 What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measuresSusanne Emmer, Marie Kratz and Dirk Tasche Abstract: ABSTRACT Expected shortfall (ES) has been widely accepted as a risk measure that is conceptually superior to value-at-risk (VaR). At the same time, however, it has been criticized for issues relating to backtesting. In particular, ES has been found not to be elicitable, which means that backtesting for ES is less straightforward than, for example, backtesting for VaR. Expectiles have been suggested as potentially better alternatives to both ES and VaR. In this paper, we revisit the commonly accepted desirable properties of risk measures such as coherence, comonotonic additivity, robustness and elicitability. We check VaR, ES and expectiles with regard to whether or not they enjoy these properties, with particular emphasis on expectiles. We also consider their impact on capital allocation, an important issue in risk management. We find that, despite the caveats that apply to the estimation and backtesting of ES, it can be considered a good risk measure. As a consequence, there is no sufficient evidence to justify an all-inclusive replacement of ES by expectiles in applications. For backtesting ES, we propose an empirical approach that consists of replacing ES by a set of four quantiles, which should allow us to make use of backtesting methods for VaR. References: Add references at CitEc Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rsk:journ4:2434913 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Journal of Risk from Journal of Risk |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.