An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-finance/attachments/20080730/20c23217/attachment.pl>
VaR.Beyond() etc.
2 messages · Murali Menon, Brian G. Peterson
Murali Menon wrote:
I see that the definition of VaR.Beyond() in the PerformanceAnalytics package includes a parameter called periods, to determine the expected shortfall across various time horizons. However, it is not used within the function, at least not in PerformanceAnalytics_0.9.6, which is what I have. Has this been remedied? Likewise, does it make sense to have a multiperiod VaR method as well?
First of all, we're including new CVaR/ES functions in PerformanceAnalytics 0.9.7 that provide more functionality than the original VaR.Beyond function provides, including an implementation of a Modified Cornish Fisher Expected Shortfall that we developed for an upcoming paper in the Journal of Risk (to appear Winter 2008). PerformanceAnalytics 0.9.7 will be released as soon as we finish the documentation for a few of the new functions.
I'm not sure how to incorporate the notion of horizons into the computation or I'd have done this myself. Is there any paper that helps to explain the concept?
There are multiple papers on this topic, which I'll look up later if I have time, but I'll summarize some of the relevant approaches here. The simplest methods incorporate some sort of decay function. If you are assuming a normal distribution, as Gaussian parametric VaR and ES do, then you would multiply the single period VaR number by the square root of the number of periods to scale over, as is commonly done with variance. This is the method that was implemented in an earlier version of the VaR.Beyond function, although I believe I took it out because it was having issues. (I'm also unconvinced of the accuracy of this approach, although it is most likely true if you assume a Gaussian distribution) Another major method looks at conditional or unconditional risk against one or more factors over some period, and scales the risk metric that way. (I think this is likely the most accurate, but also the most difficult approach) A third method is typically based on Monte Carlo simulation, where the multiperiod risk can be taken directly as a quantile of the simulated results. (This is the method most often employed by banks as part of their approach for calculating regulatory capital, in my experience.) There have also been papers about using GARCH models to scale risk measure to multiple periods, but I recall reading a paper by Embrechts and McNeil that called that methodology into question. Regards, - Brian