IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/compst/v36y2021i3d10.1007_s00180-021-01078-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing a parameter restriction on the boundary for the g-and-h distribution: a simulated approach

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Bee

    (University of Trento)

  • Julien Hambuckers

    (University of Liège)

  • Flavio Santi

    (University of Verona)

  • Luca Trapin

    (University of Bologna)

Abstract

We develop a likelihood-ratio test for discriminating between the g-and-h and the g distribution, which is a special case of the former obtained when the parameter h is equal to zero. The g distribution is a shifted lognormal, and is therefore suitable for modeling economic and financial quantities. The g-and-h is a more flexible distribution, capable of fitting highly skewed and/or leptokurtic data, but is computationally much more demanding. Accordingly, in practical applications the test is a valuable tool for resolving the tractability-flexibility trade-off between the two distributions. Since the classical result for the asymptotic distribution of the test is not valid in this setup, we derive the null distribution via simulation. Further Monte Carlo experiments allow us to estimate the power function and to perform a comparison with a similar test proposed by Xu and Genton (Comput Stat Data Anal 91:78–91, 2015). Finally, the practical relevance of the test is illustrated by two risk management applications dealing with operational and actuarial losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Bee & Julien Hambuckers & Flavio Santi & Luca Trapin, 2021. "Testing a parameter restriction on the boundary for the g-and-h distribution: a simulated approach," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 2177-2200, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:compst:v:36:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s00180-021-01078-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s00180-021-01078-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00180-021-01078-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00180-021-01078-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julien Hambuckers & Andreas Groll & Thomas Kneib, 2018. "Understanding the economic determinants of the severity of operational losses: A regularized generalized Pareto regression approach," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 898-935, September.
    2. Gareth W. Peters & Wilson Y. Chen & Richard H. Gerlach, 2016. "Estimating Quantile Families of Loss Distributions for Non-Life Insurance Modelling via L-moments," Papers 1603.01041, arXiv.org.
    3. Drovandi, Christopher C. & Pettitt, Anthony N., 2011. "Likelihood-free Bayesian estimation of multivariate quantile distributions," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(9), pages 2541-2556, September.
    4. Xu, Ganggang & Genton, Marc G., 2015. "Efficient maximum approximated likelihood inference for Tukey’s g-and-h distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 78-91.
    5. Ganggang Xu & Marc G. Genton, 2017. "Tukey -and- Random Fields," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(519), pages 1236-1249, July.
    6. Groll, Andreas & Hambuckers, Julien & Kneib, Thomas & Umlauf, Nikolaus, 2019. "LASSO-type penalization in the framework of generalized additive models for location, scale and shape," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 59-73.
    7. Degen, Matthias & Embrechts, Paul & Lambrigger, Dominik D., 2007. "The Quantitative Modeling of Operational Risk: Between G-and-H and EVT," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 265-291, November.
    8. James B. Mcdonald & Jeff Sorensen & Patrick A. Turley, 2013. "Skewness And Kurtosis Properties Of Income Distribution Models," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 59(2), pages 360-374, June.
    9. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    10. Gareth W. Peters & Wilson Ye Chen & Richard H. Gerlach, 2016. "Estimating Quantile Families of Loss Distributions for Non-Life Insurance Modelling via L-Moments," Risks, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-41, May.
    11. Kabir K. Dutta & David F. Babbel, 2002. "On Measuring Skewness and Kurtosis in Short Rate Distributions: The Case of the US Dollar London Inter Bank Offer Rates," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 02-25, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    12. Kabir Dutta & Jason Perry, 2006. "A tale of tails: an empirical analysis of loss distribution models for estimating operational risk capital," Working Papers 06-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    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. Marco Bee & Julien Hambuckers & Luca Trapin, 2019. "An improved approach for estimating large losses in insurance analytics and operational risk using the g-and-h distribution," DEM Working Papers 2019/11, Department of Economics and Management.
    2. Marco Bee, 2022. "The truncated g-and-h distribution: estimation and application to loss modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 1771-1794, September.
    3. Gareth W. Peters, 2018. "General Quantile Time Series Regressions for Applications in Population Demographics," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-47, September.
    4. M. Bee & J. Hambuckers & L. Trapin, 2019. "Estimating Value-at-Risk for the g-and-h distribution: an indirect inference approach," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(8), pages 1255-1266, August.
    5. Gareth W. Peters & Wilson Ye Chen & Richard H. Gerlach, 2016. "Estimating Quantile Families of Loss Distributions for Non-Life Insurance Modelling via L-Moments," Risks, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-41, May.
    6. Gareth W. Peters & Wilson Y. Chen & Richard H. Gerlach, 2016. "Estimating Quantile Families of Loss Distributions for Non-Life Insurance Modelling via L-moments," Papers 1603.01041, arXiv.org.
    7. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01391091, HAL.
    8. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Papers 1607.02319, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2016.
    9. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Post-Print halshs-01391091, HAL.
    10. Wilson Ye Chen & Gareth W. Peters & Richard H. Gerlach & Scott A. Sisson, 2017. "Dynamic Quantile Function Models," Papers 1707.02587, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    11. Gareth W. Peters & Pavel V. Shevchenko & Bertrand K. Hassani & Ariane Chapelle, 2016. "Should the advanced measurement approach be replaced with the standardized measurement approach for operational risk?," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16065, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    12. Acosta, Jonathan & Alegría, Alfredo & Osorio, Felipe & Vallejos, Ronny, 2021. "Assessing the effective sample size for large spatial datasets: A block likelihood approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    13. Julien Hambuckers & Marie Kratz & Antoine Usseglio-Carleve, 2023. "Efficient Estimation In Extreme Value Regression Models Of Hedge Fund Tail Risks," Working Papers hal-04090916, HAL.
    14. Buch-Kromann, Tine & Guillén, Montserrat & Linton, Oliver & Nielsen, Jens Perch, 2011. "Multivariate density estimation using dimension reducing information and tail flattening transformations," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 99-110, January.
    15. Antonio Díaz & Gonzalo García-Donato & Andrés Mora-Valencia, 2017. "Risk quantification in turmoil markets," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 202-224, August.
    16. Francesca Biagini & Tobias Huber & Johannes G. Jaspersen & Andrea Mazzon, 2021. "Estimating extreme cancellation rates in life insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(4), pages 971-1000, December.
    17. Xu, Ganggang & Genton, Marc G., 2015. "Efficient maximum approximated likelihood inference for Tukey’s g-and-h distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 78-91.
    18. James, Robert & Leung, Henry & Leung, Jessica Wai Yin & Prokhorov, Artem, 2023. "Forecasting tail risk measures for financial time series: An extreme value approach with covariates," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 29-50.
    19. Hendrik van der Wurp & Andreas Groll, 2023. "Introducing LASSO-type penalisation to generalised joint regression modelling for count data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 107(1), pages 127-151, March.
    20. Holly Brannelly & Andrea Macrina & Gareth W. Peters, 2019. "Quantile Diffusions for Risk Analysis," Papers 1912.10866, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.

    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:spr:compst:v:36:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s00180-021-01078-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.