Journal of Credit Risk
ISSN:
1755-9723 (online)
Editor-in-chief: Linda Allen and Jens Hilscher
The consequences of the Basel III requirements for the liquidity horizon and their implications for optimal trading strategy
Need to know
- By applying the Almgren–Chriss (2000) half-life concept, we derive security-specific LH estimates, showing that optimal execution times for S&P 500 and DJIA constituents are typically less than a single trading day, far shorter than Basel III’s prescribed values.
- The optimal expected shortfall is consistently lower than the regulatory expected shortfall. This reflects that Basel’s aggregation-based scaling systematically overstates risk exposure.
- Regression-based ES backtests confirm OES provides unbiased and accurate risk forecasts, while RES exhibits a significant upward bias and persistent overestimation of tail risk.
- Incorporating security-level LH estimates enhances accuracy and reduces model bias, suggesting Basel III’s current LH framework may be overly conservative and could benefit from evidence-based recalibration.
Abstract
In this study we propose a formula-based approach for determining the optimal liquidity horizon used in scaling the base expected shortfall under the Basel Committee’s market risk capital requirements. Specifically, the “half-life” formula introduced by Almgren and Chriss in 2000 is used to compute optimal liquidity horizon values and construct an optimal expected shortfall measure. Unlike the regulatory approach, which scales expected shortfall across aggregated groups of risk factors, as laid out in the Basel Committee’s 2019 “Minimum capital requirements for market risk”, our method enables scaling at the level of individual securities, thereby improving estimation accuracy. To evaluate performance, we compare optimal expected shortfall with the regulatory expected shortfall using returns data from the Standard & Poor’s 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average indexes. Employing the regression-based expected shortfall backtesting technique of Bayer and Dimitriadis, we find that optimal expected shortfall produces unbiased estimates, while regulatory expected shortfall systematically overstates the true magnitude of expected shortfall.
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