IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1902.04489.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Fissler
  • Johanna F. Ziegel

Abstract

The debate of what quantitative risk measure to choose in practice has mainly focused on the dichotomy between Value at Risk (VaR) -- a quantile -- and Expected Shortfall (ES) -- a tail expectation. Range Value at Risk (RVaR) is a natural interpolation between these two prominent risk measures, which constitutes a tradeoff between the sensitivity of the latter and the robustness of the former, turning it into a practically relevant risk measure on its own. As such, there is a need to statistically validate RVaR forecasts and to compare and rank the performance of different RVaR models, tasks subsumed under the term 'backtesting' in finance. The predictive performance is best evaluated and compared in terms of strictly consistent loss or scoring functions. That is, functions which are minimised in expectation by the correct RVaR forecast. Much like ES, it has been shown recently that RVaR does not admit strictly consistent scoring functions, i.e., it is not elicitable. Mitigating this negative result, this paper shows that a triplet of RVaR with two VaR components at different levels is elicitable. We characterise the class of strictly consistent scoring functions for this triplet. Additional properties of these scoring functions are examined, including the diagnostic tool of Murphy diagrams. The results are illustrated with a simulation study, and we put our approach in perspective with respect to the classical approach of trimmed least squares in robust regression.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1902.04489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.04489
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    2. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    3. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    4. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    5. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Coherence And Elicitability," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 901-918, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Tilmann Gneiting & Fadoua Balabdaoui & Adrian E. Raftery, 2007. "Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(2), pages 243-268, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Sander Barendse, 2017. "Interquantile Expectation Regression," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-034/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. 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.
    13. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Supplement to "Erratum: Higher Order Elicitability and Osband's Principle"," Papers 1901.08826, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2020.
    14. 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.
    15. Andrea Cerioli & Marco Riani & Anthony C. Atkinson & Aldo Corbellini, 2018. "The power of monitoring: how to make the most of a contaminated multivariate sample," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 27(4), pages 559-587, December.
    16. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    17. C. Heinrich, 2014. "The mode functional is not elicitable," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 101(1), pages 245-251.
    18. Fabio Bellini & Valeria Bignozzi, 2015. "On elicitable risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 725-733, May.
    19. Susanne Emmer & Marie Kratz & Dirk Tasche, 2013. "What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measures," Papers 1312.1645, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2015.
    20. Newey, Whitney K & Powell, James L, 1987. "Asymmetric Least Squares Estimation and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 819-847, July.
    21. Hajo Holzmann & Matthias Eulert, 2014. "The role of the information set for forecasting - with applications to risk management," Papers 1404.7653, arXiv.org.
    22. Andrea Cerioli & Marco Riani & Anthony C. Atkinson & Aldo Corbellini, 2018. "Rejoinder to the discussion of “The power of monitoring: how to make the most of a contaminated multivariate sample”," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 27(4), pages 661-666, December.
    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. Timo Dimitriadis & Julie Schnaitmann, 2019. "Forecast Encompassing Tests for the Expected Shortfall," Papers 1908.04569, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    2. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. James Ming Chen, 2018. "On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.
    5. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    6. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    7. Dimitriadis, Timo & Schnaitmann, Julie, 2021. "Forecast encompassing tests for the expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 604-621.
    8. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    9. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    10. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Tobias Fissler & Hajo Holzmann, 2022. "Measurability of functionals and of ideal point forecasts," Papers 2203.08635, arXiv.org.
    13. Mucahit Aygun & Fabio Bellini & Roger J. A. Laeven, 2023. "Elicitability of Return Risk Measures," Papers 2302.13070, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    14. 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.
    15. Mohammedi, Mustapha & Bouzebda, Salim & Laksaci, Ali, 2021. "The consistency and asymptotic normality of the kernel type expectile regression estimator for functional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    16. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2015. "Higher order elicitability and Osband's principle," Papers 1503.08123, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2015.
    17. 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.
    18. Tobias Fissler & Silvana M. Pesenti, 2022. "Sensitivity Measures Based on Scoring Functions," Papers 2203.00460, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    19. Pitera, Marcin & Schmidt, Thorsten, 2018. "Unbiased estimation of risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-145.
    20. 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.

    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:1902.04489. 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.