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
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 print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
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
More on Risk management
ECB official open to offering liquidity aid to non-banks
Risk Live: Deputy director doesn’t rule out copying UK plan to extend repo facility to pension funds and life insurers
Banks must loosen up on ChatGPT use – risk chiefs
Risk Live: ’Shadow use’ and inability to attract new hires mean restricting access to GPTs is untenable
Simm casts off Covid pain for $40 billion IM reprieve
Recalibration cuts risk weights in equity and commodities, but some credit exposures double on ABX halt
Rate risk modellers relieved as EU deposits stay sticky
Banks feared retail deposits would be flightier than during previous periods of rate hikes
Rough patch: CrowdStrike sparks an auto-update debate
Automating software updates helps keep hackers at bay but can introduce op risk; banks balance the two
Banks urged to keep regulators in the loop on AI plans for AML
Risk managers advocate five-year strategies and compliance teams’ ownership of the tech they use
Banks urged to boost third-party scrutiny amid AML crackdown
Three US regulators highlight deficiencies in banks’ due diligence on fintech partners
Clearing members welcome JSCC initial margin reforms
Stress loss add-ons touted as path to ensure defaulter pays and default fund contributions shrink