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
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 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
Climate risk managers’ top challenge: a dearth of data
Risk Benchmarking: Banks see client engagement and lender data pooling as solutions to climate blind spots – but few expect it to happen soon
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
At BNY, a risk-centric approach to GenAI
Centralised platform allows bank to focus on risk management, governance and, not least, talent in its AI build
Many banks yet to factor climate into credit risk models
Risk Benchmarking: More than a third of banks do not quantify climate risk impact on credit portfolios, study finds
We’re gonna need a bigger board: geopolitical risk takes centre stage
As threats multiply, responsibility for geopolitical risk is shifting to ERM teams
CROs shoulder climate risk load, but bigger org picture is murky
Risk Benchmarking: Dedicated teams vary wildly in size, while ownership is shared among risk, sustainability and the business
Climate Risk Benchmarking: explore the data
Risk Benchmarking: View interactive charts from Risk.net’s 43-bank study, covering climate governance, physical and transition risks, stress-testing, technology, and regulation
‘The models are not bloody wrong’: a storm in climate risk
Risk Benchmarking: Risk.net’s latest benchmarking exercise shows banks confronting decades-long exposures, while grappling with political headwinds, limited resources and data gaps
