IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v5y2017i3p41-d105953.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robust Estimation of Value-at-Risk through Distribution-Free and Parametric Approaches Using the Joint Severity and Frequency Model: Applications in Financial, Actuarial, and Natural Calamities Domains

Author

Listed:
  • Sabyasachi Guharay

    (Systems Engineering & Operations Research, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA)

  • KC Chang

    (Systems Engineering & Operations Research, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA)

  • Jie Xu

    (Systems Engineering & Operations Research, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA)

Abstract

Value-at-Risk (VaR) is a well-accepted risk metric in modern quantitative risk management (QRM). The classical Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) approach, denoted henceforth as the classical approach, assumes the independence of loss severity and loss frequency. In practice, this assumption does not always hold true. Through mathematical analyses, we show that the classical approach is prone to significant biases when the independence assumption is violated. This is also corroborated by studying both simulated and real-world datasets. To overcome the limitations and to more accurately estimate VaR, we develop and implement the following two approaches for VaR estimation: the data-driven partitioning of frequency and severity (DPFS) using clustering analysis, and copula-based parametric modeling of frequency and severity (CPFS). These two approaches are verified using simulation experiments on synthetic data and validated on five publicly available datasets from diverse domains; namely, the financial indices data of Standard & Poor’s 500 and the Dow Jones industrial average, chemical loss spills as tracked by the US Coast Guard, Australian automobile accidents, and US hurricane losses. The classical approach estimates VaR inaccurately for 80% of the simulated data sets and for 60% of the real-world data sets studied in this work. Both the DPFS and the CPFS methodologies attain VaR estimates within 99% bootstrap confidence interval bounds for both simulated and real-world data. We provide a process flowchart for risk practitioners describing the steps for using the DPFS versus the CPFS methodology for VaR estimation in real-world loss datasets.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabyasachi Guharay & KC Chang & Jie Xu, 2017. "Robust Estimation of Value-at-Risk through Distribution-Free and Parametric Approaches Using the Joint Severity and Frequency Model: Applications in Financial, Actuarial, and Natural Calamities Domain," Risks, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-30, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:5:y:2017:i:3:p:41-:d:105953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/5/3/41/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/5/3/41/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bilgrau, Anders Ellern & Eriksen, Poul Svante & Rasmussen, Jakob Gulddahl & Johnsen, Hans Erik & Dybkaer, Karen & Boegsted, Martin, 2016. "GMCM: Unsupervised Clustering and Meta-Analysis Using Gaussian Mixture Copula Models," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 70(i02).
    2. Panchenko, Valentyn, 2005. "Goodness-of-fit test for copulas," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 355(1), pages 176-182.
    3. Loriano Mancini & Fabio Trojani, 2011. "Robust Value at Risk Prediction," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 281-313, Spring.
    4. Chen, Yen-Liang & Hu, Hui-Ling, 2006. "An overlapping cluster algorithm to provide non-exhaustive clustering," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 762-780, September.
    5. Kojadinovic, Ivan & Yan, Jun, 2010. "Modeling Multivariate Distributions with Continuous Margins Using the copula R Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 34(i09).
    6. Dias, Alexandra, 2013. "Market capitalization and Value-at-Risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5248-5260.
    7. Juan Wu & Xue Wang & Stephen G. Walker, 2014. "Bayesian Nonparametric Inference for a Multivariate Copula Function," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 747-763, September.
    8. Svetlozar T. Rachev & Anna Chernobai & Christian Menn, 2006. "Empirical Examination of Operational Loss Distributions," Springer Books, in: Martin Morlock & Christoph Schwindt & Norbert Trautmann & Jürgen Zimmermann (ed.), Perspectives on Operations Research, pages 379-401, Springer.
    9. 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.
    10. Valérie Chavez-Demoulin & Paul Embrechts & Marius Hofert, 2016. "An Extreme Value Approach for Modeling Operational Risk Losses Depending on Covariates," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(3), pages 735-776, September.
    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. J. A. Carrillo & M. Nieto & J. F. Velez & D. Velez, 2021. "A New Machine Learning Forecasting Algorithm Based on Bivariate Copula Functions," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-22, May.

    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. Song, Zhi & Mukherjee, Amitava & Zhang, Jiujun, 2021. "Some robust approaches based on copula for monitoring bivariate processes and component-wise assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 177-196.
    3. Arturo Cortés Aguilar, 2011. "Estimación del residual de un bono respaldado por hipotecas mediante un modelo de riesgo crédito: una comparación de resultados de la teoría de cópulas y el modelo IRB de Basilea II en datos del merca," Revista de Administración, Finanzas y Economía (Journal of Management, Finance and Economics), Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de México, vol. 5(1), pages 50-64.
    4. Marco Rocco, 2011. "Extreme value theory for finance: a survey," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 99, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    5. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Ceretta, Paulo Sergio, 2013. "Estimating non-linear serial and cross-interdependence between financial assets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 837-846.
    6. Leong, Soon Heng, 2021. "Global crude oil and the Chinese oil-intensive sectors: A comprehensive causality study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Elberg, Christina & Hagspiel, Simeon, 2015. "Spatial dependencies of wind power and interrelations with spot price dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 260-272.
    9. Matteo Malavasi & Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Stefan Truck & Jiwook Jang & Georgy Sofronov, 2021. "Cyber Risk Frequency, Severity and Insurance Viability," Papers 2111.03366, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    10. Marc Gronwald & Janina Ketterer & Stefan Trück, 2011. "The Dependence Structure between Carbon Emission Allowances and Financial Markets - A Copula Analysis," CESifo Working Paper Series 3418, CESifo.
    11. Kalema, George & Molenberghs, Geert, 2016. "Generating Correlated and/or Overdispersed Count Data: A SAS Implementation," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 70(c01).
    12. Wanling Huang & Artem Prokhorov, 2014. "A Goodness-of-fit Test for Copulas," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(7), pages 751-771, October.
    13. Ulrik Franke, 2020. "IT service outage cost: case study and implications for cyber insurance," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(4), pages 760-784, October.
    14. Berghaus, Betina & Segers, Johan, 2017. "Weak convergence of the weighted empirical beta copula process," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2017015, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    15. Jin-Ray Lu & Chiang-Chang Hwang & Yi-Chun Chen & Chu-Ting Wen, 2013. "Including More Information Content to Enhance the Value at Risk Estimation for Real Estate Investment Trusts," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(3), pages 25-34, July.
    16. Henryk Zähle, 2022. "A concept of copula robustness and its applications in quantitative risk management," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 825-875, October.
    17. Aloui, Riadh & Aïssa, Mohamed Safouane Ben & Hammoudeh, Shawkat & Nguyen, Duc Khuong, 2014. "Dependence and extreme dependence of crude oil and natural gas prices with applications to risk management," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 332-342.
    18. Zhu, Bo & Lin, Renda & Deng, Yuanyue & Chen, Pingshe & Chevallier, Julien, 2021. "Intersectoral systemic risk spillovers between energy and agriculture under the financial and COVID-19 crises," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    19. Ulrik Franke, 0. "IT service outage cost: case study and implications for cyber insurance," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 0, pages 1-25.
    20. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.

    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:gam:jrisks:v:5:y:2017:i:3:p:41-:d:105953. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.