IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boj/bojwps/wp14e01.html

Benchmarking of Unconditional VaR and ES Calculation Methods: A Comparative Simulation Analysis with Truncated Stable Distribution

Author

Listed:
  • Takashi Isogai

    (Bank of Japan)

Abstract

This paper analyzes Value at Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES) calculation methods in terms of bias and dispersion against benchmarks computed from a fat-tailed parametric distribution. The daily log returns of the Nikkei-225 stock index are modeled by a truncated stable distribution. The VaR and ES values of the fitted distribution are regarded as benchmarks. The fitted distribution is also used as a sampling distribution; sample returns with different sizes are generated for the simulations of the VaR and ES calculations. Two parametric methods: normal distribution and generalized Pareto distribution and two non-parametric methods: historical simulation and kernel smoothing are selected as the targets of this analysis. A comparison of the simulated VaR, ES, and the ES/VaR ratio with the benchmarks at multiple confidence levels reveals that the normal distribution approximation has a significant downward bias, especially in the ES calculation. The estimates by the other three methods are much closer to the benchmarks on average, although some of them become unstable with smaller sample sizes and/or at higher confidence levels. Specifically, ES tends to be more biased and unstable than VaR at higher confidence levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Takashi Isogai, 2014. "Benchmarking of Unconditional VaR and ES Calculation Methods: A Comparative Simulation Analysis with Truncated Stable Distribution," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 14-E-1, Bank of Japan.
    • Handle: RePEc:boj:bojwps:wp14e01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/wps_2014/data/wp14e01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Szymon Borak & Adam Misiorek & Rafał Weron, 2011. "Models for heavy-tailed asset returns," Springer Books, in: Pavel Cizek & Wolfgang Karl Härdle & Rafał Weron (ed.), Statistical Tools for Finance and Insurance, chapter 1, pages 21-55, Springer.
    2. Juan-Juan Cai & John H. J. Einmahl & Laurens Haan & Chen Zhou, 2015. "Estimation of the marginal expected shortfall: the mean when a related variable is extreme," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 77(2), pages 417-442, March.
    3. Yamai, Yasuhiro & Yoshiba, Toshinao, 2002. "Comparative Analyses of Expected Shortfall and Value-at-Risk: Their Estimation Error, Decomposition, and Optimization," Monetary and Economic Studies, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan, vol. 20(1), pages 87-121, January.
    4. Inui, Koji & Kijima, Masaaki & Kitano, Atsushi, 2005. "VaR is subject to a significant positive bias," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 299-311, May.
    5. Adam Misiorek & Rafal Weron, 2010. "Heavy-tailed distributions in VaR calculations," HSC Research Reports HSC/10/05, Hugo Steinhaus Center, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.
    6. Alexander, Carol & Sheedy, Elizabeth, 2008. "Developing a stress testing framework based on market risk models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 2220-2236, October.
    7. Carol Alexander & Daniel Ledermann, 2012. "ROM Simulation: Applications to Stress Testing and VaR," ICMA Centre Discussion Papers in Finance icma-dp2012-09, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    8. Giovanni Barone‐Adesi & Kostas Giannopoulos & Les Vosper, 2002. "Backtesting Derivative Portfolios with Filtered Historical Simulation (FHS)," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 8(1), pages 31-58, March.
    9. 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.
    10. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2010-049 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Toshinao Yoshiba, 2015. "Risk Aggregation with Copula for Banking Industry," IMES Discussion Paper Series 15-E-01, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan.
    2. Michele Leonardo Bianchi, 2014. "Are the log-returns of Italian open-end mutual funds normally distributed? A risk assessment perspective," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 957, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.

    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. Giannopoulos, Kostas & Tunaru, Radu, 2005. "Coherent risk measures under filtered historical simulation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 979-996, April.
    2. Berens, Tobias & Weiß, Gregor N.F. & Wied, Dominik, 2015. "Testing for structural breaks in correlations: Does it improve Value-at-Risk forecasting?," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 135-152.
    3. Sobreira, Nuno & Louro, Rui, 2020. "Evaluation of volatility models for forecasting Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall in the Portuguese stock market," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    4. Peña, Juan Ignacio & Rodríguez, Rosa & Mayoral, Silvia, 2020. "Tail risk of electricity futures," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Kerkhof, F.L.J. & Melenberg, B. & Schumacher, J.M., 2003. "Testing Expected Shortfall Models for Derivative Positions," Discussion Paper 2003-24, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Cotter, John & Dowd, Kevin, 2007. "Evaluating the Precision of Estimators of Quantile-Based Risk Measures," MPRA Paper 3504, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Hartz, Christoph & Mittnik, Stefan & Paolella, Marc S., 2006. "Accurate Value-at-Risk forecast with the (good old) normal-GARCH model," CFS Working Paper Series 2006/23, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    8. Christian Laudag'e & Felix-Benedikt Liebrich, 2025. "When risk defies order: On the limits of fractional stochastic dominance," Papers 2509.24747, arXiv.org.
    9. Raymond Knott & Marco Polenghi, 2006. "Assessing central counterparty margin coverage on futures contracts using GARCH models," Bank of England Staff Working Paper series 287, Bank of England.
    10. Koliai, Lyes, 2016. "Extreme risk modeling: An EVT–pair-copulas approach for financial stress tests," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-22.
    11. Andrea Consiglio & Flavio Cocco & Stavros Zenios, 2007. "Scenario optimization asset and liability modelling for individual investors," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 167-191, July.
    12. Nieto, Maria Rosa & Ruiz, Esther, 2016. "Frontiers in VaR forecasting and backtesting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 475-501.
    13. O’Brien, James & Szerszeń, Paweł J., 2017. "An evaluation of bank measures for market risk before, during and after the financial crisis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 215-234.
    14. Jian Zhou & Randy Anderson, 2012. "Extreme Risk Measures for International REIT Markets," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 152-170, June.
    15. Shige Peng & Shuzhen Yang & Jianfeng Yao, 2018. "Improving Value-at-Risk prediction under model uncertainty," Papers 1805.03890, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    16. Hartz, Christoph & Mittnik, Stefan & Paolella, Marc, 2006. "Accurate value-at-risk forecasting based on the normal-GARCH model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 2295-2312, December.
    17. Benjamin R. Auer & Benjamin Mögel, 2016. "How Accurate are Modern Value-at-Risk Estimators Derived from Extreme Value Theory?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6288, CESifo.
    18. Cotter, John, 2007. "Varying the VaR for unconditional and conditional environments," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(8), pages 1338-1354, December.
    19. Zaichao Du & Juan Carlos Escanciano, 2017. "Backtesting Expected Shortfall: Accounting for Tail Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 940-958, April.
    20. Halkos, George & Tzirivis, Apostolos, 2018. "Effective energy commodities’ risk management: Econometric modeling of price volatility," MPRA Paper 90781, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:boj:bojwps:wp14e01. 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: Bank of Japan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bojgvjp.html .

    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.