SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
And2
Posts: 102
Joined: January 29th, 2007, 5:24 pm

Practical solution for fat-tail risk management?

August 9th, 2013, 5:22 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchyWillJe vois qu'il y a quelques français par ici (ou du moins des francophones) : nous finirons par conquérir toutes les salles des marchés ...C'était vraiment fabuleux!(...Sorry, could not resist )
Last edited by And2 on August 8th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
purbani
Posts: 89
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Practical solution for fat-tail risk management?

August 11th, 2013, 10:14 pm

Hi MizhaelYou may be interested in Why Distributions Matter and;Four Moment Risk DecompositionIn the latter we originally tried and partly succeeded to come up with a 'modified vol' number but the Cornish Fisher expansion cannot model sufficiently high levels of excess skewness and kurtosis to represent extreme / fat tail events. These do seem to be better represented by a Type I Extreme Value distribution viz Gumbel, Pareto or Weibull type distribution with even the skew T not being sufficient. Obviously as all the anti-frequentest / Taleb types point out there is no point in doing any of this unless your sample contains at least a few extreme events. Banks basing their 'stress tests' on the past 12 months of historic data thus not very 'stressful'.Kind regards,Peter Urbani
 
User avatar
slacknoise
Posts: 49
Joined: February 24th, 2014, 2:57 pm

Practical solution for fat-tail risk management?

September 8th, 2014, 3:55 pm

There is a recent paper about tail risk which i found quite interesting: "Robust and Practical Estimation for Measure of Tail Risk" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2444381
 
User avatar
Samsaveel
Posts: 435
Joined: April 20th, 2008, 5:47 am

Practical solution for fat-tail risk management?

September 10th, 2014, 4:08 am

to answer your question about fat tail dynamics ,you have to assume non-Gaussian governing dynamics for your asset return distribution.in a Gaussian setting you Normal-VaR is proportional to your SD,i.e Pr[Loss > x] =0.01 @ 99%.here you are assuming Gaussian dynamics.basel adds a multiplier of [3,4 ] depending on the robustness of your risk management infrastructure.the question is where does the multiplier come from ?if you only assume that the underlying P&L distribution is symmetric then an upper bound on VaR would be applying Jensen Pr [ L > x] <= sigma^2/( 2*x^2).rearranging gives x < = sqrt(1/0.02) * sigma so that the upper bound loss <= 7.07 sigma ,i.e should be less than 7.07 SD ,this is under the assumption of symmetric P&Lso clearly at the 99% under Gaussian assumption we know that the 99% is 2.33 SD ,if you take the ratio of 7.07/2.33 = 3.03 approx ,an that's how you adjust your VaR.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On