IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jfinec/v20y2022i5p839-874..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multilevel and Tail Risk Management
[Backtesting Expected Shortfall]

Author

Listed:
  • Lynda Khalaf
  • Arturo Leccadito
  • Giovanni Urga

Abstract

We introduce backtesting methods to assess Value-at-Risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES) that require no more than desktop VaR violations as inputs. Maintaining an integrated VaR perspective, our methodology relies on multiple testing to combine evidence on the frequency and dynamic evolution of violations, and to capture more information than a single threshold can provide about the magnitude of violations. Contributions include a formal finite sample analysis of the joint distribution of multi-threshold violations, and limiting results that unify discrete and continuous definitions of cumulative violations across thresholds. Simulation studies demonstrate the power advantages of the proposed tests, particularly with small samples and when underlying models are unavailable to assessors. Results also reinforce the usefulness of CaViaR approaches not just for VaR but also as ES back-tests. Empirically, we assess desktop data by Bloomberg on exchange traded funds. We find that tail risk is not adequately reflected via a wide spectrum of models and available measures. Results provide useful prescriptions for empirical practice and, more generally, reinforce the recent arguments in favor of combined tests and forecasts in tail risk management.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynda Khalaf & Arturo Leccadito & Giovanni Urga, 2022. "Multilevel and Tail Risk Management [Backtesting Expected Shortfall]," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(5), pages 839-874.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jfinec:v:20:y:2022:i:5:p:839-874.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jjfinec/nbaa044
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Keywords

    value-at-risk; expected shortfall; backtesting; CaViaR; exchange-traded funds; multiple testing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C58 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Financial Econometrics
    • G17 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Financial Forecasting and Simulation
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    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:oup:jfinec:v:20:y:2022:i:5:p:839-874.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sofieea.html .

    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.