メインコンテンツに移動

Journal of Credit Risk

Risk.net

The consequences of the Basel III requirements for the liquidity horizon and their implications for optimal trading strategy

Adiya Bayarmaa and Yuan Dong

  • 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.

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.

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

無料メンバーシップの内容をお知りになりたいですか?ここをクリック

パスワードを表示
パスワードを非表示にする