- Journal Home
- Volume 41 - 2025
- Volume 40 - 2024
- Volume 39 - 2023
- Volume 38 - 2022
- Volume 37 - 2021
- Volume 36 - 2020
- Volume 35 - 2019
- Volume 34 - 2018
- Volume 33 - 2017
- Volume 32 - 2016
- Volume 31 - 2015
- Volume 30 - 2014
- Volume 29 - 2013
- Volume 28 - 2012
- Volume 27 - 2011
- Volume 26 - 2010
- Volume 25 - 2009
Cited by
- BibTex
- RIS
- TXT
Value-at-Risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES) are two key risk measures in financial risk management. Comparing these two measures has been a hot debate, and most discussions focus on risk measure properties. This paper uses independent data and autoregressive models with normal or $t$-distribution to examine the effect of the heavy tail and dependence on comparing the nonparametric inference uncertainty of these two risk measures. Theoretical and numerical analyses suggest that VaR at 99% level is better than ES at 97.5% level for distributions with heavier tails.
}, issn = {2707-8523}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4208/cmr.2022-0071}, url = {http://global-sci.org/intro/article_detail/cmr/22283.html} }Value-at-Risk (VaR) and expected shortfall (ES) are two key risk measures in financial risk management. Comparing these two measures has been a hot debate, and most discussions focus on risk measure properties. This paper uses independent data and autoregressive models with normal or $t$-distribution to examine the effect of the heavy tail and dependence on comparing the nonparametric inference uncertainty of these two risk measures. Theoretical and numerical analyses suggest that VaR at 99% level is better than ES at 97.5% level for distributions with heavier tails.