IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2401.11701.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forecasting and Backtesting Gradient Allocations of Expected Shortfall

Author

Listed:
  • Takaaki Koike
  • Cathy W. S. Chen
  • Edward M. H. Lin

Abstract

Capital allocation is a procedure for quantifying the contribution of each source of risk to aggregated risk. The gradient allocation rule, also known as the Euler principle, is a prevalent rule of capital allocation under which the allocated capital captures the diversification benefit of the marginal risk as a component of overall risk. This research concentrates on Expected Shortfall (ES) as a regulatory standard and focuses on the gradient allocations of ES, also called ES contributions. We achieve the comprehensive treatment of backtesting the tuple of ES contributions in the framework of the traditional and comparative backtests based on the concepts of joint identifiability and multi-objective elicitability. For robust forecast evaluation against the choice of scoring function, we further develop Murphy diagrams for ES contributions as graphical tools to check whether one forecast dominates another under a class of scoring functions. Finally, leveraging the recent concept of multi-objective elicitability, we propose a novel semiparametric model for forecasting dynamic ES contributions based on a compositional regression model. In an empirical analysis of stock returns we evaluate and compare a variety of models for forecasting dynamic ES contributions and demonstrate the outstanding performance of the proposed model.

Suggested Citation

  • Takaaki Koike & Cathy W. S. Chen & Edward M. H. Lin, 2024. "Forecasting and Backtesting Gradient Allocations of Expected Shortfall," Papers 2401.11701, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2401.11701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.11701
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    2. 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.
    3. Jan Dhaene & Andreas Tsanakas & Emiliano A. Valdez & Steven Vanduffel, 2012. "Optimal Capital Allocation Principles," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 79(1), pages 1-28, March.
    4. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    5. Boonen, Tim J. & Guillen, Montserrat & Santolino, Miguel, 2019. "Forecasting compositional risk allocations," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 79-86.
    6. Koike, Takaaki & Saporito, Yuri & Targino, Rodrigo, 2022. "Avoiding zero probability events when computing Value at Risk contributions," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 173-192.
    7. 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.
    8. Jondeau, Eric & Rockinger, Michael, 2006. "The Copula-GARCH model of conditional dependencies: An international stock market application," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 827-853, August.
    9. Andrews, Donald W K, 1991. "Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 817-858, May.
    10. Newey, Whitney & West, Kenneth, 2014. "A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 33(1), pages 125-132.
    11. Gribkova, N.V. & Su, J. & Zitikis, R., 2023. "Estimating the VaR-induced Euler allocation rule," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 619-635, September.
    12. Johanna F Ziegel & Fabian Krüger & Alexander Jordan & Fernando Fasciati, 2020. "Robust Forecast Evaluation of Expected Shortfall [Designing Realized Kernels to Measure the Ex Post Variation of Equity Prices in the Presence of Noise]," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Society for Financial Econometrics, vol. 18(1), pages 95-120.
    13. Patton, Andrew J. & Ziegel, Johanna F. & Chen, Rui, 2019. "Dynamic semiparametric models for expected shortfall (and Value-at-Risk)," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 388-413.
    14. Koike, Takaaki & Hofert, Marius, 2021. "Modality for scenario analysis and maximum likelihood allocation," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 24-43.
    15. Michael Kalkbrener, 2005. "An Axiomatic Approach To Capital Allocation," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 425-437, July.
    16. Andrew J. Patton, 2020. "Comparing Possibly Misspecified Forecasts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 796-809, October.
    17. James W. Taylor, 2019. "Forecasting Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Using a Semiparametric Approach Based on the Asymmetric Laplace Distribution," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 121-133, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Tse, Y K & Tsui, Albert K C, 2002. "A Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity Model with Time-Varying Correlations," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(3), pages 351-362, July.
    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. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2021. "Backtesting Systemic Risk Forecasts using Multi-Objective Elicitability," Papers 2104.10673, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    2. 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.
    3. Timo Dimitriadis & Xiaochun Liu & Julie Schnaitmann, 2020. "Encompassing Tests for Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Multi-Step Forecasts based on Inference on the Boundary," Papers 2009.07341, arXiv.org.
    4. David Happersberger & Harald Lohre & Ingmar Nolte, 2020. "Estimating portfolio risk for tail risk protection strategies," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 26(4), pages 1107-1146, September.
    5. Simon Fritzsch & Maike Timphus & Gregor Weiss, 2021. "Marginals Versus Copulas: Which Account For More Model Risk In Multivariate Risk Forecasting?," Papers 2109.10946, arXiv.org.
    6. Xenxo Vidal-Llana & Carlos Salort Sánchez & Vincenzo Coia & Montserrat Guillen, 2022. ""Non-Crossing Dual Neural Network: Joint Value at Risk and Conditional Tail Expectation estimations with non-crossing conditions"," IREA Working Papers 202215, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Oct 2022.
    7. Santos, Douglas G. & Candido, Osvaldo & Tófoli, Paula V., 2022. "Forecasting risk measures using intraday and overnight information," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    9. Ning Zhang & Yujing Gong & Xiaohan Xue, 2023. "Less disagreement, better forecasts: Adjusted risk measures in the energy futures market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(10), pages 1332-1372, October.
    10. Xu, Qifa & Chen, Lu & Jiang, Cuixia & Yu, Keming, 2020. "Mixed data sampling expectile regression with applications to measuring financial risk," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 469-486.
    11. Owusu Junior, Peterson & Alagidede, Imhotep, 2020. "Risks in emerging markets equities: Time-varying versus spatial risk analysis," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 542(C).
    12. Dimitriadis, Timo & Schnaitmann, Julie, 2021. "Forecast encompassing tests for the expected shortfall," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 604-621.
    13. Malte Knüppel & Fabian Krüger, 2022. "Forecast uncertainty, disagreement, and the linear pool," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 23-41, January.
    14. Rehman, Mobeen Ur & Owusu Junior, Peterson & Ahmad, Nasir & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2022. "Time-varying risk analysis for commodity futures," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    15. Ardia, David & Bluteau, Keven & Boudt, Kris & Catania, Leopoldo, 2018. "Forecasting risk with Markov-switching GARCH models:A large-scale performance study," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 733-747.
    16. Erik Kole & Thijs Markwat & Anne Opschoor & Dick van Dijk, 2017. "Forecasting Value-at-Risk under Temporal and Portfolio Aggregation," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 649-677.
    17. Sander Barendse & Erik Kole & Dick van Dijk, 2023. "Backtesting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in the Presence of Estimation Error," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 528-568.
    18. Catania, Leopoldo & Grassi, Stefano, 2022. "Forecasting cryptocurrency volatility," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 878-894.
    19. Koike, Takaaki & Hofert, Marius, 2021. "Modality for scenario analysis and maximum likelihood allocation," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 24-43.
    20. Jian, Zhihong & Li, Xupei & Zhu, Zhican, 2020. "Sequential forecasting of downside extreme risk during overnight and daytime: Evidence from the Chinese Stock Market☆," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    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:2401.11701. 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.