evt and copulae: essential riskmanagement tools or just fads?embrecht/ftp/genevadec03.pdf · evt...

54
EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich and London School of Economics www.math.ethz.ch/finance/ ICBI Risk Management 2003 Geneva, December 4, 2003 c 2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts)

Upload: others

Post on 21-Apr-2020

21 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

EVT and COPULAE:Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just

Fads?

Paul Embrechts

ETH Zurich and London School of Economics

www.math.ethz.ch/finance/

ICBI Risk Management 2003

Geneva, December 4, 2003

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts)

Page 2: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Contents

A. Introduction

B. Modeling Distributions: Extreme Value Theory and Copulae

C. Quantifying Regulatory Capital for Operational Risk

D. Conclusions

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 1

Page 3: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

A. Introduction

Three statements:

• The Bell curve is wrong? (Private Banker)

• Did you use EVT as a tool in relationship to operational risk?

(Moody’s Analytical Framework for Operational Risk Management

of Banks)

• Basel II for credit risk only uses the Gaussian copula (Dilip Madan)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 2

Page 4: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Early warning and tools:

• 1997: P. Embrechts, C. Kluppelberg, T. Mikosch. ModellingExtremal Events for Insurance and Finance. Springer.

• 1988: P. Embrechts, A. McNeil, D. Straumann. Correlation

and dependence in risk management: properties and pitfalls.

(dependence = copula)

• 2004: P. Embrechts, R. Frey, A. McNeil. Stochastic Methods forQuantitative Risk Management. (Book project)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 3

Page 5: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

B. Modeling Distributions:

Extreme Value Theory and Copulae

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 4

Page 6: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Some statements on extremes and correlation

• “A natural consequence of the existence of a lender of last resort isthat there will be some sort of allocation of burden of risk of extremeoutcomes. Thus, central banks are led to provide what essentially amountsto catastrophic insurance coverage. . . From the point of view of therisk manager, inappropriate use of the normal distribution can leadto an understatement of risk, which must be balanced against thesignificant advantage of simplification. From the central bank’s corner, theconsequences are even more serious because we often need to concentrateon the left tail of the distribution in formulating lender-of-last-resort policies.Improving the characterization of the distribution of extreme values is ofparamount importance”

(Alan Greenspan, Joint Central Bank Research Conference, 1995)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 5

Page 7: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Some statements on extremes and correlation

• “Extreme, synchronized rises and falls in financial markets occurinfrequently but they do occur. The problem with the models is thatthey did not assign a high enough chance of occurrence to the scenario inwhich many things go wrong at the same time - the “perfect storm”scenario”

(Business Week, September 1998)

• “Regulators have criticised LTCM and banks for not “stress-testing”risk models against extreme market movements. . . The markets have beenthrough the financial equivalent of several Hurricane Andrews hitting Floridaall at once. Is the appropriate response to accept that it was mere badluck to run into such a rare event - or to get new forecasting models thatassume more storms in the future?”

(The Economist, October 1998, after the LTCM rescue)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 6

Page 8: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Some statements on extremes and correlation

• “. . . The trading floor is quiet. But this masks their attempt at pickingup the pieces with a new fund, JWM Partners. Now, Mr. Meriwether ispreaching new gospel: World financial markets are bound to hit extremeturbulences again. . . Mr. Meriwether’s crew, once bitten, also is bettingon more liquid securities: “With globalisation increasing, you’ll see morecrises,” he says. “Our whole focus is on the extremes now - what’s theworst that can happen to you in any situation - because we never wantto go through that again.”

(John Meriwether, The Wall Street Journal, 21/8/2000)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 7

Page 9: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Some statements on extremes and correlation

• “Over the last number of years, regulators have encouraged financialentities to use portfolio theory to produce dynamic measures of risk. VaR,the product of portfolio theory, is used for short-run day-to-day profit andloss exposures. Now is the time to encourage the BIS and other regulatorybodies to support studies on stress test and concentration methodologies.Planning for crises is more important than VaR analysis. And such newmethodologies are the correct response to recent crises in the financialindustry”

(Myron Scholes, American Economic Review, May 2000)

• “Someone told me that the bell curve is wrong”

(Banker, private communication, 1999)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 8

Page 10: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Correlation confusion: in words

• “Among nine big economies, stock market correlations have averagedaround 0.5 since the 1960s. In other words, for every 1 per cent rise (orfall) in, say, American share prices, share prices in the other markets willtypically rise (fall) by 0.5 per cent”

(The Economist, 8th November 1997)

• “A correlation of 0.5 does not indicate that a return from stock-marketA will be 50% of stockmarket B’s return, or vice-versa. . . A correlationof 0.5 shows that 50% of the time the return of stockmarket A will bepositively correlated with the return of stockmarket B, and 50% of the timeit will not”

(The Economist (letter), 22nd November 1997)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 9

Page 11: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Correlation confusion: in a picture

-4 -2 0 2 4

-4-2

02

4

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

• •

••

• •

••

•• •

• •••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

• •

•• •

••

•••

••••

• •••

••

••

• ••

••

• •

•• •

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

•••

•• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

• •••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••••

• ••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

•• •

••

••••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••• •

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

• ••

• •

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• ••

••

••

• •

• •

••• •

•••

••

•••

• •

•• •

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

•••

••

• •

••

• •

••

• ••

••

••

••

• •••

• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• ••

•••

••

••

••

•• ••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••••

•••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

• •

•• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••

••••

••

•••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

•• •

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

•••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••

• ••

••

••

• •

••••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

•• • •

••

••

•••

• •

••

• •

••

• •

•••

••

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

•• ••

••••

• •

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

•• •

• •

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• • • ••

•••

•••

••

•••

••

••• ••

• ••

• •

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•• •

••

••

••

•••

• •

••

• •

••

•••

•• •

•• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

•••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

•••

••

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

• •

••

••

••

•••

• •

•• •••

••

••

• •

••

••

•••

•• • •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

•••

•• •• •

• ••

•• •

•••

••

•••

••

• •

•••

•••

•• •

••

•••

••

• ••

• ••

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

•••

••

• ••

• ••

• •

• • •

•••• •

••

••

••

••

•• ••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

•••

••

•••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• ••

• •

••

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•• •

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••• •

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

• ••

• •

• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

•• ••

• •

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•••

••

• •

••

••

•••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• • •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

• •••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

•••

••

• • •

••

••

••• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •

••• •

••

••

• •

•••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

•• •

• ••

••

••

•••

••

• • •

•••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

•••••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

• ••

••

••• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

• •••

•••

••

••

•••

• •

••

••

•••

•••

•• •

•• •

••

•••

•••

•• •

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••••

• •

••

••

• •

••

• •

• •

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

-4 -2 0 2 4

-4-2

02

4

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

• •

•• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

•• •

••

• ••

••

•••

•••

••

• •

••

• •

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

•••

• ••

••

••

•••

••

••

• •

•••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

•• ••

• •

• ••

••

•• ••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•••

•••

••

•••

••

••

• •

•••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

•••••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

•• •

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• • •

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•• •

••

• ••

••

••••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

• ••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••••

••

••

• •

•• •

••

••

• •

• ••

••

• ••

••

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

•••

••

• ••

••

••

••

• •

••••

••

••

••

••

• • •

•• •

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

• ••

••

• •

••

•••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

•• • •

• •

•• •

•• •

••

•••

•• •

••

• ••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

•• ••

••

••

••

••• •

• •

• ••

••

•• •

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

• • •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

• •

••

••

• •••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

• ••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

• •

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

•• •

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

• ••

•• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

• •

•••

••

••• •

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•• • •

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

• ••••

••

••

• ••

••

••

•••• •

• •

• •

••

••

• •

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

• ••

•• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

•• •

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•••

•• •

• • •

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

•••

• •••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••• •

•••

•••

•••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

• ••

••

••

• •

•• ••

••

••

• •

••

• ••

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

•• •

• •

••••

•••

•• •

••

• •

••

••

••

•••

•••

•••

••

• •

•••

• •

• ••

• •

• •••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

• •

•••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•••

••

• •

• •

• •

• ••

• •

• •

••

• •• •

••

•• •

••

••

•••

••

••

• ••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

• •

• •

••

••• • •

• •

••

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

• • •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

• •

••

• •

••

• •• ••• •

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

• ••••

••

• •

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•• •

••

•••

••

••

•••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

• • •

• •

••

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••• •

••

••

• ••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •••

•• •

•••

••

••• •

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

•••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

• •

•••

••

••

•••

••

••

• •••

••

•• • •

••

••

••

••• •

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

•••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• • ••

• •

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

• •

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••• •

••

••

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 10

Page 12: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Messages from the methodological frontier

• Static case (time fixed)

D d = 1: Classical Extreme Value Theory (EVT)

Peaks-over-threshold method (POT)D d ≥ 2: Multivariate Extreme Value Theory (MEVT)

Copulae

• Dynamic case

D Extremes of stochastic processes in d > 1, only in rather special

cases (Gaussian, Markov, ...)

D Non-BSM models: Levy driven price processes, incompleteness

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 11

Page 13: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Some examples

Ê EVT - POT

Ë MEVT

Ì Copulae

and their risk management consequences

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 12

Page 14: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 1: EVT - POT

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

5010

015

020

025

0

Danish Fire Data

Time

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 13

Page 15: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 1: EVT - POT

• Notation: Mn = max(X1, . . . , Xn), Xi ∼ F ,

Fu(x) = P(X − u ≤ x|X > u)

• Fisher-Tippet theorem: Let (Xn) be a sequence of iid rvs. If there existnorming constants cn > 0, dn ∈ R and some non-degenerate df H such that

c−1n (Mn − dn) d−→ H, then H belongs to the Frechet (ξ > 0), Weibull (ξ < 0)

or Gumbel (ξ = 0) type of distributions

• Balkema-de Haan-Pickands result: For every ξ ∈ R, F ∈ MDA(Hξ) if andonly if

limu↑xF

sup0<x<xF−u

|Fu(x)−Gξ,β(u)(x)| = 0

for some positive function β and where Gξ,β(u) is the generalized Paretodistribution (GPD)

• Tail estimation: F (x) = P(X > x) ≈ Nun Gξ,β(x− u), x ≥ u .

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 14

Page 16: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 1: EVT - POT

• For (ξ > 0),

F ∈ MDA(Hξ) ⇐⇒ F (x) = x−1/ξL(x)

with L slowly varying. This means that for x > 0,

F (tx)F (t)

=P(X > tx)P(X > t)

−→ x−1/ξ, t →∞ .

• A graphical device for checking the above condition:

plot log(Fn(x)) versus log(x)

where Fn is the empirical distribution function of (X1, . . . , Xn) and

check for

(ultimate) linearity

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 15

Page 17: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 1: EVT - POT

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••• • •••••• •••••• • •• • • •••

•••

10 50 100

0.00

005

0.00

050

0.00

500

0.05

000

x (on log scale)

1-F

(x)

(on

log

scal

e)

99

95

99

95

99

95

p Quantile ES99.00% 27.28 58.2499.90% 94.33 191.5399.99% 304.90 610.13

EVT software: EVIS (www.math.ethz.ch/∼mcneil)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 16

Page 18: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 1: EVT - POT

• Modeling of Operational Risk (Basel II)

pooled operational losses

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

010

2030

40

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 17

Page 19: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 2: MEVT

USD/DEM

US

D/J

PY

••

•••

••

••

•• ••• • •• ••

••

••

••

•••

• •

• •

••

••

•• ••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••••

•••

••

•• •

•••

•••

•• ••

••

•• •• ••

••

••

•• •

••

• •

• •

• •

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• ••

••

• •

•••

••

••••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••• •

••

• •

• •

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••• •

•••

••

•••• •

••••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••• •

••

• •••••

••

• ••

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

••••

••• •

•••

•••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

• •

• ••

• •

••• •

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••••

••

• ••

•••

••

••

•••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

• ••

•• •

•• •

••

••

• •

•• •

••

• •

••

•• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

• •

••

• • ••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

•••

• ••

••

••

•••••• • •

• ••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

• •••

• •

•••

••••

• •

••

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

•• •

• •• •

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

•••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••••

• •••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •

• •

••

• ••

•••

•••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

• •• •

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

• ••

•••

••

••

•••

••

••

• •

•••••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

•• •

••

•••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

• ••

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

•••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

•••

•••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••• •

••

• •

•••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

•• •

••

••

••

• ••

• •

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

•••

• •••

• •

••

••

• ••

•••

••

•• •• •

•••

••

•••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

• ••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

•• •• •

••

••

••

••

••

•••

• •

••

• ••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •••

••

•••

••

••

••

•••

•••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

• •••

• •

••••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••••

• ••

••

••

• •

• •

•••••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

• •

•••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •••

••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

• •

• ••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

• •

••

• •

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

• ••

•••

••

••

••

••

•• • •

••

••

•• •

••

••

••

••

•• ••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

•• •

••

••

• •

••

•••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• ••

••

••••

•• •

••

••

••

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

••

••

• •• •

• •

••

•• •

••

••

•••

••

••

••

Bivariate daily returns of DEM and JPY FX rates quoted against

US Dollar from February 1986 up to the end of December 1998

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 18

Page 20: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 2: MEVT

• Suppose that the d-dimensional random vector X has a regularly

varying tail distribution, i.e., the tail behaviour of X is characterised

by a tail index α and the limit

P( ‖X‖ > tx,X/‖X‖ ∈ ·)P(‖X‖ > t)

v−→ x−α P(Θ ∈ ·),

where x > 0, t →∞, exists. The distribution function of Θ is the

spectral distribution of X

• Estimator:

P(Θ ∈ S) =1kn

n∑i=1

εxi/‖x‖kn,n(V (S))

where V (S) = {x ∈ Sd−1+ : x/‖x‖ ∈ S} .

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 19

Page 21: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 2: MEVT

1 Day returns

USD/DEM

USD/

JPY

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

••

• •

••

••• •

••••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

•••

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

• •

••

• •

• •

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

• •

• •

• •

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

• •

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

• •

••

•••

••

••

• •

••

• •

•••

• •

••

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

• •

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

••

1 Day returns

Angle

spec

tral d

ensit

y esti

mat

e

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0 Pi/2 Pi 3Pi/2 2Pi

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 20

Page 22: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example 3: COPULAE

d risks X1, . . . , Xd with continuous marginal distribution functions

F1, . . . , Fd

• Given the joint law FX(x) = P(X1 ≤ x1, . . . , Xd ≤ xd), there

exists a unique function C on [0, 1]d so that

FX(x) = C(F1(x1), . . . , Fd(xd))

(a copula C is a df on [0, 1]d with uniform margins)

• Given only F1, . . . , Fd and any copula C,

C(F1(x1), . . . , Fd(xd))

yields a joint model with the prescribed margins

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 21

Page 23: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Why are copulae useful

• Pedagogical: “Thinking beyond linear correlation”

• Stress testing: dependence: joint extremes, spillover,

contagion, . . .

• Worst case analysis under incomplete information:

given: • Xi ∼ Fi, i = 1, . . . , d, marginal 1-period risks

• Ψ(X): a financial position

• ∆: a one-period risk or pricing measure

task: find min∆(Ψ(X)) and max ∆(Ψ(X)) under the

above constraints

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 22

Page 24: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Simulation study

We consider m = 10000 companies. All losses given default are one

unit; total loss is number of defaulting companies. Set π = 0.005and ρ = 0.038, these being values corresponding to a homogeneous

group of “medium” credit quality in the KMV/CreditMetrics

Gaussian approach. We set ν = 10 in the t-model and perform

100000 simulations to determine the loss distribution.

The risk is compared by comparing high quantiles of the loss

distributions (the so-called Value-at-Risk approach to measuring risk)

Results Min 25% Med Mean 75% 90% 95% Max

Gauss 1 28 43 49.8 64 90 109 331

t 0 1 9 49.9 42 132 235 3238

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 23

Page 25: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Many questions remain to be studied

• statistical fitting

• high-dimensional copulae

• dynamic modeling

• stylized facts on copulae

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 24

Page 26: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Risk management consequences

• First Fundamental Theorem of Integrated Risk Management(1FTIRM): For elliptically distributed risk vectors, classical IRM

tools like VaR, Markowitz portfolio approach, work fine

Recall:

D Y in Rd is spherical if Y d= UY for all orthogonal matrices U

D X = AY + b, A ∈ Rd×d, b ∈ Rd is called elliptical

D Let Z ∼ Nd(0,Σ), W ≥ 0, independent of Z, then

X = µ + WZ

is elliptical (multivariate normal variance-mixtures)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 25

Page 27: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Risk management consequences

• If one takes

W =√

ν/V , V ∼ χ2ν, then X is multivariate tν

W normal inverse Gaussian, then X is generalized hyperbolic

• 2FTIRM: (much more important!)

For non-elliptically distributed risk vectors, 1FTIRM breaks down:

- VaR is typically non-subadditive

- risk capital allocation is non-consistent

- portfolio optimization is risk-measure dependent

- correlation based methods are insufficient

• A(n early) stylized fact:

In practice, portfolio risk factors typically are non-elliptical

Question: are these deviations relevant, important?

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 26

Page 28: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Some common fallacies

(often appearing in disguise!)

• Fallacy 1: Marginal distributions and their correlation matrix

uniquely determine the joint distribution

True for elliptical families, wrong in general (copulae)

• Fallacy 2: Given two one-period risks X1, X2, VaR(X1 + X2) is

maximal for the case where the correlation ρ(X1, X2) is maximal

True for elliptical families, wrong in general (non-coherence of

VaR)

• Fallacy 3: Small correlation ρ(X1, X2) implies that X1 and X2

are close to being independent

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 27

Page 29: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

An example concerning fallacy 3

• Two country risks X1 and X2

- Z ∼ N(0, 1), U ∼ UNIF({−1,+1}), P(U = −1) = 1/2 = P (U = 1)U stands for an economic stress generator, independent of Z

- As a consequence:

X1 = Z ∼ N(0, 1) , X2 = UZ ∼ N(0, 1)

- Moreover:

Cov(X1, X2) = E(X1X2) = E(UZ2) = E(U)E(Z2) = 0

Hence ρ(X1, X2) = 0 .- However, X1 and X2 are strongly dependent: with 50% probability

comonotone, with 50% countermonotone- Also note that X1 + X2 = Z(1 + U) is not normally distributed

• This Example can be made much more realistic

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 28

Page 30: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

C. Quantifying Regulatory Capital for

Operational Risk

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 29

Page 31: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

The New Accord (Basel II)

• 1988: Basel Accord (Basel I): minimum capital requirements

against credit risk. One standardised approach

• 1996: Amendment to Basel I: market risk.

• 1999: First Consultative Paper on the New Accord (Basel II).

• to date: CP3: Third Consultative Paper on the

New Basel Capital Accord. (www.bis.org/bcbs/bcbscp3.htmcp3)

• end of 2003 (?): Revision of CP3

• end of 2006 (?): full implementation of Basel II ([10])

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 30

Page 32: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

What’s new?

• Rationale for the New Accord: More flexibility and risk sensitivity

• Structure of the New Accord: Three-pillar framework:

Ê Pillar 1: minimal capital requirements (risk measurement)

Ë Pillar 2: supervisory review of capital adequacy

Ì Pillar 3: public disclosure

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 31

Page 33: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

What’s new? (cont’d)

• Two options for the measurement of credit risk:

D Standard approach

D Internal rating based approach (IRB)

• Pillar 1 sets out the minimum capital requirements:

total amount of capital

risk-weighted assets≥ 8%

• MRC (minimum regulatory capital)def= 8% of risk-weighted assets

• Explicit treatment of operational risk (the risk of losses resultingfrom inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems,or external events)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 32

Page 34: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

What’s new? (cont’d)

• Notation: COP: capital charge for operational risk

• Target: COP ≈ 12% of MRC

• Estimated total losses in the US (2001): $50b

• Some examples

D 1977: Credit Suisse Chiasso-affair

D 1995: Nick Leeson/Barings Bank, £1.3b

D 2001: Enron (largest US bankruptcy so far)

D 2003: Banque Cantonale de Vaudoise, KBV Winterthur

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 33

Page 35: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Risk measurement methods for OP risks

Pillar 1 regulatory minimal capital requirements for operational risk:

Three distinct approaches:

Ê Basic Indicator Approach

Ë Standardised Approach

Ì Advanced Measurement Approaches (AMA)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 34

Page 36: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Basic Indicator Approach

• Capital charge:

CBIAOP = α×GI

• CBIAOP : capital charge under the Basic Indicator Approach

• GI: average annual gross income over the previous three years

• α = 15% (set by the Committee)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 35

Page 37: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Standardised Approach

• Similar to the BIA, but on the level of each business line:

CSAOP =

8∑i=1

βi ×GIi

βi ∈ [12%, 18%], i = 1, 2, . . . , 8.

• 8 business lines:

Corporate finance Payment & Settlement

Trading & sales Agency Services

Retail banking Asset management

Commercial banking Retail brokerage

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 36

Page 38: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Advanced Measurement Approaches (AMA)

• Allows banks to use their internally generated risk estimates

• Preconditions: Bank must meet qualitative and quantitative

standards before using the AMA

• Risk mitigation via insurance allowed

• AMA1: Internal measurement approach

• AMA2: Loss distribution approach

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 37

Page 39: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Internal Measurement Approach

• Capital charge:

C IMAOP =

8∑i=1

7∑k=1

γik eik

eik: expected loss for business line i, risk type k

γik: scaling factor

• 7 loss types: Internal fraud

External fraud

Employment practices and workplace safety

Clients, products & business practices

Damage to physical assets

Business disruption and system failures

Execution, delivery & process management

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 38

Page 40: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Loss Distribution Approach

• For each business line/risk type cell (i, k) one models

LT+1i,k : OP risk loss for business line/risk type cell (i, k) over

the period [T, T + 1].

Lti,k =

Nti,k∑

`=1

X`i,k

COPi,k = g(Lt+1

i,k ) =

F←Lt+1(α) = VaRα(Lt+1)

ESα(Lt+1) = E[Lt+1|Lt+1 > VaRα(Lt+1)]

COP =∑i,k

g(Lt+1i,k ) (perfect correlation)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 39

Page 41: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Some datatype 1

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

010

2030

40

type 2

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

05

1015

20

type 3

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

02

46

8

pooled operational losses

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

010

2030

40

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 40

Page 42: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Modelling issues

• Stylized facts about OP risk losses

D Loss occurrence times are irregularly spaced in time

(selection bias, economic cycles, regulation, management interactions,. . . )

D Loss amounts show extremes

• Large losses are of main concern!

• Repetitive vs non-repetitive losses

• Warning flag: Are observations in line with modeling assumptions?

• Example: “iid” assumption implies

D NO structural changes in the data as time evolves

D Irrelevance of which loss is denoted X1, which one X2,. . .

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 41

Page 43: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

The Problem

• In-sample estimation of VaRα(Lt+1) (α large) impossible!

• Estimation of the (far-) tail of Lt via subcategories:

L =N∑

`=1

Y` , 1− FY (x) ∼ x−αh(x) , x →∞

Ü 1− FL(x) ∼ E[N ]x−αh(x) , x →∞

• Standard actuarial techniques:

D Approximation (translated gamma/lognormal)

D Inversion methods (FFT)

D Recursive methods (Panjer)

D Simulation

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 42

Page 44: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

How accurate are VaR-estimates?

• Assumptions:

D (Lm) iid ∼ F

D For some ξ, β and u large (Gξ,β: GPD):

Fu(x) := P(L− u ≤ x|L > u) = Gξ,β(u)(x)

• Tail- and quantile estimate:

1− FL(x) =Nu

n

(1 + ξ

x− u

β

)−1/ξ

, x > u.

VaRα = qα = u− β

ξ

(1−

( Nu

n(1− α)

)ξ ) (1)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 43

Page 45: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

How accurate are VaR-estimates? (cont’d)

• Idea: Comparison of estimated quantiles with the corresponding

theoretical ones by means of a simulation study ([9]).

• Simulation procedure:

Ê Choose F and fix α0 < α < 1, Nu (# of data points above u)

Ë Calculate u = qα0 and the true value of the quantile qα

Ì Sample Nu independent points of F above u by the rejection method. Recordthe total number n of sampled points this requires

Í Estimate ξ, β by fitting the GPD to the Nu exceedances over u by means ofMLE.

Î Determine qα according to (1)

Ï Repeat N times the above to arrive at estimates of Bias(qα) and SE(qα)

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 44

Page 46: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

How accurate are VaR-estimates? (cont’d)

• Accuracy of the quantile estimate expressed in terms of bias and

standard error:

Bias(qα) = E[qα − qα], SE(qα) = E[(qα − qα)2

]1/2

Bias =1N

N∑j=1

qjα − qα SE =

( 1N

N∑j=1

(qjα − qα)2

)1/2

• Ideally, Bias AND SE small

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 45

Page 47: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example: Pareto distribution with θ = 2

u = F←(xq) α Goodness of VaRα

0.99 A minimum number of 100 exceedances(corresponding to 333 observations) is requiredto ensure accuracy wrt bias and standard error.

q = 0.70.999 A minimum number of 200 exceedances

(corresponding to 667 observations) is requiredto ensure accuracy wrt bias and standard error.

0.99 Full accuracy can be achieved with the minimumnumber 25 of exceedances (corresponding to 250observations).

q = 0.90.999 A minimum number of 100 exceedances

(corresponding to 1000 observations) is requiredto ensure accuracy wrt bias and standard error.

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 46

Page 48: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Example: Pareto distribution with θ = 1

u = F←(xq) α Goodness of VaRα

0.99 For all number of exceedances up to 200(corresponding to a minimum of 667 observations)the VaR estimates fail to meet the accuracycriteria.

q = 0.70.999 For all number of exceedances up to 200

(corresponding to a minimum of 667 observations)the VaR estimates fail to meet the accuracycriteria.

0.99 A minimum number of 100 exceedances(corresponding to 1000 observations) is requiredto ensure accuracy wrt bias and standard error.

q = 0.90.999 A minimum number of 200 exceedances

(corresponding to 2000 observations) is requiredto ensure accuracy wrt bias and standard error.

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 47

Page 49: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

How accurate are VaR-estimates? (cont’d)

• Minimum number of observations increases as the tails become

thicker ([9]).

• Large number of observations necessary to achieve targeted

accuracy.

• Remember: The simulation study was done under idealistic

assumptions. OP risk losses, however, typically do NOT fulfil

these assumptions.

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 48

Page 50: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Conclusions

• OP risk 6=market risk, credit risk

• “Multiplicative structure” of OP risk losses ([8])

S × T ×M (Selection-Training-Monitoring)

• Actuarial methods (including EVT) aiming to derive capital charges

are of limited use due to

D lack of data

D inconsistency of the data with the modeling assumptions

• OP risk loss databases must grow

• Sharing/pooling internal operational risk data?

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 49

Page 51: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

Conclusions (cont’d)

• Choice of risk measure?

• Heavy-tailed ruin estimation for general risk processes ([7])

• Alternatives?

D Insurance. Example: FIORI, Swiss Re (Financial Institution

Operating Risk Insurance)

D Securitization / Capital market products

• OP risk charges can not be based on statistical modeling alone

I Pillar 2 (overall OP risk management such as analysis of causes,

prevention, . . . ) more important than Pillar 1

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 50

Page 52: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

References

[1] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The New Basel Capital Accord.April 2003. BIS, Basel, Switzerland, www.bis.org/bcbs

[2] Various papers on www.math.ethz.ch/∼embrechts

[3] Embrechts, P., Furrer, H.J., and Kaufmann, R. (2003). Quantifying RegulatoryCapital for Operational Risk. To appear in Derivatives Use, Trading andRegulation. Also available on www.bis.org/bcbs/cp3comments.htm

[4] Embrechts, P., Frey, R., and McNeil, A. (2004). Stochastic Methods forQuantitative Risk Management. To appear.

[5] Embrechts, P., Kaufmann, R., and Samorodnitsky, G. (2002). Ruin theoryrevisited: stochastic models for operational risk. Submitted.

[6] Embrechts, P., Kluppelberg, C., and Mikosch, T. (1997). Modelling ExtremalEvents for Insurance and Finance. Springer, Berlin.

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 51

Page 53: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

[7] Embrechts, P., and Samorodnitsky, G. (2003). Ruin problem and how faststochastic processes mix. Annals of Applied Probability, Vol. 13, 1-36.

[8] Geiger, H. (2000). Regulating and Supervising Operational Risk for Banks.Working paper, University of Zurich.

[9] McNeil, A. J., and Saladin, T. (1997). The peaks over thresholds methodfor estimating high quantiles of loss distributions. Proceedings of XXVIIthInternational ASTIN Colloquium, Cairns, Australia, 23-43.

[10] The Economist (2003). Blockage in Basel. Vol. 369, No 8344, October 2003.

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 52

Page 54: EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads?embrecht/ftp/genevaDec03.pdf · EVT and COPULAE: Essential Riskmanagement Tools or Just Fads? Paul Embrechts ETH Zurich

D. Conclusions

• Questions in Quantitative Risk Management are directly concerned

with extremes and dependence

• EVT (stochastic theory of extremal events) and Copulae (joint

distributions) are canonical tools

• These tools should not be used blindly

• Always check necessary conditions

• They are essential Risk Management tools

c©2003 RiskLab (Paul Embrechts) 53