IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1204.2458.html

Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures

Author

Listed:
  • Volker Kratschmer
  • Alexander Schied
  • Henryk Zahle

Abstract

When estimating the risk of a P&L from historical data or Monte Carlo simulation, the robustness of the estimate is important. We argue here that Hampel's classical notion of qualitative robustness is not suitable for risk measurement and we propose and analyze a refined notion of robustness that applies to tail-dependent law-invariant convex risk measures on Orlicz space. This concept of robustness captures the tradeoff between robustness and sensitivity and can be quantified by an index of qualitative robustness. By means of this index, we can compare various risk measures, such as distortion risk measures, in regard to their degree of robustness. Our analysis also yields results that are of independent interest such as continuity properties and consistency of estimators for risk measures, or a Skorohod representation theorem for {\psi}-weak convergence.

Suggested Citation

  • Volker Kratschmer & Alexander Schied & Henryk Zahle, 2012. "Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures," Papers 1204.2458, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2014.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1204.2458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2458
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrzej Ruszczynski & Alexander Shapiro, 2004. "Optimization of Convex Risk Functions," Risk and Insurance 0404001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Oct 2005.
    2. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    3. Acerbi, Carlo & Tasche, Dirk, 2002. "On the coherence of expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1487-1503, July.
    4. Alexander Schied, 2004. "On the Neyman-Pearson problem for law-invariant risk measures and robust utility functionals," Papers math/0407127, arXiv.org.
    5. 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.
    6. Denneberg, Dieter, 1990. "Premium Calculation: Why Standard Deviation Should be Replaced by Absolute Deviation1," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 181-190, November.
    7. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2010-052 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Wang, Shaun, 1996. "Premium Calculation by Transforming the Layer Premium Density," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 71-92, May.
    9. Andrzej Ruszczyński & Alexander Shapiro, 2006. "Optimization of Convex Risk Functions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 433-452, August.
    10. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    11. Patrick Cheridito & Tianhui Li, 2009. "Risk Measures On Orlicz Hearts," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 189-214, April.
    12. Dilip B. Madan & Alexander Cherny, 2010. "Markets As A Counterparty: An Introduction To Conic Finance," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(08), pages 1149-1177.
    13. Alexander Cherny & Dilip Madan, 2009. "New Measures for Performance Evaluation," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(7), pages 2371-2406, July.
    14. Hans Föllmer & Alexander Schied, 2002. "Convex measures of risk and trading constraints," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 429-447.
    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. Volker Krätschmer & Alexander Schied & Henryk Zähle, 2014. "Comparative and qualitative robustness for law-invariant risk measures," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 271-295, April.
    2. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    3. Shuo Gong & Yijun Hu & Linxiao Wei, 2022. "On conditional distortion risk measures under uncertainty," Papers 2211.00520, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.
    4. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng & Chris C. Heyde, 2013. "External Risk Measures and Basel Accords," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 393-417, August.
    5. Bettels, Sören & Kim, Sojung & Weber, Stefan, 2024. "Multinomial backtesting of distortion risk measures," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 130-145.
    6. Sainan Zhang & Huifu Xu, 2022. "Insurance premium-based shortfall risk measure induced by cumulative prospect theory," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 703-738, October.
    7. Tomasz R. Bielecki & Igor Cialenco & Marcin Pitera, 2014. "A unified approach to time consistency of dynamic risk measures and dynamic performance measures in discrete time," Papers 1409.7028, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2017.
    8. 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.
    9. Samuel Solgon Santos & Marcelo Brutti Righi & Eduardo de Oliveira Horta, 2022. "The limitations of comonotonic additive risk measures: a literature review," Papers 2212.13864, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    10. Martin Herdegen & Cosimo Munari, 2023. "An elementary proof of the dual representation of Expected Shortfall," Papers 2306.14506, arXiv.org.
    11. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    12. Marcelo Brutti Righi, 2018. "A theory for combinations of risk measures," Papers 1807.01977, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    13. Marie Kratz & Yen H Lok & Alexander J Mcneil, 2016. "Multinomial var backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Working Papers hal-01424279, HAL.
    14. Marcelo Brutti Righi & Paulo Sergio Ceretta, 2015. "Shortfall Deviation Risk: An alternative to risk measurement," Papers 1501.02007, arXiv.org, revised May 2016.
    15. Samuel Drapeau & Michael Kupper, 2013. "Risk Preferences and Their Robust Representation," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 28-62, February.
    16. Ludger Rüschendorf, 2012. "Worst case portfolio vectors and diversification effects," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 155-175, January.
    17. Fuchs Sebastian & Trutschnig Wolfgang, 2020. "On quantile based co-risk measures and their estimation," Dependence Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 396-416, January.
    18. Wayne King Ming Chan, 2015. "RAROC-Based Contingent Claim Valuation," PhD Thesis, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, number 21, July-Dece.
    19. Leonardo Baggiani & Martin Herdegen & Nazem Khan, 2025. "The Interplay between Utility and Risk in Portfolio Selection," Papers 2509.10351, arXiv.org.
    20. 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.

    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:1204.2458. 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.