IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/csb/stintr/v15y2014i4p627-636.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Duration-Based Approach to VaR Independence Backtesting

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Małecka

Abstract

Dynamic development in the area of value-at-risk (VaR) estimation and growing implementation of VaR-based risk valuation models in investment companies stimulate the need for statistical methods of VaR models evaluation. Following recent changes in Basel Accords, current UE banking supervisory regulations require internal VaR model backtesting, which provides another strong incentive for research on relevant statistical tests. Previous studies have shown that commonly used VaR independence Markov-chain-based testing procedure exhibits low power, which constitutes a particularly serious problem in the case of finite-sample settings. In the paper, as an alternative to the popular Markov test an overview of the group of duration-based VaR backtesting procedures is presented along with exploration of their statistical properties while rejecting a non-realistic assumption of infinite sample size. The Monte Carlo test technique was adopted to provide exact tests, in which asymptotic distributions were replaced with simulated finite sample distributions. A Monte Carlo study, based on the GARCH model, was designed to investigate the size and the power of the tests. Through the comparative analysis we found that, in the light of observed statistical properties, the duration-based approach was superior to the Markov test.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Małecka, 2014. "Duration-Based Approach to VaR Independence Backtesting," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 15(4), pages 627-636, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:csb:stintr:v:15:y:2014:i:4:p:627-636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://index.stat.gov.pl/repec/files/csb/stintr/csb_stintr_v15_2014_i4_n9.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul H. Kupiec, 1995. "Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    2. Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2006. "Monte Carlo tests with nuisance parameters: A general approach to finite-sample inference and nonstandard asymptotics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 443-477, August.
    3. Jeremy Berkowitz & Peter Christoffersen & Denis Pelletier, 2011. "Evaluating Value-at-Risk Models with Desk-Level Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(12), pages 2213-2227, December.
    4. Peter Christoffersen, 2004. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk: A Duration-Based Approach," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 84-108.
    5. 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.
    6. Robert F. Engle & Jeffrey R. Russell, 1998. "Autoregressive Conditional Duration: A New Model for Irregularly Spaced Transaction Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1127-1162, September.
    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. Nieto, Maria Rosa & Ruiz, Esther, 2016. "Frontiers in VaR forecasting and backtesting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 475-501.
    2. Fries, Christian P. & Nigbur, Tobias & Seeger, Norman, 2017. "Displaced relative changes in historical simulation: Application to risk measures of interest rates with phases of negative rates," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 175-198.
    3. Takahashi, Makoto & Watanabe, Toshiaki & Omori, Yasuhiro, 2016. "Volatility and quantile forecasts by realized stochastic volatility models with generalized hyperbolic distribution," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 437-457.
    4. Jeremy Berkowitz & Peter Christoffersen & Denis Pelletier, 2011. "Evaluating Value-at-Risk Models with Desk-Level Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(12), pages 2213-2227, December.
    5. Thiele, Stephen, 2019. "Detecting underestimates of risk in VaR models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 12-20.
    6. Leccadito, Arturo & Boffelli, Simona & Urga, Giovanni, 2014. "Evaluating the accuracy of value-at-risk forecasts: New multilevel tests," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 206-216.
    7. Marta Małecka, 2021. "Testing for a serial correlation in VaR failures through the exponential autoregressive conditional duration model," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 145-162, March.
    8. Ziggel, Daniel & Berens, Tobias & Weiß, Gregor N.F. & Wied, Dominik, 2014. "A new set of improved Value-at-Risk backtests," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 29-41.
    9. Lazar, Emese & Zhang, Ning, 2019. "Model risk of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 74-93.
    10. Nowotarski, Jakub & Weron, Rafał, 2018. "Recent advances in electricity price forecasting: A review of probabilistic forecasting," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 1548-1568.
    11. Bertrand Candelon & Gilbert Colletaz & Christophe Hurlin & Sessi Tokpavi, 2011. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk: A GMM Duration-Based Test," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 314-343, Spring.
    12. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    13. James M. O'Brien & Pawel J. Szerszen, 2014. "An Evaluation of Bank VaR Measures for Market Risk During and Before the Financial Crisis," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2014-21, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    14. Thor Pajhede, 2015. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk: A Generalized Markov Framework," Discussion Papers 15-18, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    15. Boucher, Christophe M. & Daníelsson, Jón & Kouontchou, Patrick S. & Maillet, Bertrand B., 2014. "Risk models-at-risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 72-92.
    16. Colletaz, Gilbert & Hurlin, Christophe & Pérignon, Christophe, 2013. "The Risk Map: A new tool for validating risk models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3843-3854.
    17. Rosnan, Chotard & Michel, Dacorogna & Marie, Kratz, 2016. "Risk Measure Estimates in Quiet and Turbulent Times:An Empirical Study," ESSEC Working Papers WP1618, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    18. Nikola Radivojevic & Milena Cvjetkovic & Saša Stepanov, 2016. "The new hybrid value at risk approach based on the extreme value theory," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 43(1 Year 20), pages 29-52, June.
    19. 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.
    20. O’Brien, James & Szerszeń, Paweł J., 2017. "An evaluation of bank measures for market risk before, during and after the financial crisis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 215-234.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    VaR backtesting; Markov test; Haas test; TUFF test; Weibull test; gamma test; EACD test;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • D53 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Financial Markets
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    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:csb:stintr:v:15:y:2014:i:4:p:627-636. 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: Beata Witek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gusgvpl.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.