Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

What Is the Best Risk Measure in Practice? A Comparison of Standard Measures

Contents:

Author Info

  • Suzanne Emmer

    (CREAR - Center of Research in Econo-finance and Actuarial sciences on Risk / Centre de Recherche Econo-financière et Actuarielle sur le Risque - ESSEC Business School)

  • Marie Kratz

    ()
    (SID - Information Systems / Decision Sciences Department - ESSEC Business School, MAP5 - Mathématiques appliquées Paris 5 - CNRS : UMR8145 - Université Paris V - Paris Descartes)

  • Dirk Tasche

    (Prudential Regulation Authority - Bank of England)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Expected Shortfall (ES) has been widely accepted as a risk measure that is conceptually superior to Value-at-Risk (VaR). At the same time, however, it has been criticized for issues relating to backtesting. In particular, ES has been found not to be elicitable which means that backtesting for ES is less straight-forward than, e.g., backtesting for VaR. Expectiles have been suggested as potentially better alternatives to both ES and VaR. In this paper, we revisit commonly accepted desirable properties of risk measures like coherence, comonotonic additivity, robustness and elicitability. We check VaR, ES and Expectiles with regard to whether or not they enjoy these properties, with particular emphasis on Expectiles. We also consider their impact on capital allocation, an important issue in risk management. We find that, despite the caveats that apply to the estimation and backtesting of ES, it can be considered a good risk measure. In particular, there is no sufficient evidence to justify an all-inclusive replacement of ES by Expectiles in applications, especially as we provide an alternative way for backtesting of ES.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://hal-essec.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/92/12/83/PDF/WP1322.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by HAL in its series Post-Print with number hal-00921283.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Dec 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00921283

    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal-essec.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00921283
    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

    Related research

    Keywords: Backtesting; Capital Allocation; Coherence; Diversification; Elicitability; Expected Shortfall; Expectile; Forecasts; Probability Integral Transform (PIT); Risk Measure; Risk Management; Robustness; Value-at-Risk;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2013. "Coherence and elicitability," Papers 1303.1690, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2014.
    2. Francis X. Diebold & Robert S. Mariano, 1994. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," NBER Technical Working Papers 0169, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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.
    4. Embrechts, Paul & Neslehová, Johanna & Wüthrich, Mario V., 2009. "Additivity properties for Value-at-Risk under Archimedean dependence and heavy-tailedness," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 164-169, April.
    5. Michel Dacorogna & Höskuldur Ari Hauksson & Thomas Domenig & Ulrich Müller & Gennady Samorodnitsky, 2001. "Multivariate extremes, aggregation and risk estimation," CeNDEF Workshop Papers, January 2001 P2, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance.
    6. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, 03.
    7. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    8. Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "Expected shortfall and beyond," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1519-1533, July.
    9. Clements,Michael & Hendry,David, 1998. "Forecasting Economic Time Series," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521632423, April.
    10. Carlo Acerbi & Dirk Tasche, 2001. "On the coherence of Expected Shortfall," Papers cond-mat/0104295, arXiv.org, revised May 2002.
    11. Embrechts, Paul & Puccetti, Giovanni & Rüschendorf, Ludger, 2013. "Model uncertainty and VaR aggregation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2750-2764.
    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.
    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 in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Marc Busse & Michel Dacorogna & Marie Kratz, 2013. "The Impact of Systemic Risk on the Diversification Benefits of a Risk Portfolio," Post-Print hal-00914844, HAL.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00921283. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.