0
$\begingroup$

I found on pag 5 https://faculty.washington.edu/ezivot/econ589/acertasc.pdf the proof about the sub additivity of expected shortfall. I understood the demonstration on the whole, but I would like to clear out this doubt: for which exact reason we can say that the first side of (9) formula is always <= than the second one? I thought this could be explained by the triangle inequality, but I think it doesn't work.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would be best if you could reproduce the derivation in summary at least up until the step you are asking about in your post, preferably using MathJax/LaTeX. If you are unable to do that, pls at least include in your post a picture of the page with the inequality you are enquiring about in addition to the link to the original paper. $\endgroup$
    – Alper
    Aug 12, 2022 at 15:16

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

As per your previous question, please provide more details in your question. A quick hint:

It seems to me that on the LHS you have the worst $\omega$ realizations of $X + Y$ and on the RHS you have the worst $\omega$ realizations of them individually. If $X$ and $Y$ are not perfectly correlated the worst realizations of $X$ and $Y$ will not match so the worst of $X$ will be probably be compensated by a realization from $Y$ that is not the worst. Therefore, the value of the RHS will always at least be as high. For example, consider these realizations:

$$X = -10, 0, 10 \textrm{ and } Y = 10, 0, -10$$

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Let random variables $X,Y$ correspond to the loss distributions of two assets. We invest in both and hence have loss distribution $L = X + Y$.

For $n$ realisations, denote the order statistics of $L$ as: $L^{(1)} \leq L^{(2)} \leq ... \leq L^{(n-1)} \leq L^{(n)}$

We're interested in the expectation given the $\alpha$ percentile case scenario is exceeded. Taking $n$ sufficiently large and setting $m = \lfloor (1-\alpha) n \rfloor$ as the number of observations exceeding this percentile level we have the estimator:

$$ ES_{\alpha} = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} L^{(n-i)}}{m} = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} (X+Y)^{(n-i)}}{m} $$

For your problem:

The numerator, $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} L^{(n-i)}$, is the sum of the $m$ largest values of $(X+Y)_{1:n}$

However the largest values of $X+Y$ do NOT correspond to the largest values of $X$ and $Y$.

We could have: $ X_{1:3} = (3, 0, 5)$, $Y_{1:3} = (3, 4, 0)$ and so $(X+Y)_{1:3} = (6, 4, 5)$

Hence $(X+Y)^{(3)} = 6$.

However $X^{(3)} + Y^{(3)} = 5 + 4 = 9$

You're correct with the general idea of the triangle inequality, the paper just doesn't illustrate it very well.

$$ \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} (X+Y)^{(n-i)} \leq \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} X^{(n-i)} + \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} Y^{(n-i)} $$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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