Download This PaperBacktesting Value-at-Risk: A Comparison between Filtered Bootstrap and Historical Simulation
36 Pages Posted: 28 Nov 2011 Last revised: 30 Jan 2014
Date Written: November 28, 2011
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present a comparison between two risk models for estimating VaR, Historical Simulation and Monte Carlo Filtered Bootstrap. We perform three tests, Unconditional Coverage, Independence and Conditional Coverage according to Christoffersen, P., Pellettier D. (2004) paper. We present results on both VaR 1% and VaR 5% on one day horizon for the two models for the following indices: Standard&Poors 500, Topix, Dax, MSCI United Kingdom, MSCI France, Italy Comit Globale, MSCI Canada, MSCI Emerging Markets, RJ/CRB. Our results show that Filtered Bootstrap Approach satisfy Conditional Coverage for all tested indices while Historical Simulation has many rejection cases. Finally we also tested in a regulatory framework (rolling window of 250 daily observations) the two models and the advantages of using a conditional coverage methodology to validate risk models.
Keywords: VaR, backtest, historical simulation, filtered bootstrap, unconditional coverage, independence
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
How Accurate are Value-at-Risk Models at Commercial Banks
By Jeremy Berkowitz and James M. O'brien
-
The Predictive Ability of Several Models of Exchange Rate Volatility
By Kenneth D. West and Dongchul Cho
-
Bank Capital and Value at Risk
By Patricia Jackson, David Maude, ...
-
Bank Capital Requirements for Market Risk: The Internal Models Approach
By Darryll Hendricks and Beverly Hirtle