メインコンテンツに移動

VAR vs expected shortfall

Value-at-risk is often criticised as not presenting a full picture of the risks a company faces. Here, John Hull discusses the limitations of VAR and the relative advantages of an alternative measure, expected shortfall

Value-at-risk is defined as the loss level that will not be exceeded with a certain confidence level during a certain period of time. For example, if a bank's 10-day 99% VAR is $3 million, there is considered to be only a 1% chance that losses will exceed $3 million in 10 days. If we are going to use one measure describing the risk in a particular situation, is VAR the best choice? One problem

コンテンツを印刷またはコピーできるのは、有料の購読契約を結んでいるユーザー、または法人購読契約の一員であるユーザーのみです。

これらのオプションやその他の購読特典を利用するには、info@risk.net にお問い合わせいただくか、こちらの購読オプションをご覧ください: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

現在、このコンテンツをコピーすることはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。

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.

ログイン
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