IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1902.04489.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Elicitability of Range Value at Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Fissler
  • Johanna F. Ziegel

Abstract

The predictive performance of point forecasts for a statistical functional, such as the mean, a quantile, or a certain risk measure, is commonly assessed in terms of scoring (or loss) functions. A scoring function should be (strictly) consistent for the functional of interest, that is, the expected score should be minimised by the correctly specified functional value. A functional is elicitable if it possesses a strictly consistent scoring function. In quantitative risk management, the elicitability of a risk measure is closely related to comparative backtesting procedures. As such, it has gained considerable interest in the debate about which risk measure to choose in practice. While this discussion has mainly focused on the dichotomy between Value at Risk (VaR) - a quantile - and Expected Shortfall (ES) - a tail expectation, this paper is concerned with Range Value at Risk (RVaR). RVaR can be regarded as an interpolation of VaR and ES, which constitutes a tradeoff between the sensitivity of the latter and the robustness of the former. Recalling that RVaR is not elicitable, we show that a triplet of RVaR with two VaR components at different levels is elicitable. We characterise the class of strictly consistent scoring functions. Moreover, additional properties of these scoring functions are examined, including the diagnostic tool of Murphy diagrams. The results are illustrated with a simulation study, and we put our approach in perspective with respect to the classical approach of trimmed least squares in robust regression.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Elicitability of Range Value at Risk," Papers 1902.04489, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2019.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1902.04489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.04489
    File Function: Latest version
    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. Krätschmer, Volker & Schied, Alexander & Zähle, Henryk, 2012. "Qualitative and infinitesimal robustness of tail-dependent statistical functionals," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 35-47, January.
    3. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    4. repec:spr:stmapp:v:27:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10260-017-0409-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    6. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    7. Rama Cont & Romain Deguest & Giacomo Scandolo, 2010. "Robustness and sensitivity analysis of risk measurement procedures," Post-Print hal-00413729, HAL.
    8. Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Coherence And Elicitability," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 901-918, October.
    9. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    10. C. Heinrich, 2014. "The mode functional is not elicitable," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 101(1), pages 245-251.
    11. 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.
    12. Fabio Bellini & Valeria Bignozzi, 2015. "On elicitable risk measures," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 725-733, May.
    13. Tilmann Gneiting & Fadoua Balabdaoui & Adrian E. Raftery, 2007. "Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(2), pages 243-268, April.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Newey, Whitney K & Powell, James L, 1987. "Asymmetric Least Squares Estimation and Testing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 819-847, July.
    17. Paul Embrechts & Bin Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2015. "Aggregation-robustness and model uncertainty of regulatory risk measures," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 763-790, October.
    18. Sander Barendse, 2017. "Interquantile Expectation Regression," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-034/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Hajo Holzmann & Matthias Eulert, 2014. "The role of the information set for forecasting - with applications to risk management," Papers 1404.7653, arXiv.org.
    20. 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.
    21. Freddy Delbaen & Fabio Bellini & Valeria Bignozzi & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Risk measures with the CxLS property," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 433-453, April.
    22. repec:spr:stmapp:v:27:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10260-018-00436-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Tobias Fissler & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2019. "Erratum: Higher Order Elicitability and Osband's Principle," Papers 1901.08826, arXiv.org.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Timo Dimitriadis & Julie Schnaitmann, 2019. "Forecast Encompassing Tests for the Expected Shortfall," Papers 1908.04569, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.

    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:1902.04489. 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: (arXiv administrators). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.