354, arXiv.org.
    7. Owusu Junior, Peterson & Alagidede, Imhotep, 2020. "Risks in emerging markets equities: Time-varying versus spatial risk analysis," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 542(C).
    8. Xia Han & Peng Liu, 2024. "Robust Lambda-quantiles and extreme probabilities," Papers 2406.13539, arXiv.org.
    9. Valeria Bignozzi & Matteo Burzoni & Cosimo Munari, 2020. "Risk Measures Based on Benchmark Loss Distributions," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(2), pages 437-475, June.
    10. Akif Ince & Ilaria Peri & Silvana Pesenti, 2021. "Risk contributions of lambda quantiles," Papers 2106.14824, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    11. Asmerilda Hitaj & Cesario Mateus & Ilaria Peri, 2018. "Lambda Value at Risk and Regulatory Capital: A Dynamic Approach to Tail Risk," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Peng Liu & Andreas Tsanakas & Yunran Wei, 2024. "Risk sharing with Lambda value at risk under heterogeneous beliefs," Papers 2408.03147, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.

    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. Ruodu Wang & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2014. "Distortion Risk Measures and Elicitability," Papers 1405.3769, arXiv.org, revised May 2014.
    2. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    3. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    4. 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.
    5. M. Burzoni & I. Peri & C. M. Ruffo, 2017. "On the properties of the Lambda value at risk: robustness, elicitability and consistency," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1735-1743, November.
    6. Carole Bernard & Ludger Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel & Ruodu Wang, 2017. "Risk bounds for factor models," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 631-659, July.
    7. Lazar, Emese & Zhang, Ning, 2019. "Model risk of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 74-93.
    8. Asimit, Alexandru V. & Bignozzi, Valeria & Cheung, Ka Chun & Hu, Junlei & Kim, Eun-Seok, 2017. "Robust and Pareto optimality of insurance contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 720-732.
    9. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    10. George Tzagkarakis & Frantz Maurer, 2020. "An energy-based measure for long-run horizon risk quantification," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 363-390, June.
    11. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2015. "Higher order elicitability and Osband's principle," Papers 1503.08123, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2015.
    12. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    13. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2018. "A theory for combinations of risk measures," Papers 1807.01977, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    14. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Müller, Fernanda Maria & Moresco, Marlon Ruoso, 2020. "On a robust risk measurement approach for capital determination errors minimization," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 199-211.
    15. Ruodu Wang, 2016. "Regulatory arbitrage of risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 337-347, March.
    16. Paul Embrechts & Bin Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2015. "Aggregation-robustness and model uncertainty of regulatory risk measures," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 763-790, October.
    17. Yannick Armenti & Stéphane Crépey & Samuel Drapeau & Antonis Papapantoleon, 2018. "Multivariate Shortfall Risk Allocation and Systemic Risk," Working Papers hal-01764398, HAL.
    18. Müller, Fernanda Maria & Santos, Samuel Solgon & Gössling, Thalles Weber & Righi, Marcelo Brutti, 2022. "Comparison of risk forecasts for cryptocurrencies: A focus on Range Value at Risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    19. Onur Babat & Juan C. Vera & Luis F. Zuluaga, 2021. "Computing near-optimal Value-at-Risk portfolios using Integer Programming techniques," Papers 2107.07339, arXiv.org.
    20. 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.

    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:1603.09491. 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.