Next Article in Journal
Stochastic Period and Cohort Effect State-Space Mortality Models Incorporating Demographic Factors via Probabilistic Robust Principal Components
Previous Article in Journal
The Class of (p,q)-spherical Distributions with an Extension of the Sector and Circle Number Functions
Article Menu
Issue 3 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Risks 2017, 5(3), 41; doi:10.3390/risks5030041

Robust Estimation of Value-at-Risk through Distribution-Free and Parametric Approaches Using the Joint Severity and Frequency Model: Applications in Financial, Actuarial, and Natural Calamities Domains

Systems Engineering & Operations Research, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Mogens Steffensen
Received: 31 May 2017 / Revised: 5 July 2017 / Accepted: 21 July 2017 / Published: 26 July 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [6492 KB, uploaded 1 August 2017]   |  

Abstract

Value-at-Risk (VaR) is a well-accepted risk metric in modern quantitative risk management (QRM). The classical Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) approach, denoted henceforth as the classical approach, assumes the independence of loss severity and loss frequency. In practice, this assumption does not always hold true. Through mathematical analyses, we show that the classical approach is prone to significant biases when the independence assumption is violated. This is also corroborated by studying both simulated and real-world datasets. To overcome the limitations and to more accurately estimate VaR, we develop and implement the following two approaches for VaR estimation: the data-driven partitioning of frequency and severity (DPFS) using clustering analysis, and copula-based parametric modeling of frequency and severity (CPFS). These two approaches are verified using simulation experiments on synthetic data and validated on five publicly available datasets from diverse domains; namely, the financial indices data of Standard & Poor’s 500 and the Dow Jones industrial average, chemical loss spills as tracked by the US Coast Guard, Australian automobile accidents, and US hurricane losses. The classical approach estimates VaR inaccurately for 80% of the simulated data sets and for 60% of the real-world data sets studied in this work. Both the DPFS and the CPFS methodologies attain VaR estimates within 99% bootstrap confidence interval bounds for both simulated and real-world data. We provide a process flowchart for risk practitioners describing the steps for using the DPFS versus the CPFS methodology for VaR estimation in real-world loss datasets. View Full-Text
Keywords: risk management; simulation; copula; loss severity modeling; Value-at-Risk risk management; simulation; copula; loss severity modeling; Value-at-Risk
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Guharay, S.; Chang, K.; Xu, J. Robust Estimation of Value-at-Risk through Distribution-Free and Parametric Approaches Using the Joint Severity and Frequency Model: Applications in Financial, Actuarial, and Natural Calamities Domains. Risks 2017, 5, 41.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Risks EISSN 2227-9091 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top