IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedgfe/2000-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improving grid-based methods for estimating value at risk of fixed-income portfolios

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Jamshidian and Zhu (1997) propose a discrete grid method for simplifying the computation of Value at Risk (VaR) for fixed-income portfolios. Their method relies on two simplifications. First, the value of fixed income instruments is modeled as depending on a small number of risk factors chosen using principal components analysis. Second, they use a discrete approximation to the distribution of the portfolio's value. We show that their method has two serious shortcomings which imply it cannot accurately estimate VaR for some fixed-income portfolios. First, risk factors chosen using principal components analysis will explain the variation in the yield curve, but they may not explain the variation in the portfolio's value. This will be especially problematic for portfolios that are hedged. Second, their discrete distribution of portfolio value can be a poor approximation to the true continuous distribution. We propose two refinements to their method to correct these two shortcomings. First, we propose choosing risk factors according to their ability to explain the portfolio's value. To do this, instead of generating risk factors with principal components analysis, we generate them with a statistical technique called partial least squares. Second, we compute VaR with a ``Grid Monte Carlo'' method that uses continuous risk factor distributions while maintaining the computational simplicity of a grid method for pricing. We illustrate our points with several example portfolios where the Jamshidian-Zhu method fails to accurately estimate VaR, while our refinements succeed.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael S. Gibson & Matthew Pritsker, 2000. "Improving grid-based methods for estimating value at risk of fixed-income portfolios," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2000-25, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedgfe:2000-25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2000/200025/200025abs.html
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2000/200025/200025pap.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farshid Jamshidian & Yu Zhu, 1996. "Scenario Simulation: Theory and methodology (*)," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 43-67.
    2. John Kambhu, 1998. "Dealers' hedging of interest rate options in the U.S. dollar fixed-income market," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 4(Jun), pages 35-58.
    3. Matthew Pritsker, 1997. "Evaluating Value at Risk Methodologies: Accuracy versus Computational Time," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 12(2), pages 201-242, October.
    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. Pearson, Neil D. & Smithson, Charles, 2002. "VaR: The state of play," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 175-189.
    2. David Bolder, 2003. "A Stochastic Simulation Framework for the Government of Canada's Debt Strategy," Staff Working Papers 03-10, Bank of Canada.
    3. Matthew Pritsker, 2017. "Choosing Stress Scenarios for Systemic Risk Through Dimension Reduction," Supervisory Research and Analysis Working Papers RPA 17-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

    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. Roberta Fiori & Simonetta Iannotti, 2006. "Scenario Based Principal Component Value-at-Risk: an Application to Italian Banks' Interest Rate Risk Exposure," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 602, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    2. Laurent El Ghaoui & Maksim Oks & Francois Oustry, 2003. "Worst-Case Value-At-Risk and Robust Portfolio Optimization: A Conic Programming Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 543-556, August.
    3. Mínguez, R. & Conejo, A.J. & García-Bertrand, R., 2011. "Reliability and decomposition techniques to solve certain class of stochastic programming problems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 314-323.
    4. Peter Grundke & Kamil Pliszka, 2018. "A macroeconomic reverse stress test," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1093-1130, May.
    5. Silvia Stanescu & Radu Tunaru, 2013. "Quantifying the uncertainty in VaR and expected shortfall estimates," Chapters, in: Adrian R. Bell & Chris Brooks & Marcel Prokopczuk (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Empirical Finance, chapter 15, pages 357-372, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Chrétien, Stéphane & Coggins, Frank, 2010. "Performance and conservatism of monthly FHS VaR: An international investigation," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 323-333, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Charles-Olivier Amédée-Manesme & Fabrice Barthélémy, 2022. "Proper use of the modified Sharpe ratios in performance measurement: rearranging the Cornish Fisher expansion," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 313(2), pages 691-712, June.
    9. Po-Cheng Wu & Cheng-Kun Kuo & Chih-Wei Lee, 2012. "Evaluation Of Multi-Asset Value At Risk: Evidence From Taiwan," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 6(4), pages 23-34.
    10. Fabio Trojani, 2007. "Accurate Short-Term Yield Curve Forecasting using Functional Gradient Descent," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 591-623, Fall.
    11. Yutong Chen & Paul Bilokon & Conan Hales & Laura Kerr, 2023. "Real-time VaR Calculations for Crypto Derivatives in kdb+/q," Papers 2309.06393, arXiv.org.
    12. Chiara Sabelli & Michele Pioppi & Luca Sitzia & Giacomo Bormetti, 2014. "Multi-curve HJM modelling for risk management," Papers 1411.3977, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2015.
    13. Michael S. Gibson, 2001. "Incorporating event risk into value-at-risk," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2001-17, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    14. Nuerxiati Abudurexiti & Kai He & Dongdong Hu & Svetlozar T. Rachev & Hasanjan Sayit & Ruoyu Sun, 2021. "Portfolio analysis with mean-CVaR and mean-CVaR-skewness criteria based on mean-variance mixture models," Papers 2111.04311, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    15. Andrea Beltratti & Andrea Consiglio & Stavros Zenios, 1999. "Scenario modeling for the management ofinternational bond portfolios," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 85(0), pages 227-247, January.
    16. John Board & Charles Sutcliffe & William T. Ziemba, 2003. "Applying Operations Research Techniques to Financial Markets," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 12-24, April.
    17. Charles-Olivier Amédée-Manesme & Fabrice Barthélémy, 2018. "Ex-ante real estate Value at Risk calculation method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(2), pages 257-285, March.
    18. Cotter, John & Dowd, Kevin, 2007. "Evaluating the Precision of Estimators of Quantile-Based Risk Measures," MPRA Paper 3504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Lwin, Khin T. & Qu, Rong & MacCarthy, Bart L., 2017. "Mean-VaR portfolio optimization: A nonparametric approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 751-766.
    20. Dominique Guegan & Bertrand K. Hassani & Kehan Li, 2016. "Uncertainty in historical Value-at-Risk: an alternative quantile-based risk measure," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16006, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk;

    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:fip:fedgfe:2000-25. 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: Ryan Wolfslayer ; Keisha Fournillier (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbgvus.html .

    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.