Tag Info

4

If the loss distribution is normal with mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma^2$, then the Value-at-Risk and Expexted Shortfall (or CVaR) at level $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ are \begin{align*} \mbox{VaR}_\alpha & = \mu + \sigma \Phi^{-1}(\alpha) , \\ \mbox{ES}_\alpha & = \mu + \sigma \frac{\phi\{\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)\}}{1 - \alpha} , \end{align*} where $\phi$ ...

4

Glassermann et al. have published an approach where the loss distribution is approximated by a quadratic function in the risk factors. Based on this estimation they can apply importance sampling and stratified sampling to reduce the variance of the monte carlo estimate. I have not implemented their technique, but their numerical results look very good. You ...

3

If $z_\alpha$ is the so-called standard normal $z$-score of the significance level $\alpha$ such that $$\frac 1 {\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{z_\alpha} e^{-\xi^2/2}d\xi=\alpha$$ and we assume normality, (ignoring skewness and kurtosis,) then we can estimate the $\alpha$ quantile of a distribution with cdf $\Phi$ as \Phi^{-1}(\alpha)=\mu + \sigma ...

3

the risk neutral drift is needed for pricing of derivatives. For a $100\%$ equity portfolio you can take the real world drift - sometimes a good guess is a drift of zero. For fixed-income you could do the same and might need more sophistication for the variance term. If you have short-dated bonds then you will need a special model for the pull-to-par. For ...

3

VaR is not a good measure of risk taking, in my opinion. It suffers from inherent faulty assumptions (check out VaR Wiki to start) and it omits many other important aspects of risk measurement. When I evaluate an asset's risk and return I like to start looking at the following: Historical risk and returns of an asset. This leads to the Sharpe Ratio, ...

2

The time scaling of higher moments for ordinary (discrete) returns as per the Wingender paper is illustrated in Excel and VBA in the following spreadsheet demonstration files: Terminal-Wealth-Time-Horizon-Calcs-Normal-and-Modified-VBA and; Liqudity-VaR-With-Correct-Time-Scaling-of-Higher-Moments Available here For more on the weaknesses of the Cornish ...

2

Skewness decays with time, but the rate of that skewness decay will vary based on the instruments and how they are traded, so a simple estimator such as the square root of time rule is not appropriate. I typically recommend that to scale VaR or ES it makes more sense to lower your confidence level (raise the alpha parameter) to one that makes sense for your ...

2

There is a formula for calculating ES from a normal distribution. There is also a formula for ES of arbitrary distributions using a Cornish-Fisher expansions (easy for univariate processes but frustrating for multivariate). However, the most common approach is a scenario representation of the distribution. This could include using the historical distribution ...

2

I don't know what you did when you tried pulling out $1-\alpha$, the correct expression would be $\lim_{\alpha \to 1} \frac{\mu(1-\alpha) + \sigma {\phi^{-1}(\alpha)}}{(1-\alpha)(\mu + \sigma \phi^{-1}(\alpha))}$. Anyhow, you can try using the substitution $\Phi^{-1}(\alpha) = x$, $x \to \infty$ and $\alpha = \Phi(x)$. Then the expression becomes ...

1

You can use the either, as both necessarily are symmetric positive definite; covariance is a personal preference. It's really just a matter of scaling, as $\mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma)$ is distributionally $\sqrt{\Sigma} \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Correlation would require additional scaling (i.e. multiplication of every $\mathcal{N}(0,\rho)$ element by its respective ...

1

The standard answer to your question would be to do the maximum likelihood estimation. When you say "plug in $\sigma$" you can show that the sample estimate of $\sigma$ is actually the maximum likelihood estimate of $\sigma$ for the normal distribution. If I can assume that your data are IID then what you do is use your distribution with parameters ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible