### Expected shortfall.ppt

1. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 1 Historical Simulation, Value-at-Risk, and Expected Shortfall Elements of Financial Risk Management Chapter 2 Peter Christoffersen
2. Overview Objectives • Introduce the most commonly used method for computing VaR, namely Historical Simulation and discuss the pros and cons of this method. • Discuss the pros and cons of the V aR risk measure • Consider the Expected Shortfall, ES, alternative. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 2
3. Chapter is organized as follows: • Introduction of the historical simulation (HS) method and its pros and cons. • Introduction of the weighted historical simulation (WHS). We then compare HS and WHS during the 1987 crash. • Comparison of the performance of HS and RiskMetrics during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. • Then we simulate artificial return data and assess the HS VaR on this data. • Compare the VaR risk measure with ES. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 3
4. Defining Historical Simulation • Let today be day t. Consider a portfolio of n assets. If we today own Ni,t units or shares of asset i then the value of the portfolio today is Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 4 • We use today’s portfolio holdings but historical asset prices to compute yesterday’s pseudo portfolio value as
5. Defining Historical Simulation • This is a pseudo value because the units of each asset held typically changes over time. The pseudo log return can now be defined as Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 5 • Consider the availability of a past sequence of m daily hypothetical portfolio returns, calculated using past prices of the underlying assets of the portfolio, but using today’s portfolio weights, call it {RPF,t+1-t}m t=1
6. Defining Historical Simulation • Distribution of RPF,t+1 is captured by the histogram of {RPF,t+1-t}m t=1 • The VaR with coverage rate, p is calculated as 100pth percentile of the sequence of past portfolio returns. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 6 • Sort the returns in {RPF,t+1-t}m t=1 in ascending order • Choose VaRP t+1 such that only 100p% of the observations are smaller than the VaRP t+1 • Use linear interpolation to calculate the exact VaR number.
7. Pros and Cons of HS Pros • the ease with which it is implemented. • its model-free nature. Cons • It is very easy to implement. No numerical optimization has to be performed. • It is model-free. It does not rely on any particular parametric model such as a RiskMetrics model. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 7
8. Issues with model free nature of HS How large should m be? • If m is too large, then the most recent observations will carry very little weight, and the VaR will tend to look very smooth over time. • If m is too small, then the sample may not include enough large losses to enable the risk manager to calculate VaR with any precision. • To calculate 1% VaRs with any degree of precision for the next 10 days, HS technique needs a large m value Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 8
9. Figure 2.1: VaRs from HS with 250 and 1,000 Return Days Jul 1, 2008 - Dec 31, 2010 Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 9 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600 0.0700 0.0800 0.0900 Jun-08 Jul-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Dec-08 Feb-09 Mar-09 May-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Oct-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Historical Simulation VaR HS-VaR(250) HS-VaR(1000)
10. Weighted Historical Simulation • WHS relieves the tension in the choice of m • It assigns relatively more weight to the most recent observations and relatively less weight to the returns further in the past • It is implemented as follows – • Sample of m past hypothetical returns, {RPF,t+1-t}m t=1 is assigned probability weights declining exponentially through the past as follows Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 10
11. Weighted Historical Simulation – Today’s observation is assigned the weight 1 = (1- ) / (1- m) – t goes to zero as t gets large, and that the weights t for t = 1,2,...,m sum to 1 – Typical value for  is between 0.95 and 0.99 • The observations along with their assigned weights are sorted in ascending order. • The 100p% VaR is calculated by accumulating the weights of the ascending returns until 100p% is reached. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 11
12. Pros and Cons of WHS Pros • Once  is chosen, WHS does not require estimation and becomes easy to implement • It’s weighting function builds dynamics into the WHS technique • The weighting function also makes the choice of m somewhat less crucial. • WHS responds quickly to large losses Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 12
13. Pros and Cons of WHS Cons • No guidance is given on how to choose η • Effect on the weighting scheme of positive versus negative past returns • If we are short the market, a market crash has no impact on our VaR. WHS does not respond to large gains • the multiday VaR requires a large amount of past daily return data, which is not easy to obtain. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 13
14. Advantages of Risk Metrics model • It can pick up the increase in market variance from the crash regardless of whether the crash meant a gain or a loss • In this model, returns are squared and losses and gains are treated as having the same impact on tomorrow’s variance and therefore on the portfolio risk. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 14
15. Figure 2.2 A: Historical Simulation VaR and Daily Losses from Long S&P500 Position, October 1987 Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 15 -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 01-Oct 06-Oct 11-Oct 16-Oct 21-Oct 26-Oct 31-Oct HS VaR and Loss Loss Date Return VaR (HS)
16. Figure 2.2 B: Historical Simulation VaR and Daily Losses from Short S&P500 Position, October 1987 Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 16 -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 01-Oct 06-Oct 11-Oct 16-Oct 21-Oct 26-Oct 31-Oct HS VaR and Loss Loss Date Return VaR (WHS)
17. Figure 2.3 A: Historical Simulation VaR and Daily Losses from Short S&P500 Position, October 1987 Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 17 -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 01-Oct 06-Oct 11-Oct 16-Oct 21-Oct 26-Oct 31-Oct HS VaR and Loss Loss Date Return VaR (HS)
18. Figure 2.3 B: Weighted Historical Simulation VaR and Daily Losses from Short S&P500 Position, October 1987 Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 18 -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 01-Oct 06-Oct 11-Oct 16-Oct 21-Oct 26-Oct 31-Oct WHS VaR and Loss Loss Date Return VaR (WHS)
19. Evidence from the 2008-2009 Crisis • We consider the daily closing prices for a total return index of the S&P 500 starting in July 2008 and ending in December 2009. • The index lost almost half its value between July 2008 and the market bottom in March 2009. • The recovery in the index starting in March 2009 continued through the end of 2009. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 19
20. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 20 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 Jul-08 Sep-08 Nov-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 Jul-09 Sep-09 Nov-09 S&P500-Closing Price S&P500 Figure 2.4: S&P 500 Total Return Index: 2008-2009 Crisis Period
21. Evidence from the 2008-2009 Crisis • The 10-day 1% HS VaR is computed from the 1-day VaR by simply multiplying it by Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 21 • Alternative to HS is the RiskMetrics variance model • 10-day, 1% VaR computed from the Risk- Metrics model is as follows:
22. Evidence from the 2008-2009 Crisis • where the variance dynamics are driven by Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 22 Difference between the HS and the RM VaRs • The HS VaR rises much more slowly as the crisis gets underway in the fall of 2008 • The HS VaR stays at its highest point for almost a year during which the volatility in the market has declined considerably • HS VaR will detect the brewing crisis quite slowly and will enforce excessive caution after volatility drops in the market
23. Figure 2.5: 10-day, 1% VaR from Historical Simulation and RiskMetrics During the 2008-2009 Crisis Period Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 23 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09Mar-09 Apr-09May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09Dec-09 Value at Risk (VaR) RiskMetrics HS
24. Evidence from the 2008-2009 Crisis • The units in figure above refer to the least percent of capital that would be lost over the next 10 days in the 1% worst outcomes. • Let’s put some dollar figures on this effect • Assume that each day a trader has a 10-day, 1% dollar VaR limit of \$100,000 • Thus each day he is therefore allowed to invest Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 24
25. Evidence from the 2008-2009 Crisis • Let’s assume that the trader each day invests the maximum amount possible in the S&P 500 Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 25 • The daily P/L is computed as
26. Figure 2.6: Cumulative P/L from Traders with HS and RM VaRs Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 26 -400,000 -350,000 -300,000 -250,000 -200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Cumulati ve P/L P/L from RM VaR P/L from HS VaR
27. Evidence from the 2008-2009 Crisis Performance difference between HS and RM VaRs • The RM trader will lose less in the fall of 2008 and earn much more in 2009. • The HS trader takes more losses in the fall of 2008 and is not allowed to invest sufficiently in the market in 2009 • The HS VaR reacts too slowly to increases in volatility as well as to decreases in volatility. Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 27
28. The Probability of Breaching the HS VaR • Assume that the S&P 500 market returns are generated by a time series process with dynamic volatility and normal innovations • Assume that innovation to S&P 500 returns each day is drawn from the normal distribution with mean zero and variance equal to • We can write: Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 28
29. The Probability of Breaching the HS VaR • Simulate 1,250 return observations from above equation • Starting on day 251, compute each day the 1-day, 1% VaR using Historical Simulation • Compute the true probability that we will observe a loss larger than the HS VaR we have computed • This is the probability of a VaR breach Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 29
30. Figure 2.7: Actual Probability of Loosing More than the 1% HS VaR When Returns Have Dynamics Variance Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 30 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 Probability of VaR Breach
31. The Probability of Breaching the HS VaR • where is the cumulative density function for a standard normal random variable. • If the HS VaR model had been accurate then this plot should show a roughly flat line at 1% • Here we see numbers as high as 16% and numbers very close to 0% • The HS VaR will overestimate risk when true market volatility is low, which will generate a low probability of a VaR breach • HS will underestimate risk when true volatility is high in which case the VaR breach volatility will be high Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 31
32. VaR with Extreme Coverage Rates • The tail of the portfolio return distribution conveys information about the future losses. • Reporting the entire tail of the return distribution corresponds to reporting VaRs for many different coverage rates • Here p ranges from 0.01% to 2.5% in increments • When using HS with a 250-day sample it is not possible to compute the VaR when Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 32
33. Figure 2.8: Relative Difference between Non- Normal (Excess Kurtosis=3) and Normal VaR Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 33 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 Relative VaR Difference VaR Coverage Rate, p
34. VaR with Extreme Coverage Rates • Note that (from the above figure) as p gets close to zero the nonnormal VaR gets much larger than the normal VaR • When p = 0.025 there is almost no difference between the two VaRs even though the underlying distributions are different Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 34
35. Expected Shortfall • VaR is concerned only with the percentage of losses that exceed the VaR and not the magnitude of these losses. • Expected Shortfall (ES), or TailVaR accounts for the magnitude of large losses as well as their probability of occurring • Mathematically ES is defined as Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 35
36. Expected Shortfall • The negative signs in front of the expectation and the VaR are needed because the ES and the VaR are defined as positive numbers • The ES tells us the expected value of tomorrow’s loss, conditional on it being worse than the VaR • The Expected Shortfall computes the average of the tail outcomes weighted by their probabilities • ES tells us the expected loss given that we actually get a loss from the 1% tail Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 36
37. Expected Shortfall Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 37 • To compute ES we need the distribution of a normal variable conditional on it being below the VaR • The truncated standard normal distribution is defined from the standard normal distribution as
38. Expected Shortfall • () denotes the density function and () the cumulative density function of the standard normal distribution • In the normal distribution case ES can be derived as Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 38
39. Expected Shortfall • In the normal case we know that Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 39 • The relative difference between ES and VaR is • Thus, we have
40. Expected Shortfall • For example, when p =0.01, we have and the relative difference is then Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 40 • In the normal case, as p gets close to zero, the ratio of the ES to the VaR goes to 1 • From the below figure, the blue line shows that when excess kurtosis is zero, the relative difference between the ES and VaR is 15%
41. Expected Shortfall • The blue line also shows that for moderately large values of excess kurtosis, the relative difference between ES and VaR is above 30% • From the figure, the relative difference between VaR and ES is larger when p is larger and thus further from zero • When p is close to zero VaR and ES will both capture the fat tails in the distribution • When p is far from zero, only the ES will capture the fat tails in the return distribution Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 41
42. Figure 2.9: ES vs VaR as a Function of Kurtosis Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (ES - VaR ) / ES Excess Kurtosis p=1% p=5%
43. Summary • VaR is the most popular risk measure in use • HS is the most often used methodology to compute VaR • VaR has some shortcomings and using HS to compute VaR has serious problems as well • We need to use risk measures that capture the degree of fatness in the tail of the return distribution • We need risk models that properly account for the dynamics in variance and models that can be used across different return horizons Elements of Financial Risk Management Second Edition © 2012 by Peter Christoffersen 43