VaR seems like such an obviously flawed metric, I am surprised that it seems to be used so much in the private sector.
First, the way it is named and the way it is presented often imply it is the expected value of loss, when in fact it is the upper bound on loss. It seems risk measures should be conservative, and presenting the upper bound, is the opposite of conservative.
More seriously, the fact that VaR is not coherent means that you can't use it to compare two portfolios, or even compare a changing portfolio over time. Doesn't this make value at risk completly useless?
I am just starting out in quant finance, so this is a presumptious question, and I am probably missing something. Thanks for any hlep.