the var estimation in historical simulation approach open issues and some practical proposals...
Post on 15-Jan-2016
223 views
TRANSCRIPT
The VaR Estimation in Historical Simulation Approach Open Issues and Some Practical Proposals
Michele Bonollo [email protected] Rinaldi – Prometeia [email protected]
Conference on Numerical Methods in Finance, Paris 2009
2
Index
PART I Market Risk Mgt and Historical simulation approach The stylized context vs. the real world context
The challenges of the real world numbers
Historical Simulation approach. Review of the canonical steps
PART II Historical simulation: Open isues, some possible approaches Issue 1. Scenario P&L. multidimensional full evaluation vs. marginal full evaluation
Issue 2. VaR Estimation. Scenario weighting by and quantile etimation
Issue 3. Component VaR. Expected return approach vs hybrid parametric approach
PART III Just a practical view of the reporting system
3
PART I
4
Introduction …
Once (3-4 years ago) a (world famous) financial mathematics researcher asked me “What about your work”; I said “I work on market risk, VaR
computation”. He said “Again VaR ? Is is just a quantile …”. While exiting from his University, my feeling was “why so hard to meet theoretical and applied
perspective?”.
I do not know the exact answer: in my experience the real world problems are always cross among several fields of knowledge: asset management, financial instruments, financial mathematics, statistics, computation science, regulatory contraints, reporting processes and so on. The theoretical research is (must be)
very deep on each task. In the next slides a (vey small) step to take in to account both them
5
Market Risk Management: stylized view vs. real world
In the usual book description, one has two keys concepts concerning the VaR
The single instrument/position j
The portfolio, i.e. the vector of weights w = (w1, …,wj, …,wN)
The implied underlying idea is that one has to compute the risk measures (VaR, ES, ..) for the whole portoflio, for the single instrument/position, and at most for a few number of subportoflios, following the asset class or other clustering variable
6
Market Risk Management: stylized view vs. real world
In the actual risk managament process, the portolio is a complex multilevel tree, where the different levels refer to:
The banks of the groups, the types of strategies, the families of products, the risk factors, …..
7
Historical Simulation approach. The canonical steps
Let
t=1..T the id of scenarios: T = 250, 500 daily
j = 1…N the number of position/instruments
m = (m1…mK) the vector of market paramers underlying
f( ) the pricing functions
The steps are
1. Collect time series for underlyings/market parameters mt
2. From data to shocks/returns st. Compound, or continuous, …
3. Evaluation of Scenario P&L: PLj,t = fj(mjt + sj
t) – fj(mj)
4. Aggregate scenario P&Ls for the required cluster P&LCt = …
5. Estimate the Quantile – VaR or any other risk measure (ES, CVaR, ..)
8
The challenges of the real world numbers
Some numbers (magnitudes) from our bank, the 4-th in Italy
100.000 elementary positions, the > 90% derivatives
portfolio tree with 1.000 nodes
100 billions € of Notional in derivatives
> 1.000 elementary risk factors (IR buckets, underlyings, …)
As concerns the number of variables for which to apply a possible clustering, we have > 10 variables, related to: portfolio/desk, risk factor, product family, issuer/counterparty
Each day, we deliver (at least) 892 “standard” VaR, by .txt file. Moreover the Risk Manager can browse the whole portoflio and to compute the VaR for each required cluster or risk factor (equity, interest, forex) class. The combinations (hypercube D = 10)
∞ 20 millions of pricing each day: (Instrument x Scenario x RFactor)
9
Historical Simulation: the basic schema
From the single positions j P&L
… to the cluster P&L
PTF A = Deal1 + Deal2
Deal
(a possible) VaR estimation
PTF
10
Risque Merlino
Pricing Sophis (3) Pricing Prometeia (3)MaPaC (1-2)
Staging Area
Repository (4)
Process 1
Process 2
Process 3
Process …
Estrattori
Calcolo P&L Calcolo HVaR Risk Contributions Browsing
QlikView (5)
Exp
or
t
Clu
sterin
g
Cle
an
ing
VaR
C
om
pu
tatio
n
Rep
ortin
g
Positio
ns
Fro
nt O
ffice
Pricin
g
En
gin
es
Bloomberg ReutersMoneyMate
Provider N
Historical Simulation: Canonical algorithm in the IT actual architecture
ShocksShocks
11
PART II
12
Issue 1: ScenarioP&L, Full evaluation and marginal Full evaluation Each day t the market parameters mt move togehter
But, for compliance and strategic views, one often want to decomposte the different sources of risk in a single instrument/portfolio: equity, interest, forex
So the straigh way is to aply marginal shocks stk and then to evaluate the marginal P&Lj,t,k
But P&Lj,t k P&Lj,t,k
If we suppose that the pricing functions are smooth and follow a taylor representation, it
happens because k P&Lj,t,k consistes of the sum of all the “pure” derivatives, up to ∞, in the
taylor expansion, and the interaction terms are lost. Very often the first two terms are enough in the expansion, so the difference is mainly due to the terms ou fo the diagonal in the Hessian matrix of the pricing function
How to “reconciliate” the two measures? We remind the “data oriented” HS schema requires to use a unique large table (millions of rows) and we can not row by row deal with different cases
13
PLAIN VANILLA OPTION
-8.000
-6.000
-4.000
-2.000
-
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
17/0
9/2
008
04/0
9/2
008
22/0
8/2
008
11/0
8/2
008
29/0
7/2
008
16/0
7/2
008
03/0
7/2
008
20/0
6/2
008
09/0
6/2
008
27/0
5/2
008
14/0
5/2
008
30/0
4/2
008
15/0
4/2
008
02/0
4/2
008
19/0
3/2
008
06/0
3/2
008
22/0
2/2
008
11/0
2/2
008
29/0
1/2
008
16/0
1/2
008
03/0
1/2
008
18/1
2/2
007
05/1
2/2
007
22/1
1/2
007
09/1
1/2
007
29/1
0/2
007
16/1
0/2
007
03/1
0/2
007
20/0
9/2
007
07/0
9/2
007
27/0
8/2
007
13/0
8/2
007
31/0
7/2
007
18/0
7/2
007
05/0
7/2
007
22/0
6/2
007
08/0
6/2
007
28/0
5/2
007
15/0
5/2
007
02/0
5/2
007
18/0
4/2
007
05/0
4/2
007
23/0
3/2
007
12/0
3/2
007
27/0
2/2
007
14/0
2/2
007
01/0
2/2
007
19/0
1/2
007
08/0
1/2
007 -7,0%
-6,0%
-5,0%
-4,0%
-3,0%
-2,0%
-1,0%
0,0%
1,0%
Delta PV (Marginal Full evaluation)
% Difference - Full / Marginal Full
The graph below is an example of the difference for a plain vanilla option (SPMIB call) using two different approaches: Full Evaluation and Marginal Full Evaluation. % is small
Issue 1: ScenarioP&L, Full evaluation and marginal Full evaluation
14
Here we have a large, higly exotic portfolio (napoleon, altiplano, rainbow, ..). We poit out that the difference still are quite small
Aletti Bank
-7.000.000
-6.000.000
-5.000.000
-4.000.000
-3.000.000
-2.000.000
-1.000.000
0
1.000.000
2.000.000
3.000.000
4.000.00006
/03/
2009
24/0
2/20
09
12/0
2/20
09
02/0
2/20
09
21/0
1/20
09
09/0
1/20
09
29/1
2/20
08
15/1
2/20
08
02/1
2/20
08
20/1
1/20
08
10/1
1/20
08
29/1
0/20
08
17/1
0/20
08
07/1
0/20
08
25/0
9/20
08
15/0
9/20
08
03/0
9/20
08
22/0
8/20
08
11/0
8/20
08
30/0
7/20
08
18/0
7/20
08
08/0
7/20
08
26/0
6/20
08
16/0
6/20
08
04/0
6/20
08
23/0
5/20
08
13/0
5/20
08
30/0
4/20
08
17/0
4/20
08
07/0
4/20
08
26/0
3/20
08
13/0
3/20
08
-6000%
-4000%
-2000%
0%
2000%
4000%
6000%
8000%
Full Evaluation
% Difference
Issue 1: ScenarioP&L, Full evaluation and marginal Full evaluation
15
Issue 1: ScenarioP&L, Full evaluation and marginal Full evaluation
So what do we do? This interesting hard problem ha fortunately a small impact on computations. So depending from the different situations, we
have some different strategies: For linear or quasi linear portfolio (bond, equity) we can put by definition
P&L SUM of marginal P&L
In other cases we take the residual and we split it to the different sources in any way. Consider that this task is very frequent. For example an equity
in $ has each day a new value Vt that is Vt = Vt-1 x (1+Rt)(1+FXt), where R
anf FX represent the share and the $ return. The interaction effect (R x FX) has to be splitted. The issue is well konwn also in asset management, as “performace contribution – attribution”, see Brinson, Carino, ….
16
Here we have to consider a trade off between some different goals:
The quantile estimation, e.g. the simplest empirical quantile (the 5-th worst scenario if T =500, = 99%), has a high variance behaviour. This is a well known problem in order statistics theory (see David, Huber, ..), but is forgotten from practitioners.
From a risk management perspective, one has to optimize the back testing statistics. In other words, the out of sample P&L that exxcee the ex-ante VaR must be close to the expected frequency. In a 1-year VaR estimation = 99%, I would expect that only 2.5 times the daily P&L is below the VaR prediction. The accuracy of back testing implies a different capital requiremet by the central bank. If good, the capital requirement is (approximately) 3 times the 10-days 99% VaR
The risk changes over time but it remains unobservable. We can use (see Boudoukh 1996, Finger 2008) also in the non parametric historical simulation approach a weighting technique à la RiskMetrics. In this case, we weight the probability of scenario before estimating the quantile
Issue 2: The quantile estimation and scenario weighting by
17
-15.000.000
-13.000.000
-11.000.000
-9.000.000
-7.000.000
-5.000.000
-3.000.000
-1.000.000
04/0
8/2
008
11/0
8/2
008
18/0
8/2
008
25/0
8/2
008
01/0
9/2
008
08/0
9/2
008
15/0
9/2
008
22/0
9/2
008
29/0
9/2
008
06/1
0/2
008
13/1
0/2
008
20/1
0/2
008
27/1
0/2
008
03/1
1/2
008
10/1
1/2
008
17/1
1/2
008
24/1
1/2
008
01/1
2/2
008
08/1
2/2
008
15/1
2/2
008
22/1
2/2
008
29/1
2/2
008
05/0
1/2
009
12/0
1/2
009
19/0
1/2
009
26/0
1/2
009
VaR 99%
VaR 99% lambda 0,99
VaR 99% lambda 0,98
VaR 99% lambda 0,97• Holding period: 250
day• Confidence level: 99%
The graph below is an example of VaR calculation using different lambda parameters for a large exotic portfolio “Structured Product”. With is (now) more conservative
Issue 2: The quantile estimation and scenario weighting by
18
The VaR of the portfolio has been calculated using different parameters Lambda and is on a portfolio composed of the following indexes:
• Nikkey 225• S&P 500• EUROSTOXX 50E
The three indexes have thesame weight in the portfolio composition
The table shows expected and Effective outliers data Portfolio’s Profit & Loss compared with VaR calculated with different Lambda
PORTFOLIO EXPCTED OUTLIERS EFFECTIVE OUTLIERS
VAR 99% 2,5 7
VAR 99% ( 0,99) 2,5 5
VAR 99% ( 0,98) 2,5 5
VAR 99% ( 0,97) 2,5 6
Backtesting Analysis
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
-
100
200
300
400
500
19/0
2/2
008
04/0
3/2
008
18/0
3/2
008
01/0
4/2
008
15/0
4/2
008
29/0
4/2
008
13/0
5/2
008
27/0
5/2
008
10/0
6/2
008
24/0
6/2
008
08/0
7/2
008
22/0
7/2
008
05/0
8/2
008
19/0
8/2
008
02/0
9/2
008
16/0
9/2
008
30/0
9/2
008
14/1
0/2
008
28/1
0/2
008
11/1
1/2
008
25/1
1/2
008
09/1
2/2
008
23/1
2/2
008
06/0
1/2
009
20/0
1/2
009
03/0
2/2
009
P&L VAR 99%(Lambda 0,98)
VAR 99% VAR 99%(Lambda 0,97)
VAR 99%(Lambda 0,99)
• Holding period: 250 day
• Confidence level: 99%
Issue 2: The quantile estimation and scenario weighting by
19
The second exercise of Lambda Weighting was calculated for a portfolio with the followes shares:
• IT0001976403• IT0003856405• IT0001063210• IT0001334587• IT0000072725• DE0005557508• DE0005752000• DE0005140008• FR0000121261
This shares have thesame weight in the portfolio composition
The table shows Expected and Effective outliers data Portfolio’s Profit & Loss compared with VaR calculated with different Lambda
PORTFOLIO EXP. OUTLIERS EFFECTIVE OUTLIERS
VAR 99% 4.01 7
VAR 99% ( 0,99) 4.01 5
VAR 99% ( 0,98) 4.01 6
VAR 99% ( 0,97) 4.01 8
• Holding period: 401 day
• Confidence level: 99%
Backtesting Analysis
-3.000
-2.000
-1.000
-
1.000
2.000
3.000
20/
12/
2006
03/
01/
2007
17/
01/
2007
31/
01/
2007
14/
02/
2007
28/
02/
2007
14/
03/
2007
28/
03/
2007
11/
04/
2007
25/
04/
2007
09/
05/
2007
23/
05/
2007
06/
06/
2007
20/
06/
2007
04/
07/
2007
18/
07/
2007
01/
08/
2007
15/
08/
2007
29/
08/
2007
12/
09/
2007
26/
09/
2007
10/
10/
2007
24/
10/
2007
07/
11/
2007
21/
11/
2007
05/
12/
2007
19/
12/
2007
02/
01/
2008
16/
01/
2008
30/
01/
2008
13/
02/
2008
27/
02/
2008
12/
03/
2008
26/
03/
2008
09/
04/
2008
23/
04/
2008
07/
05/
2008
21/
05/
2008
04/
06/
2008
18/
06/
2008
02/
07/
2008
16/
07/
2008
P&L VaR 99% (Lambda 0,98)
VaR 99% VaR 99% (Lambda 0,97)
VaR 99% (Lambda 0,99)
Issue 2: The quantile estimation and scenario weighting by
20
So what do we do? At now (the project is in progress and fine tuning):
As concerns the high variance of the estimator, the system allows to smooth the system by simple L-estimator, e.g. we do not take the 5-th worst case, but we average in a neighbor. We have not yet applied more sophisticated technique, such as Harrel-Davis estimator (the weight of the scneario is given by its frequency in a bootsrap sampling), Cornish-Fischer and so on. Here, for auditing reasosn and reporting cotraints, converge to simplicity …
As concerns l, from april the “official VaR” is computed with l = 0.98., but each day we compute as a check/warning also the the “plain vanilla” VaR, the is the simplest quantile estimation. Consider that the computation effort is very hard. So we compute 2 x 892 VaR (Portoflio, clustering, …). Each one of them requires: sum of 10.000 100.000 P&L, sort them, estimate VaR. With a 48 (!!) GB RAM server, 20-30 minutes.
Issue 2: The quantile estimation and scenario weighting by
21
The additive decomposition of risk is veru useful. In the actual risk management process:
The risk limits are given as VaR limits or greeks limits (delta equivalent, basis point value, vega for 1% shift, ..). The strategic analysis of risk need to split the effect of the different desk /
porfolios on the risk: VaR = …
A good measure is the ComponentVaR (see Garman, Mausser, ..). Using for simplicity the % return notation, not the € P&L notation, if we have a partition of the portoflio indexed by i, the portfolio return is RP, the VaR is R*P, then
CVARi E(Ri | VaRP) = E (Ri | RP = R*P)
In the gaussian context, this reduces (see Garman, 96) to
CVaRi = R*P x i x c, between porfolio and subporfolio
If we apply the definition for the Historical case, if t* is the VaR scenario, we take the P&L for the
t* for the subportfolio as CVaRi (see Hallerbach). Nevertheless this simple tecnique may not be
used, becaues of high variance, low reliability.
Issue 3: Component VaR
22
Here we see the weakness of the described “pure” non parametric estimation, based of the expectation definition. The portfolio model is of european blue chips, higly correlated (avg 0.7)
Issue 3: Component VaR
23
A simple robust idea is to “plug-in” the beta-Garman formula in the non parametric approach. We compute over the T P&L scenario and then fixed the t* VaR-scenario, apply the formula to decompose it. Below the same portfolio, the same compute date. More reliable!
Issue 3: Component VaR
24
The portfolio is composed by the followes shares:
• IT0001976403• IT0003856405• IT0001063210• IT0001334587• IT0000072725• DE0005557508• DE0005752000• DE0005140008• FR0000121261
• Holding period: 401 days
• Confidence level: 99%
The chart below shows VaR Contribution (Component VaR) of each share in portfolio to Total VaR, by appling the hybrid Beta technique over 400 days
-2.500
-2.000
-1.500
-1.000
-500
-
19/1
2/20
06
02/0
1/20
07
16/0
1/20
07
30/0
1/20
07
13/0
2/20
07
27/0
2/20
07
13/0
3/20
07
27/0
3/20
07
10/0
4/20
07
24/0
4/20
07
08/0
5/20
07
22/0
5/20
07
05/0
6/20
07
19/0
6/20
07
03/0
7/20
07
17/0
7/20
07
31/0
7/20
07
14/0
8/20
07
28/0
8/20
07
11/0
9/20
07
25/0
9/20
07
09/1
0/20
07
23/1
0/20
07
06/1
1/20
07
20/1
1/20
07
04/1
2/20
07
18/1
2/20
07
01/0
1/20
08
15/0
1/20
08
29/0
1/20
08
12/0
2/20
08
26/0
2/20
08
11/0
3/20
08
25/0
3/20
08
08/0
4/20
08
22/0
4/20
08
06/0
5/20
08
20/0
5/20
08
03/0
6/20
08
17/0
6/20
08
01/0
7/20
08
15/0
7/20
08
IT0001976403 IT0003856405IT0001063210 IT0001334587IT0000072725 DE0005557508DE0005752000 DE0005140008FR0000121261 CVaR
Issue 3: Component VaR
25
So what do we do? At now (the project is in progress and fine tuning):
Differently from , the CVaR is not yet published in the daily reporting, it is computed in order to make software test.
Consider that we could deliver a “number of CVaR” very high (> 1000) depending of all interesting clustering and partitioning of portfolios.
I think we will use hybrid approach or some way very cloe to it. To measure risk is importante, but even more important is that the top management “believes” the the risk meausers. An irregular or “strange” risk measure over time makes is useless
Issue 3: Component VaR
26
PART III
27
Distribution of the Scenario P&L of a large exotic portfolio
28
The Tableau de Bord
Bank filter
Portfolio / Desk
29
In relazione a una serie di anomalie “fisiologiche” o determinate da errori del batch Sophis sono èstato messo a punto un sistema di controllo, denominato Outliers, che permette di navigare e visualizzare tali casi: fair value nulli, P&L rilevanti; Le soglie di rilevazione delle anomalie sono parametriche, modificabili dall’utente
Reporting Historical VaR