Skip to content
QuantCalc Tools
Directory

Thematischer Pillar-Hub · 20 Veröffentlichte Analysen

Parametric Var Expected Shortfall

Parametric Var Expected Shortfall research topics and source records from QuantCalc Tools. Under Basel III MAR33, 97.5% Expected Shortfall replaces 99% Gaussian VaR to penalize tail kurtosis; this quantitative guide reconciles Cornish-Fisher quantiles, Student-t scaling, EWMA decay, and backtesting.

Wichtige Institutionelle Erkenntnisse — Parametric Var Expected Shortfall

  • Under pure Gaussian assumptions, 97.5% Expected Shortfall (2.3378 sigma) nearly matches 99.0% VaR (2.3263 sigma), but Student-t (nu=5) tails widen 97.5% ES by +23.64% to 2.8904 sigma.
  • Cornish-Fisher 4th-order quantile expansions capture negative skewness and excess kurtosis in microseconds, inflating 99% VaR from 2.3263 sigma to 3.3814 sigma at S=-0.80 and Ke=4.50.
  • Basel III MAR33 replaces flat 10-day square-root-of-time scaling with five liquidity horizon buckets (10, 20, 40, 60, and 120 days) to reflect asset-class exit illiquidity.
  • Regulatory model validation requires joint Kupiec POF unconditional frequency tests, Christoffersen Markov independence tests, and Acerbi-Szekely Z2 tail-magnitude backtests.
  • Cornish-Fisher VaR adjusts normal critical values via third- and fourth-order Hermite polynomials, lifting 99% loss multipliers by +45% to +60% when skewness is negative and kurtosis is high.
  • Excess kurtosis narrows VaR below the sqrt(3) = 1.7321 quantile (~95.8% confidence) because peaked distributions shift mass out of shoulders into extreme tails above 96%.

Verknüpfte Knowledge-Graph-Entitäten (13)

Alle Entitäten →

Research-Analysen in diesem Cluster — Parametric Var Expected Shortfall (20)

Regulierte Finanzinstitute & Broker-Dossiers

Zuständige Finanzaufsichtsbehörden

Alle Aufsichtsbehörden →

Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ) — Parametric Var Expected Shortfall

Why did Basel III FRTB replace 99% Value-at-Risk with 97.5% Expected Shortfall?

Gaussian 99% VaR ignores loss severity beyond the 1% threshold and violates subadditivity, occasionally penalizing portfolio diversification. Calibrating Expected Shortfall at 97.5% preserves the exact normal-distribution capital baseline (2.3378 sigma vs 2.3263 sigma) while penalizing fat-tailed kurtosis and satisfying coherent risk axioms.

When does square-root-of-time scaling fail in parametric VaR calculators?

Multiplying 1-day VaR by sqrt(10) assumes independent, identically distributed zero-mean returns with constant variance. If daily returns exhibit positive AR(1) autocorrelation (rho = +0.20), true 10-day volatility exceeds sqrt(10) scaling by roughly 20%, whereas GARCH(1,1) mean reversion pulls post-spike multi-day volatility below sqrt(T).

What causes Cornish-Fisher VaR quantiles to become non-monotonic?

Because Cornish-Fisher truncates an asymptotic Hermite polynomial expansion at skewness and excess kurtosis, extreme moment combinations violate the Maillard domain bound, causing the cubic z-score polynomial to fold backward so 99.5% VaR erroneously prints lower than 99.0% VaR.

How many VaR breaches trigger a regulatory capital surcharge over 250 trading days?

Under Basel desk-level and bank-wide 99% VaR backtesting over 250 business days, 0 to 4 exceptions keep the model in the Green Zone (1.50x ES multiplier), 5 to 9 exceptions place it in the Amber Zone (1.70x to 1.92x multiplier), and 10 or more breaches trigger Red Zone model disqualification.

Why does positive excess kurtosis reduce 95% Cornish-Fisher VaR instead of increasing it?

In the fourth-order Hermite term (Ke / 24) * (z^3 - 3z), the polynomial crosses zero at z = sqrt(3) = 1.73205, corresponding to 95.84% one-tailed confidence. At 95.0% confidence (z = 1.64485), z^3 - 3z equals -0.4865, reflecting thinner intermediate shoulders in leptokurtic distributions.

How do you flip the skewness sign correctly when computing Cornish-Fisher VaR as a positive loss?

If portfolio return skewness S is negative (left-skewed crashes) and z_alpha is entered as a positive number (+2.32635 for 99% loss), the skewness term must be subtracted—that is, -(S/6)*(z^2 - 1)—so negative S produces a positive addition to the loss quantile.

Verwandte Thematische Research-Hubs (QuantCalc Tools)

Parametric Var Expected Shortfall — Thematischer Pillar-Hub | QuantCalc Tools | QuantCalc Tools