Expected shortfall is jointly elicitable with value-at-risk: implications for backtesting

Elicitability is a critical issue in the current debate about the choice of a risk measure for regulatory purposes. In this article, Tobias Fissler, Johanna F. Ziegel and Tilmann Gneiting comment on the role of elicitability in backtesting problems. In particular, they introduce the notion of comparative backtests and show how they can be implemented for expected shortfall, based on the recent result of Fissler and Ziegel (2015) that expected shortfall is jointly elicitable with value-at-risk

scales-justice-legal

There continues to be lively debate about the appropriate choice of quantitative risk measure for regulatory purposes and internal risk management. In this context, it has been shown by Weber (2006) and Gneiting (2011) that expected shortfall (ES) is not elicitable. Specifically, there is no strictly consistent scoring (or loss) function.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE PDF

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