IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2002.02229.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the equivalence between Value-at-Risk- and Expected Shortfall-based risk measures in non-concave optimization

Author

Listed:
  • An Chen
  • Mitja Stadje
  • Fangyuan Zhang

Abstract

We study a non-concave optimization problem in which a financial company maximizes the expected utility of the surplus under a risk-based regulatory constraint. For this problem, we consider four different prevalent risk constraints (Expected Shortfall, Expected Discounted Shortfall, Value-at-Risk, and Average Value-at-Risk), and investigate their effects on the optimal solution. Our main contributions are in obtaining an analytical solution under each of the four risk constraints, in the form of the optimal terminal wealth. We show that the four risk constraints lead to the same optimal solution, which differs from previous conclusions obtained from the corresponding concave optimization problem under a risk constraint. Compared with the benchmark (unconstrained) non-concave utility maximization problem, all four risk constraints effectively and equivalently reduce the set of zero terminal wealth, but do not fully eliminate this set, indicating the success and failure of the respective financial regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • An Chen & Mitja Stadje & Fangyuan Zhang, 2020. "On the equivalence between Value-at-Risk- and Expected Shortfall-based risk measures in non-concave optimization," Papers 2002.02229, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2002.02229
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.02229
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Basak, Suleyman & Shapiro, Alexander, 2001. "Value-at-Risk-Based Risk Management: Optimal Policies and Asset Prices," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 14(2), pages 371-405.
    2. Jennifer N. Carpenter, 2000. "Does Option Compensation Increase Managerial Risk Appetite?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(5), pages 2311-2331, October.
    3. Kouwenberg, Roy & Ziemba, William T., 2007. "Incentives and risk taking in hedge funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 3291-3310, November.
    4. Juan Carlos Escanciano & Zaichao Du, 2015. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for Tail Risk," CAEPR Working Papers 2015-001, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    5. Chen, An & Hieber, Peter & Nguyen, Thai, 2019. "Constrained non-concave utility maximization: An application to life insurance contracts with guarantees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1119-1135.
    6. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Coherence And Elicitability," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 901-918, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Domenico Cuoco & Hua He & Sergei Isaenko, 2008. "Optimal Dynamic Trading Strategies with Risk Limits," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 358-368, April.
    9. Hai Lan & Barry L. Nelson & Jeremy Staum, 2010. "A Confidence Interval Procedure for Expected Shortfall Risk Measurement via Two-Level Simulation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 1481-1490, October.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Shi, Zhen & Werker, Bas J.M., 2012. "Short-horizon regulation for long-term investors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 3227-3238.
    14. Pengyu Wei, 2018. "Risk management with weighted VaR," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 1020-1060, October.
    15. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    16. Carlo Acerbi & Claudio Nordio & Carlo Sirtori, 2001. "Expected Shortfall as a Tool for Financial Risk Management," Papers cond-mat/0102304, arXiv.org.
    17. Xue Dong He & Hanqing Jin & Xun Yu Zhou, 2015. "Dynamic Portfolio Choice When Risk Is Measured by Weighted VaR," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 773-796, March.
    18. Cuoco, Domenico & Liu, Hong, 2006. "An analysis of VaR-based capital requirements," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 362-394, July.
    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. Marcos Escobar-Anel & Michel Kschonnek & Rudi Zagst, 2022. "Portfolio optimization: not necessarily concave utility and constraints on wealth and allocation," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 95(1), pages 101-140, February.

    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. Fangyuan Zhang, 2023. "Non-concave portfolio optimization with average value-at-risk," Mathematics and Financial Economics, Springer, volume 17, number 3, June.
    2. Farkas, Walter & Fringuellotti, Fulvia & Tunaru, Radu, 2020. "A cost-benefit analysis of capital requirements adjusted for model risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Alexander, Gordon J. & Baptista, Alexandre M. & Yan, Shu, 2012. "When more is less: Using multiple constraints to reduce tail risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 2693-2716.
    4. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    5. Onur Babat & Juan C. Vera & Luis F. Zuluaga, 2021. "Computing near-optimal Value-at-Risk portfolios using Integer Programming techniques," Papers 2107.07339, arXiv.org.
    6. Weiping Wu & Yu Lin & Jianjun Gao & Ke Zhou, 2023. "Mean-variance hybrid portfolio optimization with quantile-based risk measure," Papers 2303.15830, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Liu, Peng & Wang, Ruodu & Wei, Linxiao, 2020. "Is the inf-convolution of law-invariant preferences law-invariant?," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 144-154.
    10. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    11. Xue Dong He & Hanqing Jin & Xun Yu Zhou, 2015. "Dynamic Portfolio Choice When Risk Is Measured by Weighted VaR," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 773-796, March.
    12. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    13. Müller, Fernanda Maria & Santos, Samuel Solgon & Gössling, Thalles Weber & Righi, Marcelo Brutti, 2022. "Comparison of risk forecasts for cryptocurrencies: A focus on Range Value at Risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    14. Babat, Onur & Vera, Juan C. & Zuluaga, Luis F., 2018. "Computing near-optimal Value-at-Risk portfolios using integer programming techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(1), pages 304-315.
    15. Ruodu Wang & Yunran Wei & Gordon E. Willmot, 2020. "Characterization, Robustness, and Aggregation of Signed Choquet Integrals," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 993-1015, August.
    16. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Yen H. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2018. "Multinomial VaR backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 393-407.
    17. 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).
    18. Martin Herdegen & Cosimo Munari, 2023. "An elementary proof of the dual representation of Expected Shortfall," Papers 2306.14506, arXiv.org.
    19. 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.
    20. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2018. "A theory for combinations of risk measures," Papers 1807.01977, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.

    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:2002.02229. 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.