IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/7963109.html

Exceedance-based backtesting of expected shortfall

Author

Listed:
  • Andrii Liakhovchenko
  • Dmitrij Celov

Abstract

The Fundamental Review of the Trading Book encourages financial institutions to shift from the value-at-risk (VaR) to the expected shortfall (ES) risk measure when measuring market risk capital. This paper examines the application of exceedance-based validation (or “backtesting†) methods, commonly used for VaR model validation, to the validation of ES models. The examined approach includes finding the quantile value corresponding to the ES for four different estimation methods: an analytical delta-normal approach, an analytical generalized Pareto distribution-based approach, numerical Monte Carlo simulation and nonparametric historical simulation. The paper also investigates the stability of this quantile and proposes an adjustment to the traditional backtesting approaches that helps to accommodate an unstable quantile. The application of the approach is illustrated using real-world Baltic equity index (OMXBBGI) returns data for three different confidence levels: 90%, 95% and 97.5%. Our findings show that the direct application of exceedance-based methods to the validation of ES models is possible, even in the case of an unstable ES quantile.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrii Liakhovchenko & Dmitrij Celov, . "Exceedance-based backtesting of expected shortfall," Journal of Risk Model Validation, Journal of Risk Model Validation.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:7963109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.risk.net/node/7963109
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:rsk:journ5:7963109. 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: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk-model-validation .

    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.