IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v2y2014i1p25-48d33505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Academic Response to Basel 3.5

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Embrechts

    () (RiskLab and SFI, Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Zurich 8092, Switzerland)

  • Giovanni Puccetti

    () (School of Economics and Management, University of Firenze, Firenze 50127, Italy)

  • Ludger Rüschendorf

    () (Department of Mathematical Stochastics, University of Freiburg, Freiburg 79104, Germany)

  • Ruodu Wang

    () (Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada)

  • Antonela Beleraj

    () (School of Economics and Management, University of Firenze, Firenze 50127, Italy)

Abstract

Recent crises in the financial industry have shown weaknesses in the modeling of Risk-Weighted Assets (RWAs). Relatively minor model changes may lead to substantial changes in the RWA numbers. Similar problems are encountered in the Value-at-Risk (VaR)-aggregation of risks. In this article, we highlight some of the underlying issues, both methodologically, as well as through examples. In particular, we frame this discussion in the context of two recent regulatory documents we refer to as Basel 3.5.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Embrechts & Giovanni Puccetti & Ludger Rüschendorf & Ruodu Wang & Antonela Beleraj, 2014. "An Academic Response to Basel 3.5," Risks, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:2:y:2014:i:1:p:25-48:d:33505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/2/1/25/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/2/1/25/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    2. Freddy Delbaen, 2013. "A Remark on the Structure of Expectiles," Papers 1307.5881, arXiv.org.
    3. Wang, Bin & Wang, Ruodu, 2011. "The complete mixability and convex minimization problems with monotone marginal densities," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 102(10), pages 1344-1360, November.
    4. Freddy Delbaen, 2009. "Risk Measures For Non‐Integrable Random Variables," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 329-333, April.
    5. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    6. Martin L. Weitzman, 2009. "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Barrieu, Pauline & Scandolo, Giacomo, 2015. "Assessing financial model risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 546-556.
    11. Con Keating & Hyun Song Shin & Charles Goodhart & Jon Danielsson, 2001. "An Academic Response to Basel II," FMG Special Papers sp130, Financial Markets Group.
    12. Shin, Hyun Song, 2010. "Risk and Liquidity," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199546367.
    13. Susanne Emmer & Marie Kratz & Dirk Tasche, 2013. "What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measures," Papers 1312.1645, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2015.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Marcelo Brutti Righi & Fernanda Maria Muller & Marlon Ruoso Moresco, 2017. "On a robust risk measurement approach for capital determination errors minimization," Papers 1707.09829, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2020.
    4. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Y-H & McNeil, Alexander J., 2016. "Multinomial VaR Backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," ESSEC Working Papers WP1617, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Alfonso Novales & Laura Garcia-Jorcano, 2019. "Backtesting Extreme Value Theory models of expected shortfall," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2019-24, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    8. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2018. "A theory for combinations of risk measures," Papers 1807.01977, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    9. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2013. "Coherence and elicitability," Papers 1303.1690, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2014.
    10. Edgars Jakobsons & Steven Vanduffel, 2015. "Dependence Uncertainty Bounds for the Expectile of a Portfolio," Risks, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, December.
    11. Tadese, Mekonnen & Drapeau, Samuel, 2020. "Relative bound and asymptotic comparison of expectile with respect to expected shortfall," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 387-399.
    12. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    13. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Evaluating Range Value at Risk Forecasts," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2020.
    14. Lazar, Emese & Zhang, Ning, 2019. "Model risk of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 74-93.
    15. Ruodu Wang & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2014. "Distortion Risk Measures and Elicitability," Papers 1405.3769, arXiv.org, revised May 2014.
    16. Paul Embrechts & Alexander Schied & Ruodu Wang, 2018. "Robustness in the Optimization of Risk Measures," Papers 1809.09268, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    17. 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.
    18. Mai Jan-Frederik & Schenk Steffen & Scherer Matthias, 2015. "Analyzing model robustness via a distortion of the stochastic root: A Dirichlet prior approach," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 32(3-4), pages 177-195, December.
    19. Pitera, Marcin & Schmidt, Thorsten, 2018. "Unbiased estimation of risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-145.
    20. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Basel 3.5; risk-weighted assets; Value-at-Risk; expected shortfall; model uncertainty; robustness; backtesting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
    • G0 - Financial Economics - - General
    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
    • G2 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services
    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • M2 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics
    • M4 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting
    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law

    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:gam:jrisks:v:2:y:2014:i:1:p:25-48:d:33505. 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: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.