Value-at-Risk substitute for non-ruin capital is fallacious and redundant

Vsevolod Malinovskii

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: This seemed impossible to use a theoretically adequate but too sophisticated risk measure called non-ruin capital, whence its widespread (including regulatory documents) replacement with an inadequate, but simple risk measure called Value-at-Risk. Conflicting with the idea by Albert Einstein that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler", this led to fallacious, and even deceitful (but generally accepted) standards and recommendations. Arguing from the standpoint of mathematical theory of risk, we aim to break this impasse.

Date: 2020-05
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-rmg
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.05428 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
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:arx:papers:2005.05428

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().