Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods

The Korean Statistical Society (한국통계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Value at Risk of portfolios using copulas

  • Byun, Kiwoong (Department of Business and Administration, Korea University) ;
  • Song, Seongjoo (Department of Statistics, Korea University)
  • Received : 2020.08.29
  • Accepted : 2020.10.23
  • Published : 2021.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Value at Risk (VaR) is one of the most common risk management tools in finance. Since a portfolio of several assets, rather than one asset portfolio, is advantageous in the risk diversification for investment, VaR for a portfolio of two or more assets is often used. In such cases, multivariate distributions of asset returns are considered to calculate VaR of the corresponding portfolio. Copulas are one way of generating a multivariate distribution by identifying the dependence structure of asset returns while allowing many different marginal distributions. However, they are used mainly for bivariate distributions and are not widely used in modeling joint distributions for many variables in finance. In this study, we would like to examine the performance of various copulas for high dimensional data and several different dependence structures. This paper compares copulas such as elliptical, vine, and hierarchical copulas in computing the VaR of portfolios to find appropriate copula functions in various dependence structures among asset return distributions. In the simulation studies under various dependence structures and real data analysis, the hierarchical Clayton copula shows the best performance in the VaR calculation using four assets. For marginal distributions of single asset returns, normal inverse Gaussian distribution was used to model asset return distributions, which are generally high-peaked and heavy-tailed.

Keywords

References

  1. Aas K, Haff IH, and Dimakos XK (2005). Risk estimation using the multivariate normal inverse Gaussian distribution, The Journal of Risk, 8, 39-60.
  2. Aas K, Czado C, Frigessi A, and Bakken H (2009). Pair-copula constructions of multiple dependence, Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 44, 182-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2007.02.001
  3. Barndorff-Nielsen OE (1997). Normal inverse Gaussian distributions and stochastic volatility modelling, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 24, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9469.t01-1-00045
  4. Barndorff-Nielsen OE, Mikosch T, and Resnick SI (2001). L'evy Processes: Theory and Applications, Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
  5. Bolviken E and Benth FE (2000). Quantification of risk in Norwegian stocks via the normal inverse Gaussian distribution, In Proceedings of the AFIR 2000 Colloquium, Tromso, Norway, 87-98.
  6. Charpentier A (2003). Tail distribution and dependence measures, In Proceedings of the 34th ASTIN Conference, Berlin, Germany, 1-25.
  7. Cherubini U, Mulinacci S, Gobbi F, and Romagnoli S (2011). Dynamic Copula Methods in Finance, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  8. Doric D and Doric EN (2011). Return distribution and value at risk estimation for BELEX15, Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 21, 103-118. https://doi.org/10.2298/YJOR1101103D
  9. Eberlein E and Keller U (1995). Hyperbolic distributions in finance, Bernoulli, 1, 281-299. https://doi.org/10.3150/bj/1193667819
  10. Embrechts P, McNeil A, and Straumann D (2002). Correlation and dependence in risk management: properties and pitfalls, Risk Management: Value at Risk and Beyond, 1, 176-223. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615337.008
  11. Eriksson A, Ghysels E, and Wang F (2009). The normal inverse Gaussian distribution and the pricing of derivatives, The Journal of Derivatives, 16, 23-37. https://doi.org/10.3905/JOD.2009.16.3.023
  12. Godin F, Mayoral S, and Morales M (2012). Contingent claim pricing using a normal inverse Gaussian probability distortion operator, Journal of Risk and Insurance, 79, 841-866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6975.2011.01445.x
  13. Goncu A and Yang H (2016). Variance-Gamma and normal-inverse Gaussian models: goodness-of-fit to Chinese high-frequency index returns, The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 36, 279-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2016.02.004
  14. Hull J and White A (1998). Value at risk when daily changes in market variables are not normally distributed, Journal of Derivatives, 5, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1998.407998
  15. Joe H (1997). Multivariate Models and Multivariate Dependence Concepts, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
  16. Jorion P (2007). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk (3rd ed), McGraw-Hill, New York.
  17. Kalemanova A, Schmid B, and Werner R (2007). The normal inverse Gaussian distribution for synthetic CDO pricing, The Journal of Derivatives, 14, 80-94. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.2007.681815
  18. Kim T and Song S (2011). Value-at-risk estimation using NIG and VG distribution, Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society, 13, 1775-1788.
  19. Kole E, Koedijk K, and Verbeek M (2007). Selecting copulas for risk management, Journal of Banking & Finance, 31, 2405-2423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.09.010
  20. Kraus D and Czado C (2017). D-vine copula based quantile regression, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 110, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2016.12.009
  21. Kupiec P (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models, The Journal of Derivatives, 3, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.1995.407942
  22. Low RKY, Alcock J, Faff R, and Brailsford T (2013). Canonical vine copulas in the context of modern portfolio management: Are they worth it?, Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 3085-3099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.02.036
  23. Mabitsela L, Mare E, and Kufakunesu R (2015). Quantification of VaR: A note on VaR valuation in the South African equity market, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 8, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm8010103
  24. Madan DB, Carr PP, and Chang EC (1998). The variance gamma process and option pricing, Review of Finance, 2, 79-105. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009703431535
  25. Markowitz H (1952). Portfolio selection, The Journal of Finance, 7, 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x
  26. Okhrin O and Ristig A (2014). Hierarchical Archimedean copulae: the HAC package, Journal of Statistical Software, 58, 1-20.
  27. Okhrin O and Tetereva A (2017). The realized hierarchical archimedean copula in risk Modelling, Econometrics, 5, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics5010001
  28. Schoutens W (2003). Levy Processes in Finance: Pricing Financial Derivatives, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  29. Sklar A (1959). Fonctions de repartition an dimensions et leurs marges, Publications de l'Institut Statistique de l'Universite de Paris, 8, 229-231.
  30. Trivedi PK and Zimmer DM (2007). Copula modeling: an introduction for practitioners, Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 1, 1-111. https://doi.org/10.1561/0800000005
  31. Venkataraman S (1997). Value at risk for a mixture of normal distributions: the use of quasi-Bayesian estimation techniques, Economic Perspectives-Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 21, 2-13.
  32. Weibel M, Breymann W, and Luthi D (2020). ghyp: A package on generalized hyperbolic distributions, Manual for R Package ghyp.
  33. Wilhelmsson A (2009). Value at Risk with time varying variance, skewness and kurtosis-the NIG-ACD model, The Econometrics Journal, 12, 82-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2008.00277.x
  34. Wu F, Valdez E, and Sherris M (2007). Simulating from exchangeable Archimedean copulas, Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 36, 1019-1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610910701539781