Expected shortfall is jointly elicitable with value-at-risk: implications for backtesting
Elicitability is a critical issue in the current debate about the choice of a risk measure for regulatory purposes. In this article, Tobias Fissler, Johanna F. Ziegel and Tilmann Gneiting comment on the role of elicitability in backtesting problems. In particular, they introduce the notion of comparative backtests and show how they can be implemented for expected shortfall, based on the recent result of Fissler and Ziegel (2015) that expected shortfall is jointly elicitable with value-at-risk
There continues to be lively debate about the appropriate choice of quantitative risk measure for regulatory purposes and internal risk management. In this context, it has been shown by Weber (2006) and Gneiting (2011) that expected shortfall (ES) is not elicitable. Specifically, there is no strictly consistent scoring (or loss) function.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE PDF
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Risk management
Cyber risk can be modelled like credit risk, says Richmond Fed
US supervisors may begin to use historical datasets to assess risk at banks and system-wide
The changing shape of risk
S&P Global Market Intelligence’s head of credit and risk solutions reveals how firms are adjusting their strategies and capabilities to embrace a more holistic view of risk
To liquidity and beyond: new funding strategies for UK pensions and insurance
Prompted by policy shifts and macro events, pension funds and insurance firms are seeking alternative solutions around funding and liquidity
More cleared repo sponsors join Eurex ahead of cross-margining
End of TLTROs for banks and pension fund search for liquidity management tools drives uptake
Reimagining model risk management: new tools and approaches for a new era
A collaborative report by Chartis and Evalueserve on how the use of automation can combat the growing complexity of managing model risk due to regulation and market volatility
What Goldman’s appeal victory means for Fed stress tests
Decision could embolden more banks to appeal, analysts say. But others believe result is one-off
Clearing members rattled as CME approved to launch its own FCM
National Futures Association registration sharpens concerns about conflict of interest with CCP
CME files application for US Treasury and repo clearing
New entrant believes direct user access model will avoid accounting problem that hampers rival FICC
