A Breakthrough Idea in Risk Measure Validation – Is the Way Paved for an Effective Expected Shortfall Backtest?

18 December 2019DOI: https://doi.org/10.33893/FER.18.4.130145

Author information:

Gyöngyi Bugár: University of Pécs, Associate Professor. E-mail: bugar.gyongyi@ktk.pte.hu

Abstract:

This research note is a kind of “call for attention” to recent developments in backtesting financial risk measures. This topic is relevant in relation to the regulatory monitoring of the performance of internal risk models used by banks in determining the minimum capital requirements for trading book portfolios. Backtesting is a process for checking the validity of risk estimation models. In his seminal work, Gneiting (2011) has proven that a prominent risk measure, Expected Shortfall (ES), lacks a property called elicitability. This finding has triggered a huge controversy on the issue of whether ES is backtestable at all. Due to the significant contribution of Acerbi and Székely (2017, 2019) among others, the above-mentioned debate can be adequately and convincingly closed because there is a (re)solution. In particular, one can arrive at the conclusion that, building on its joint elicitability with Value-at-Risk (VaR), it is possible to introduce a so-called ridge backtest for ES. In fact, there is still an open question as to when and how the regulatory authorities will (re)act.

Cite as (APA):

Bugár, G. (2019). A Breakthrough Idea in Risk Measure Validation – Is the Way Paved for an Effective Expected Shortfall Backtest? . Financial and Economic Review, 18(4), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.33893/FER.18.4.130145

PDF download

The works on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Column:

Essay

Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) codes:

D81, G21, G28

Keywords:

banking regulation, ES, elicitability, backtestability, ridge backtest

References:

Acerbi, C. – Székely, B. (2014): Backtesting Expected Shortfall. Risk Magazine, 27: 76–81.

Acerbi, C. – Székely, B. (2017): General Properties of backtestable statistics. Working paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2905109

Acerbi, C. – Székely, B. (2019): The minimally biased backtest for ES. Risk.net, 29 August. https://www.risk.net/cutting-edge/banking/6947266/the-minimally-biased-backtest-for-es. Downloaded: 6 September 2019.

Acerbi, C. – Tasche, D. (2002): On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26(7): 1487–1503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00283-2

Artzner, P. – Delbaen, F. – Eber, J.M. – Heath, D. (1999): Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3): 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9965.00068

BCBS (2016): Basel Committee in Banking Supervision: Minimum Capital Requirements for Market Risk. Bank for International Settlements. 1–88.

Bellini, F. – Bignozzi, V. (2015): Elicitable Risk Measures. Quantitative Finance, 15(5): 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697688.2014.946955

Bugár, Gy. (2019): Kockázati mértékek becslésének igazolása (Verifying risk measure estimates). Statisztikai Szemle (Statistical Review), 97(8): 731–748. https://doi.org/10.20311/stat2019.8.hu0731

Bugár, Gy. – Ratting, A. (2016): Revision of the quantification of market risk in the Basel III regulatory framework. Financial and Economic Review, 15(1): 33–50. https://en-hitelintezetiszemle.mnb.hu/letoltes/2-bugar-ratting-1.pdf

Carver, L. (2013): Mooted VaR substitute cannot be back-tested, says top quant. Risk, 8 March.

Cesa, M. – Osborn, T. (2019): Podcast: Acerbi on backtesting ES and FRTB’s patchwork rules. Risk.net (Cutting Edge: Views), 30 August. https://www.risk.net/risk-management/6950496/podcast-acerbi-on-backtesting-es-and-frtbs-patchwork-rules. Downloaded: 6 September 2019.

Cesa, M. (2019): Backtesting expected shortfall: mission accomplished? Risk.net (Cutting Edge: Our take), 3 September. https://www.risk.net/our-take/6963251/backtesting-expected-shortfall-mission-accomplished. Downloaded: 6 September 2019.

Csóka, P. – Herings, P.J.J. – Kóczy, L. Á. (2007): Coherent measures of risk from a general equilibrium perspective. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31(8): 2517–2534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.10.026

Davis, M. (2014): Consistency of internal risk measure estimates. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2342279

Dowd, K. – Blake, D. (2006): After VaR – The Theory, Estimation and Insurance Applications of Quantile-Based Risk Measures. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 73(2): 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6975.2006.00171.x

Embrechts, P. – Resnick, S.I. – Samorodnitsky, G. (1999): Extreme Value Theory as a Risk Management Tool. North American Actuarial Journal, 3(2): 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10920277.1999.10595797

Fissler, T. – Ziegel, J.F. (2016): Higher Order Elicitability and Osband’s principle. Annals of Statistics, 444(4): 1680–1707. https://doi.org/10.1214/16-AOS1439

Fissler, T. – Ziegel, J.F. – Gneiting, T. (2015): Expected Shortfall is jointly elicitable with Value at Risk – Implications for Backtesting. Working paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.00244.pdf. Downloaded: 12 November 2017.

Gneiting, T. (2011): Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 106(494): 746–762. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2011.r10138

Lambert, N. − Pennock, D.M. – Shoham, Y. (2008): Eliciting Properties of Probability Distributions. Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC 08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1386790.1386813

Markowitz, H.M. (1952): Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1): 77–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2975974

McNeil, A.J. – Frey, R. – Embrechts, P. (2015): Quantitative Risk Management – Concepts, Techniques and Tools. Princeton University Press. Princeton and Oxford.

Rockafellar, R.T. – Uryasev, S. (2000): Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk. Journal of Risk, 2(3): 21–41. https://doi.org/10.21314/JOR.2000.038

Rockafellar, R.T. – Uryasev, S. (2002): Conditional Value-at-Risk for General Loss Distributions. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26(7): 1443–1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00271-6

Szegö, G. (2002): No more VaR (this is not a typo). Journal of Banking and Finance, 26(7): 1247–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00280-7

Tasche, D. (2014): Expected Shortfall is not elicitable. So what? Presentation held at the University of Hannover, 23 January. https://www.stochastik.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/institut/pdf/Talk_Tasche.pdf. Downloaded: 12 November 2017.

Zhang, S. (2016): Two Equivalent Parametric Expected Shortfall Formulas for T-Distributions. SSRN working paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2883935

Ziegel, J.F. (2016): Coherence and Elicitability. Mathematical Finance, 26(4): 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12080