The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics (응용통계연구)

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of semiparametric methods to estimate VaR and ES

조건부 Value-at-Risk와 Expected Shortfall 추정을 위한 준모수적 방법들의 비교 연구

  • Kim, Minjo (Department of Statistics, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Sangyeol (Department of Statistics, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2015.12.15
  • Accepted : 2015.12.23
  • Published : 2016.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Basel committee suggests using Value-at-Risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES) as a measurement for market risk. Various estimation methods of VaR and ES have been studied in the literature. This paper compares semi-parametric methods, such as conditional autoregressive value at risk (CAViaR) and conditional autoregressive expectile (CARE) methods, and a Gaussian quasi-maximum likelihood estimator (QMLE)-based method through back-testing methods. We use unconditional coverage (UC) and conditional coverage (CC) tests for VaR, and a bootstrap test for ES to check the adequacy. A real data analysis is conducted for S&P 500 index and Hyundai Motor Co. stock price index data sets.

바젤 위원회는 시장위험의 측정 도구로 Value-at-Risk(VaR)와 expected shortfall(ES)을 사용할 것을 제안하였다. 여러 문헌에서 VaR와 ES의 다양한 추정 방법들이 연구 되었다. 본 연구에서는 준모수적인 방법인 conditional autoregressive value at risk(CAViaR), conditional autoregressive expectile(CARE) 방법들, 그리고 Gaussian 준최대가능도 추정량(QMLE)를 이용한 방법을 사후 검정을 통해서 비교하고자 한다. 각 방법의 타당성을 확인하기 위해서, VaR에 대한 사후 검정은 unconditional coverage(UC)와 conditional coverage(CC) 검정을 사용하고 ES에 대한 검정은 붓스트랩 방법을 사용한다. S&P500 지수와 현대 자동차 주식가격 지수에 대하여 실증 자료 분석이 수행되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Christoffersen, P. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts, International Economic Review, 39, 841-862. https://doi.org/10.2307/2527341
  2. Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York.
  3. Francq, C. and Zakoian, J.-M. (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of pure GARCH and ARMA-GARCH processes, Bernoulli, 10, 605-637. https://doi.org/10.3150/bj/1093265632
  4. Engle, R. F. and Manganelli, S. (2004). CAViaR: conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 22, 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500104000000370
  5. Koenker, R. and Bassett, G. (1978). Regression Quantiles, Econometrica, 46, 33-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
  6. Lee, S. and Noh, J. (2013). Forecasting value-at-risk by encompassing CAViaR models via information criteria, Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society, 24, 1531-1541. https://doi.org/10.7465/jkdi.2013.24.6.1531
  7. Kim, M. and Lee, S. (2016). Nonlinear expectile regression with application to value-at-risk and expected shortfall estimation, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 94, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2015.07.011
  8. Manganelli, S. and Engle, R. F. (2004). A Comparison of Value-at-Risk Models in Finance, In G. Szego(ed.), Risk Measures for the 21st Century, Chichester, Wiley, UK.
  9. McNeil, A. J. and Frey, R. (2000). Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach, Journal of Empirical Finance, 7, 271-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5398(00)00012-8
  10. Newey, W. K. and Powell, J. L. (1987). Asymmetric least squares estimation and testing, Econometrica, 55, 819-847. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911031
  11. Taylor, J. W. (2008). Estimating value at risk and expected shortfall using expectiles, Journal of Financial Econometrics, 6, 231-252.

Cited by

  1. On Entropy Test for Conditionally Heteroscedastic Location-Scale Time Series Models vol.19, pp.8, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/e19080388
  2. Bootstrap entropy test for general location-scale time series models with heteroscedasticity vol.88, pp.13, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/00949655.2018.1478977