Expected shortfall a tall order

Value-at-risk (VAR) has become so ingrained in financial risk management over the past 20 years that the committee's plan to replace it -- revealed in the initial January 2012 version of its Fundamental review of the trailing book -- caused a storm. VAR has the advantage of being intuitive; it...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Risk (London. 1987) 2014-06, p.32
Main Author: Carver, Laurie
Format: Magazinearticle
Language:English
Subjects:
Banking industry
Banks
Committees
Cost control
Feedback
International
Reforms
Regulation of financial institutions
Risk management
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Value-at-risk (VAR) has become so ingrained in financial risk management over the past 20 years that the committee's plan to replace it -- revealed in the initial January 2012 version of its Fundamental review of the trailing book -- caused a storm. VAR has the advantage of being intuitive; it is the biggest loss that can be suffered at a given confidence level. Expected shortfall is, roughly speaking, the average of the distribution potential losses above the VAR level. While that is easy to say, and most quants should be comfortable with the concept, critics warn it will not be so simple to rewire 20 years' worth of systems, reprogramme 20 years of back-testing routines or unlearn 20 years of directors' education. And quickly, too. Mercifully, the Basel Committee has signalled it will not require a separate test, only the extension of the VAR test deeper into the tail, but this will still mean more data work.
ISSN:0952-8776