Industry Standard and Econometric Standard: The Search for Powerful Approach to Evaluate Var Models

• Autorzy: Marta Małecka
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Under the Basel III and Basel IV accords, risk model validation remains based on the VaR measure. According to the industry practice, VaR backtesting procedures rely on two likelihood ratio tests, which, in light of the academic research, have been criticized for their unsatisfactory power. This paper aims to show the differences between VaR model evaluation based on the standard likelihood ratio approach and backtesting by means of other econometric methods applicable to the binary VaR failure process. The author decomposed the model evaluation into testing the unconditional coverage, replaced the likelihood ratio with a normal statistic, and in the next stage in order to verify the conditional coverage, employed the Ljung-Box statistic. The study experimentally confirmed the superiority of the proposed procedures over the industry standards. The main contribution, however, is the empirical study designed to demonstrate the practical differences in risk analysis attributable to the choice of the backtesting method. Using data on leading stock market indexes, from various periods, the author showed that the practical conclusions from backtesting diverge markedly due to the test choice. The proposed, more powerful tests, contrary to the standard procedures, allowed for distinguishing distinct models of index behaviour connected with undergoing the financial crises.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

VaR method; Econometrics; Econometric methodology

PL

Miernik ryzyka (VaR); Ekonometria; Metody ekonometryczne

• Czasopismo: Argumenta Oeconomica
• Rocznik: 2021
• Numer: nr 1 (46)
• Strony: 5--30

Twórcy

autor

Marta Małecka

• University of Lodz, Poland

Bibliografia

• Angelidis, T., Benos, A., Degiannakis, S., The use of GARCH models in VaR estimation, "Journal of Statistical Methodology", Vol. 1, pp. 105-128, 2004.
• Balkema, A., de Haan, L., Residual life time at great age, "The Annals of Probability", Vol. 2, pp. 792-804, 1974.
• Barone-Adesi, G., Burgoin, F., Giannopoulos, K., Don't look back, "Risk", Vol. 11, pp. 100-104, 1998.
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Minimum capital requirements for market risk, http://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d352.pdf (accessed June 4, 2018), 2016.
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, High-level summary of Basel III Reforms, https:// www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d424_hlsummary.pdf (accessed June 4, 2018), 2017.
• Berkowitz, J., Testing Density Forecasts with Applications to Risk Management, "Journal of Business & Economic Statistics", Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 465-474, 2001.
• Berkowitz, J., Christoffersen, P., Pelletier, D., Evaluating Value-at-Risk Models with Desk- Level Data, "Management Science", Vol. 12, No. 57, pp. 2213-2227, 2011.
• Bollerslev, T., Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity, "Journal of Econometrics", Vol. 31, pp. 307-327, 1986.
• Bilyk, O., Sakowski, P., Ślepaczuk, R., Investing in VIX futures based on rolling GARCH models forecasts, [in:] Working Papers No. 10/2020 (316), Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, 2020.
• Candelon, B., Colletaz, G., Hurlin, C., Tokpavi, S., Backtesting Value-at-Risk: a GMM duration- based test, "Journal of Financial Econometrics", Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 314-343, 2011.
• Caporin, M., McAleer, M., Robust Ranking of Multivariate GARCH Models by Problem Dimension, "Computational Statistics and Data Analysis", Vol. 76, pp. 172-185,2014.
• Christoffersen, P., Evaluating Interval Forecasts, "International Economic Review", Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 841-862, 1998.
• Christoffersen, P., Pelletier, D., Backtesting Value-at-Risk: A Duration-Based Approach, "Journal of Financial Econometrics", Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 84-108, 2004.
• Colletaz, G., Hurlin, C., Perignon, C., The Risk Map: a New Tool for Risk Management, "Journal of Banking & Finance", Vol. 37, No. 10, pp. 3843-3854, 2013.
• Crnkovic, C., Drachman, J., Quality Control in VaR, [in:] Grayling, S. (ed.) VaR: Understanding and Applying Value-at-Risk, Risk Publications, London, 1997.
• Du, Z., Nonparametric bootstrap tests for independence of generalized errors, "The Econometrics Journal", Vol. 19, pp. 55-83, 2016.
• Engle, R.F., Manganelli, A., CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value-at-Risk by Regression Quantiles, "Journal of Business & Economic Statistics", Vol. 22, pp. 367-381, 2004.
• Escanciano, J. C., Olmo, J., Robust Backtesting Tests for Value-at-risk Models, "Journal of Financial Econometrics", Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 132-161, 2011.
• Glosten, L., Jagannathan, R., Runkle, D., On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks, "Journal of Finance", Vol. 48, pp. 1779- 1801, 1993.
• Gordy, M.B., McNeil, A.J, Spectral Backtests of Forecast Distributions with Application to Risk Management, [in:] Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2018-021, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, 2018.
• Hung-Chun, L., Jui-Cheng, H., Forecasting S&P100 stock index volatility: The role of volatility asymmetry and distributional assumption in GARCH models, "Expert Systems with Applications", Vol. 37, No. 7, pp. 4928-4934, 2010.
• Hurlin, Ch., Tokpavi, S., Backtesting value-at-risk accuracy: a simple new test, "Journal of Risk", Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 19-37, 2007.
• J. P. Morgan, Riskmetrics, Technical document, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, 1994.
• Kratz, M., Lok, Y.H., McNeil, A. J., Multinomial VaR backtests: A simple implicit approach to backtesting expected shortfall, "Journal of Banking & Finance", Vol. 88, pp. 393-407, 2018.
• Kupiec, P., Techniques for Verifying the Accuracy of Risk Measurement Models, "Journal of Derivatives", Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 174-184, 1995.
• Ljung, G. M., Box, G.E.P., On a Measure of Lack of Fit in Time Series Models, "Biometrika", Vol. 65, pp. 297-303, 1978.
• Morimoto, T., Kawasaki, Y., Empirical Comparison of Multivariate GARCH Models for Estimation of Intraday Value at Risk, Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.1090807, 2008.
• McNeil, J., Frey, F., Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach, "Journal of Empirical Finance", Vol. 7, 271-300, 2000.
• Miettinen, M., Matilainen, M., Nordhausen, K., Taskinen, S., Extracting Conditionally Hetero- skedastic Components using Independent Component Analysis, "Journal of Time Series Analysis", Vol. 41, pp. 293-311, 2020.
• Pajhede, T., Backtesting Value at Risk: A Generalized Markov Test, "Journal of Forecasting", Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 597-613, 2017.
• Patton, A. J., Ziegel, J. F., Chen, R., Dynamic semiparametric models for expected shortfall, "Journal of Econometrics", Vol. 211, No. 2, pp. 388-413, 2019.
• Pickands, J., Statistical inference using extreme order statistics, "The Annals of Statistics", Vol. 3, pp. 119-131, 1975.
• Santos, A., Nogales, F., Ruiz, E., Comparing Univariate and Multivariate Models to Forecast Portfolio Value-at-Risk, "Journal of Financial Econometrics", Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 400-441, 2013.
• Totić, S., Bulajić, M., Vlastelica, T., Empirical comparison of conventional methods and extreme value theory approach in value-at-risk assessment, "African Journal of Business Management", Vol. 5, No. 33, pp. 12810-12818, 2011.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15611/aoe.2021.1.01