Expected shortfall is jointly elicitable with value-at-risk: implications for backtesting

Fissler, Ziegel and Gneiting investigate the role of elicitability in backtesting problems and show how comparative backtests can be implemented for expected shortfall


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.


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: