Abstract
In Lecesne and Roncoroni (2013), we introduce the notion of monetary measure of risk borne by any financial claim. Our presentation moves from general definitions to concrete instances, including the benchmark measure Value-at-Risk (VaR). Part II develops a treatment of the class of coherent (monetary) measures of risk put forward by Artzner et al. (1999). Our goal is to illustrate the main features of this class of measures in light of application to practical cases. In this respect, we put our focus on the ambiguity of the term “coherent” and show that the connotation of consistency it naturally embeds is more an issue of lexical interpretation than actual meaning. As an example, we show that lack of subadditivity of VaR (which prevents from it to being a “coherent” measure of risk) is more a desirable property than a drawback, as is claimed in most of existing sources in the specialized literature.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
