Take the 2-minute tour ×
Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for finance professionals and academics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When reading the book of Financial Risk Forecasting, I saw the following example. I am not very clear about two points marked with yellow and green respectively.

Regarding the first point marked with yellow color, why $VaR^{1\%}=100$, I think it should equal to $-100$ instead.

Regarding the second point marked with green color, I do not understand how to get $50$.

enter image description here

share|improve this question
    
Just to add a comment regarding the title, not as much the question, $VaR\geq 0$ whenever you are implementing a true arbitrage strategy. –  user25064 Jun 19 at 17:53

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Value at risk is quoted by absolute value. This is the amount of money you can lose, so everyone knows the sign by default.

For the second question, the last line explains it. Probability of at least one of the assets losing money is ~9.6%. Probability of both losing money is pretty small and is ignored. So, since 9.6% > 5%, it means that you lose on one of the assets, which is 50% of your portfolio with higher than 5% probability (so, it's your value at risk). This is where 50 comes from.

share|improve this answer

I think that in theory the VaR can be negative. The VaR is only a given quantile of your loss distribution depending on the confidence level you set and the time horizon you wanna consider (how many loses can I afford next year/quarter/month/week/day etc). Imagine that the loss distribution you are looking at contains only negative values (gains in that case) then whatever the confidence level, your VaR will be negative. In practice, the VaR tends to be always positive because we use high confidence levels such as 95% or 99% and we observe random variables taking their values in R (set of all real values)

Your last example just illustrates one of the VaR shortcomings : it is not subaddative, meaning that the sum of the VaR of two portfolios can be lower than the VaR of the combined two which is not consistent with the theory of diversification.

share|improve this answer
    
I think you meant a portfolio with two assets. –  Student T Jun 19 at 10:41
    
@vincent 's post is my understanding, VaR can be negative which means there's likely no loss. –  athos Jun 25 at 9:59

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.