Abstract

A challenge in enterprise risk measurement for diversified financial institutions is developing a coherent approach to aggregating different risk types. This has been motivated by rapid financial innovation, developments in supervisory standards (Basel 2) and recent financial turmoil. The main risks faced - market, credit and operational – have distinct distributional properties, and historically have been modeled in differing frameworks. We contribute to the modeling effort by providing tools and insights to practitioners and regulators. First, we extend the scope of the analysis to liquidity and interest rate risk, having Basel Pillar II of Basel implications. Second, we utilize data from major banking institutions’ loss experience from supervisory call reports, which allows us to explore the impact of business mix and inter-risk correlations on total risk. Third, we estimate and compare alternative established frameworks for risk aggregation (including copula models) on the same data-sets across banks, comparing absolute total risk measures (Value-at-Risk – VaR and proportional diversification benefits-PDB), goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the model as data as well as the variability of the VaR estimate with respect to sampling error in parameter. This benchmarking and sensitivity analysis suggests that practitioners consider implementing a simple non-parametric methodology (empirical copula simulation- ECS) in order to quantify integrated risk, in that it is found to be more conservatism and stable than the other models. We observe that ECS produces 20% to 30% higher VaR relative to the standard Gaussian copula simulation (GCS), while the variance-covariance approximation (VCA) is much lower. ECS yields the highest PDBs than other methodologies (127% to 243%), while Archimadean Gumbel copula simulation (AGCS) is the lowest (10-21%). Across the five largest banks we fail to find the effect of business mix to exert a directionally consistent impact on total integrated diversification benefits. In the GOF tests, we find mixed results, that in many cases most of the copula methods exhibit poor fit to the data relative to the ECS, with the Archimadean copulas fitting worse than the Gaussian or Student-T copulas. In a bootstrapping experiment, we find the variability of the VaR to be significantly lowest (highest) for the ECS (VCA), and that the contribution of the sampling error in the parameters of the marginal distributions to be an order or magnitude greater than that of the correlation matrices.

Highlights

  • AND SUMMARYA modern diversified financial institution, engaging in a broad set of activities is faced with the task of measuring and managing risk across all of these

  • We have described various models used in practice, including the variance-covariance approximation (VCA), as well as various copula simulations formulations that include the well-known parametric Gaussian copula simulation (GCS) and the less-well known empirical copula simulation (ECS)

  • Through differences observed across the five largest banks by book value of assets as of the end of 2008, proxying for five risk types using accounting data from Call Reports submitted to national supervisors, we have identified a range of results across different models for aggregating risk

Read more

Summary

Introduction

AND SUMMARYA modern diversified financial institution, engaging in a broad set of activities (e.g., banking, brokerage, insurance or wealth management) is faced with the task of measuring and managing risk across all of these. We have the necessity of a framework in which disparate risk types can be aggregated. This is challenging, due to the varied distributional properties of the risks. It is accepted that regardless of which sectors a financial institution focuses upon, they at least manage credit, market and operational risk. The corresponding supervisory developments - the Market Risk Amendment to Basel 1, Advanced IRB to credit risk under Basel 2 and the AMA approach for operational risk (BCBS 1988, 1996, 2004) – have given added impetus for almost all major financial institutions to quantify these risks in a coherent way

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.