Expected shortfall: end of the back-test quest?

Quants propose three ways to back-test expected shortfall – each more efficient than the regulatory version


From the start, expected shortfall has suffered in comparison with one of the key advantages of the measure it is supposed to be replacing: it cannot be back-tested, critics claimed, while tests of value-at-risk are simple and intuitive.

Regulators have ploughed on regardless. Expected shortfall has been endorsed as VAR's successor in two consultation papers on the Fundamental review of the trading book because of its supposed benefits as a measure of tail risk. The widely contested solution to

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 [email protected] or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.

To continue reading...

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: