Comparing Value-at-Risk Methodologies

Luiz Lima () and Breno Pinheiro Néri

Brazilian Review of Econometrics, 2007, vol. 27, issue 1

Abstract: In this paper, we compare four different Value-at-Risk (V aR) methodologies through Monte Carlo experiments. Our results indicate that the method based on quantile regression with ARCH effect dominates other methods that require distributional assumption. In particular, we show that the non-robust methodologies have higher probability of predicting V aRs with too many violations. We illustrate our findings with an empirical exercise in which we estimate V aR for returns of S˜ao Paulo stock exchange index, IBOVESPA, during periods of market turmoil. Our results indicate that the robust method based on quantile regression presents the least number of violations.

Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://periodicos.fgv.br/bre/article/view/1570 (text/html)

Related works:
Working Paper: Comparing value-at-risk methodologies (2006)
Working Paper: Comparing Value-at-Risk Methodologies (2006)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sbe:breart:v:27:y:2007:i:1:a:1570

Access Statistics for this article

Brazilian Review of Econometrics is currently edited by Daniel Monte

More articles in Brazilian Review of Econometrics from Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Núcleo de Computação da FGV EPGE ().