IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2610.17681.html

E-Backtesting Expected Shortfall without Value-at-Risk Forecasts under Time-series Models

Author

Listed:
  • Ruodu Wang
  • Jingcheng Yu

Abstract

Expected Shortfall (ES) measures the average size of tail losses. Its sequential backtests typically also require a Value-at-Risk (VaR) forecast. We develop two e-backtesting methods using only observed losses and ES forecasts: one for iid losses only and the other for time series under an AR-GARCH conditional VaR structure. Under the stated assumptions, both control false rejections at any stopping time. For the time-series method, validity requires a fixed parameter--quantile pair representing the conditional VaR path and a positive report margin. The time-series statistic takes an infimum over possible parameter and VaR values. We choose the betting process $(\lambda_t)$ by maximizing an empirical growth rate averaged across candidate parameters. We compute the statistic by continuous VaR profiling on a dense parameter grid. For grid approximations, we prove convergence to the continuous infimum, together with convergence of the probability of false rejection, as the grid is refined over a fixed monitoring period. Lower and upper bounds for the VaR infimum on the parameter grid control the accuracy of the numerical profiling. Simulations, including ES reports that change from over-reporting to under-reporting, and an application to daily NASDAQ losses provide numerical comparisons with VaR--ES e-processes and fixed-sample ES backtests, assessing detection frequencies and the timing of rejections.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruodu Wang & Jingcheng Yu, 2026. "E-Backtesting Expected Shortfall without Value-at-Risk Forecasts under Time-series Models," Papers 2610.17681, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2610.17681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.17681
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Hengxin & Wang, Ruodu, 2023. "PELVE: Probability Equivalent Level of VaR and ES," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 353-370.
    2. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    3. Sullivan Hu'e & Christophe Hurlin & Yang Lu, 2024. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for both duration and severity with bivariate orthogonal polynomials," Papers 2405.02012, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    4. Yannick Hoga & Matei Demetrescu, 2023. "Monitoring Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall Forecasts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2954-2971, May.
    5. Zaichao Du & Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2017. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for Tail Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 940-958, April.
    6. 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, December.
    7. Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell & Uryasev, Stanislav, 2002. "Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 1443-1471, July.
    8. McNeil, Alexander J. & Frey, Rudiger, 2000. "Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(3-4), pages 271-300, November.
    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. Qiuqi Wang & Ruodu Wang & Johanna Ziegel, 2026. "E-backtesting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(6), pages 4952-4973, June.
    2. Zhanyi Jiao & Qiuqi Wang & Yimiao Zhao, 2025. "Comparative e-backtests for general risk measures," Papers 2511.05840, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    3. James Ming Chen, 2018. "On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Ruodu Wang & Ričardas Zitikis, 2021. "An Axiomatic Foundation for the Expected Shortfall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1413-1429, March.
    5. Gordy, Michael B. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2020. "Spectral backtests of forecast distributions with application to risk management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    6. Santiago Carrillo Menéndez & Bertrand Kian Hassani, 2021. "Expected Shortfall Reliability—Added Value of Traditional Statistics and Advanced Artificial Intelligence for Market Risk Measurement Purposes," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(17), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Marcelo Fernandes & Vitor Henriques & Eduardo Fonseca Mendes, 2026. "Estimation risk in conditional expectiles," Papers 2609.02673, arXiv.org.
    8. Kratz, Marie & Lok, Yen H. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2018. "Multinomial VaR backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 393-407.
    9. Timo Dimitriadis & iaochun Liu & Julie Schnaitmann, 2023. "Encompassing Tests for Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall Multistep Forecasts Based on Inference on the Boundary," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 412-444.
    10. 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).
    11. Steven Kou & Xianhua Peng, 2016. "On the Measurement of Economic Tail Risk," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1056-1072, October.
    12. Fabio Bellini & Muqiao Huang & Qiuqi Wang & Ruodu Wang, 2025. "Lambda Expected Shortfall," Papers 2512.23139, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2026.
    13. Xia Han & Liyuan Lin & Ruodu Wang, 2022. "Diversification quotients: Quantifying diversification via risk measures," Papers 2206.13679, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    14. 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.
    15. Gabriele Canna & Francesca Centrone & Emanuela Rosazza Gianin, 2021. "Capital Allocation Rules and the No-Undercut Property," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-13, January.
    16. Le, Trung H., 2020. "Forecasting value at risk and expected shortfall with mixed data sampling," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1362-1379.
    17. Sebastian Bayer & Timo Dimitriadis, 2018. "Regression Based Expected Shortfall Backtesting," Papers 1801.04112, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    18. Enrique Molina‐Muñoz & Andrés Mora‐Valencia & Javier Perote, 2021. "Backtesting expected shortfall for world stock index ETFs with extreme value theory and Gram–Charlier mixtures," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 4163-4189, July.
    19. Sebastian Bayer & Timo Dimitriadis, 2022. "Regression-Based Expected Shortfall Backtesting [Backtesting Expected Shortfall]," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 437-471.
    20. 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.

    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:arx:papers:2610.17681. 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: https://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.