IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2409.17676.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk measures based on target risk profiles

Author

Listed:
  • Jascha Alexander
  • Christian Laudag'e
  • Jorn Sass

Abstract

We address the problem that classical risk measures may not detect the tail risk adequately. This can occur for instance due to the averaging process when computing Expected Shortfall. The current literature proposes a solution, the so-called adjusted Expected Shortfall. This risk measure is the supremum of Expected Shortfalls for all possible levels, adjusted with a function $g$, the so-called target risk profile. We generalize this idea by using other risk measures instead of Expected Shortfall. Therefore, we introduce the concept of general adjusted risk measures. For these the realization of the adjusted risk measure quantifies the minimal amount of capital that has to be raised and injected in a financial position $X$ to ensure that the risk measure is always smaller or equal to the adjustment function $g(p)$ for all levels $p\in[0,1]$. We discuss a variety of assumptions such that desirable properties for risk measures are satisfied in this setup. From a theoretical point of view, our main contribution is the analysis of equivalent assumptions such that a general adjusted risk measure is positive homogeneous and subadditive. Furthermore, we show that these conditions hold for a bunch of new risk measures, beyond the adjusted Expected Shortfall. For these risk measures, we derive their dual representations. Finally, we test the performance of these new risk measures in a case study based on the S$\&$P $500$.

Suggested Citation

  • Jascha Alexander & Christian Laudag'e & Jorn Sass, 2024. "Risk measures based on target risk profiles," Papers 2409.17676, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2409.17676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.17676
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weber, Stefan, 2018. "Solvency II, or how to sweep the downside risk under the carpet," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 191-200.
    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. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    4. Koch-Medina, Pablo & Munari, Cosimo, 2016. "Unexpected shortfalls of Expected Shortfall: Extreme default profiles and regulatory arbitrage," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 141-151.
    5. Frey, Rudiger & McNeil, Alexander J., 2002. "VaR and expected shortfall in portfolios of dependent credit risks: Conceptual and practical insights," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1317-1334, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Fabio Bellini & Elena Di Bernardino, 2017. "Risk management with expectiles," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 487-506, May.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Paul Embrechts & Haiyan Liu & Tiantian Mao & Ruodu Wang, 2017. "Quantile-Based Risk Sharing with Heterogeneous Beliefs," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 17-65, Swiss Finance Institute, revised Jan 2018.
    11. Walter Farkas & Pablo Koch-Medina & Cosimo Munari, 2014. "Beyond cash-additive risk measures: when changing the numéraire fails," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 145-173, January.
    12. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei, 2020. "Risk functionals with convex level sets," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1337-1367, October.
    13. Ruodu Wang, 2016. "Regulatory arbitrage of risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 337-347, March.
    14. Burzoni, Matteo & Munari, Cosimo & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    15. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Müller, Fernanda Maria, 2023. "Range-based risk measures and their applications," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 636-657, September.
    16. Walter Farkas & Pablo Koch-Medina & Cosimo Munari, 2012. "Beyond cash-additive risk measures: when changing the num\'{e}raire fails," Papers 1206.0478, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2014.
    17. 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.
    18. Newey, Whitney K & Powell, James L, 1987. "Asymmetric Least Squares Estimation and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 819-847, July.
    19. Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell & Uryasev, Stanislav, 2002. "Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1443-1471, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Burzoni, Matteo & Munari, Cosimo & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    2. Matteo Burzoni & Cosimo Munari & Ruodu Wang, 2020. "Adjusted Expected Shortfall," Papers 2007.08829, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    3. Martin Herdegen & Cosimo Munari, 2023. "An elementary proof of the dual representation of Expected Shortfall," Papers 2306.14506, arXiv.org.
    4. Cosimo Munari & Stefan Weber & Lutz Wilhelmy, 2023. "Capital requirements and claims recovery: A new perspective on solvency regulation," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 90(2), pages 329-380, June.
    5. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    6. Tobias Fissler & Fangda Liu & Ruodu Wang & Linxiao Wei, 2024. "Elicitability and identifiability of tail risk measures," Papers 2404.14136, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Annika Homburg & Christian H. Weiß & Gabriel Frahm & Layth C. Alwan & Rainer Göb, 2021. "Analysis and Forecasting of Risk in Count Processes," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Yunran, 2020. "Characterizing optimal allocations in quantile-based risk sharing," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 288-300.
    14. Marcel Brautigam & Marie Kratz, 2020. "The Impact of the Choice of Risk and Dispersion Measure on Procyclicality," Papers 2001.00529, arXiv.org.
    15. Gómez, Fabio & Tang, Qihe & Tong, Zhiwei, 2022. "The gradient allocation principle based on the higher moment risk measure," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    16. Maziar Sahamkhadam, 2021. "Dynamic copula-based expectile portfolios," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 209-223, May.
    17. 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.
    18. Gabriela Zeller & Matthias Scherer, 2023. "Risk mitigation services in cyber insurance: optimal contract design and price structure," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 48(2), pages 502-547, April.
    19. Bellini, Fabio & Fadina, Tolulope & Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Yunran, 2022. "Parametric measures of variability induced by risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 270-284.
    20. 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.

    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:2409.17676. 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.