Estimating Model Risk of VaR under Different Approaches: Study on European Banks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52934/wpz.151Keywords:
VaR, Monte Carlo, model risk, precision, historical simulation, GARCHAbstract
The objective of this research is to estimate the model risk, represented as precision, and the accuracy of the Value at Risk (VaR) measure, under three different approaches: historical simulation (HS), Monte Carlo (MC), and generalized ARCH (GARCH). In this work, to analyze the VaR model, the accuracy and precision were used. Estimation of the accuracy and precision was done under the three approaches for four European banks at 95 and 99% confidence levels. The percentage crossings and Kupiec POF were used to judge the model accuracy, whereas the ratio of the maximum and minimum VaR estimates, and the spread between the maximum and minimum VaR estimates were used to estimate the model risk. This was achieved by changing input parameters, specifically, the estimation time window (125, 250, 500 days). Implications/Recommendations: The accuracy alone is not sufficient to evaluate a model and precision is also required. The temporal evolution of the precision metrics showed that the VaR approaches were inconsistent under different market conditions. This article focuses on the accuracy and precision concepts applied to estimate model risk of the Value at Risk (VaR). VaR is the foundation for sophisticated risk metrics, including systemic risk measures like Marginal Expected Shortfall and Delta Conditional Value at Risk. Thus, understanding the risk associated with the use of VaR is crucial for finance practitioners.
References
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2004). Basel II: International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework. Bank for International Settlements.
Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
Danielsson, J., James, K. R., Valenzuela, M., Zer, I. (2016). Model risk of risk models. Journal of Financial Stability, 23, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2016.02.002
Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912773
Ferenstein, E., Gąsowski, M. (2004). Modelling stock returns with AR-GARCH processes. Statistics and Operations Research Transactions, 28(1), 55–68.
Glasserman, P. (2003). Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering. Springer Science+Business Media.
Holton, G. A. (2014). Value-at-Risk: Theory and Practice, Second Edition. Value-atrisk. https://www.value-at-risk.net (accessed: 17th November 2021).
Pasieczna, A. H. (2019). Monte Carlo Simulation Approach to Calculate Value at Risk: Application to WIG20 and MWIG40. Financial Sciences, 24(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.15611/fins.2019.2.05
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License
that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. - Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
