Comparing riskiness of exchange rate volatility using the Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall methods
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.19(2).2022.31
-
Article InfoVolume 19 2022, Issue #2, pp. 360-371
- Cited by
- 535 Views
-
171 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This paper uses theValue at Risk (VaR) and the Expected Shortfall (ES) to compare the riskiness of the two currency exchange rate volatility, namely BitCoin against the US dollar (BTC/USD) and the South African Rand against the US dollar (ZAR/USD). The risks calculated are tail-related measures, so the Extreme Value Theory is used to capture extreme risk more accurately. The Generalized Pareto distribution (GPD) is assumed under Extreme Value Theory (EVT). The family of Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models was used to model the volatility-clustering feature. The Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method was used in parameter estimation. Results obtained from the GPD are compared using two underlying distributions for the errors, namely: the Normal and the Student-t distributions. The findings show that the tail VaR on the BitCoin averaging 1.6 and 2.8 is riskier than on South Africa’s Rand that averages 1.5 and 2.3 at 95% and 99%, respectively. The same conclusion is made about tail ES, the BitCoin average of 2.3 and 3.6 is higher (riskier) than the South African Rand averages at 2.1 and 2.9 at 95% and 99%, respectively. The backtesting results confirm the model adequacy of the GARCH-GPD in the estimation of VaR and ES, since all p-values are above 0.05.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)C13, C22, C52, C58
-
References21
-
Tables7
-
Figures4
-
- Figure 1. Time series plot of one-day BTC/USD prices (left) and one-day log returns (right)
- Figure 2. Time series plot of ZAR/USD prices (left) and one-day log returns (right)
- Figure 3. Mean excess function for BTC/USD returns
- Figure 4. Mean excess function for ZAR/USD returns
-
- Table 1. Descriptive statistics of exchange rate returns
- Table 2. Estimated GARCH parameters for both BTC/USD and ZAR/USD
- Table 3. Maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of GARCH (1,1) residuals from BTC/USD to the Generalized Pareto Distribution
- Table 4. Maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of GARCH (1,1) residuals from ZAR/USD to the Generalized Pareto Distribution
- Table 5. VaR estimates using fitted hybrid GARCH(1,1)-GPD
- Table 6. ES estimates using fitted hybrid GARCH(1,1)-GPD
- Table 7. Backtest results for VaR estimates using fitted GARCH(1,1)-GPD
-
- Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203-28.
- Balkema, B., &deHaan, L. (1974). Residual lifetime at great age. Annals of Probability 2(5), 792-804.
- BCBS. (2013). Fundamental Review of the Trading Book: A revised market risk framework. Basel: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
- BCBS. (2019). Minimum Capital Requirements for Market Risk. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
- Byström, H. N. (2004). Managing extreme risks in tranquil and volatile markets using conditional extreme value theory. International Review of Financial Analysis, 13(2), 133-152.
- Chebbi, A., &Hedhli, A. (2014). Dynamic dependencies between the Tunisian stock market and other international stock markets: GARCH-EVT-Copula approach. Applied Financial Economics, 24(18), 1215-1228.
- Chen, J. M. (2018). On Exactitude in Financial Regulation: Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, and Expectiles. Risks, 6(2), 61.
- Chinhamu, K., Huang, C.-K., H., & Chikobvu, D., (2017). Evaluating risk in precious metal prices with generalised Lambda, generalised Pareto and generalised extreme value distributions. South African Statistical Journal, 51(1), 159-182.
- Christoffersen, P. F. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4), 841-862.
- Fisher, R. A., &Tippett, L. H. C. (1928). Limiting Forms of the Frequency Distribution of the Largest or Smallest Members of a Sample. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 24(2), 180-190.
- Glosten, L., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. (1993). On the Relation between the Expected Value and the Volatility of the Nominal Excess Return on Stocks. Journal of Finance, 48(5), 1779-1801.
- Investing.com. (n.d.). Currencies.
- Koliai, L. (2016). Extreme risk modeling: An EVT-pair-copulas approach for financial stress tests. Journal of Banking and Finance, 70, 1-22.
- Kupiec, P. H. (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk management models. Journal of Derivatives, 3(2), 73-84.
- McNeil, A. J., & Frey, R. (2000). Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach. Journal of Empirical Finance, 7(3), 271-300.
- McNeil, A. J., Frey, R., &Embrechts, P. (2005). Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques, and Tools. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Murenzi, R., Kigabo, T. R., K., &Mung’atu, J. (2015). Modeling Exchange Market Volatility Risk in Rwanda Using GARCH-EVT Approach. International Journal of Thesis Projects and Dissertations (IJTPD), 3(3), 67-80.
- Pflug, G. C. (2000). Some remarks on the value-at-risk and the conditional value-at-risk. InS.P. Uryasev (Ed.), Probabilistic Constrained Optimization: Methodology and Applications (pp.272-281). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Pickands, J. (1975). Statistical inference using extreme order statistics. Annals of Statistics, 3(1), 119-131.
- Risk Glossary.(2020).Definitions: Expected shortfall.
- Rockafellar, R. T., &Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1443-1471.