Back-testing expected shortfall

The discovery that expected shortfall (ES) is not elicitable propagated the belief that it could not be back-tested and aroused a number of criticisms of the Basel Committee’s adoption of ES over value-at-risk. In this article, Carlo Acerbi and Balázs Székely propose three back-testing methodologies for ES that are more powerful than the Basel VAR test, and observe that elicitability is irrelevant when it comes to the choice of a regulatory risk standard

mathematics-formula

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE ARTICLE IN FULL

Risk professionals had never heard of elicitability before 2011, when Gneiting (2011) proved that expected shortfall (ES) is not elicitable, unlike value-at-risk. This result sparked a confusing debate.

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 copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here