Skip to main content

Misspecified Dependency Modelling: What Does It Mean for Risk Measurement?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Operations Research Proceedings 2013

Part of the book series: Operations Research Proceedings ((ORP))

  • 1558 Accesses

Abstract

Forecasting portfolio risk requires both, estimation of marginal return distributions for individual assets and dependence structure of returns as well. Due to the fact, that the marginal return distribution represents the main impact factor on portfolio volatility, the impact of dependency modeling which is required for instance in the field of Credit Pricing, Portfolio Sensitivity Analysis or Correlation Trading is rarely investigated that far. In this paper, we explicitly focus on the impact of decoupled dependency modeling in the context of risk measurement. We do so, by setting up an extensive simulation analysis which enables us to analyze competing copula approaches (Clayton, Frank, Gauss, Gumbel and t copula) under the assumption that the “true” marginal distribution is known. By simulating return series with different realistic dependency schemes accounting for time varying dependency as well as tail dependence, we show that the choice of copula becomes crucial for VaR, especially in volatile dependency schemes. Albeit the Gauss copula approach does neither account for time variance nor for tail dependence, it represents a solid tool throughout all investigated dependency schemes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The analysis is based on applied loss functions in an empirical setup.

  2. 2.

    We applied the CPA test proposed by Giacomini and White (2006) to prove this fact. Results are available upon request.

  3. 3.

    The empirical backtesting performance would get rejected by statistical backtesting criteria, “conditional coverage”, by Christoffersen (1998).

  4. 4.

    Results are available upon request.

  5. 5.

    The “first best” solution is always the original model.

References

  1. Ane, T., & Kharoubi, C. (2003). Dependence structure and risk measure. The Journal of Business, 76(3), 411–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Christoffersen P. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4), 841–862.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fantazzini, D. (2009). The effects of misspecified marginals and copulas on computing the value at risk: A Monte Carlo study. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 53(6), 2168–2188.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Giacomini, R. and H. White (2006). Tests of Conditional Predictive Ability. Econometrica, 74(6), 1545–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Joe, H. (1996). Families of m-variate distributions with given margins and m (m-1)/2 bivariate dependence parameters. In L. Ruschendorf, B. Schweizer, M. D. Taylor (Eds.), Distributions with fixed margins and related topics (Vol. 28, pp. 120–141). IMS Lecture Notes Monograph Seriex.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nelson, R.B. (1990). An Introduction to Copulas. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sklar, C. (1959). Fonctions de repartition a n dimensions et leurs marges (Vol. 8, pp. 229–231). Publicationss de Institut Statistique de Universite de Paris.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theo Berger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Berger, T. (2014). Misspecified Dependency Modelling: What Does It Mean for Risk Measurement?. In: Huisman, D., Louwerse, I., Wagelmans, A. (eds) Operations Research Proceedings 2013. Operations Research Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07001-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics