Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:54:42.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of aggregated risks models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Michel Dacorogna ,
Laila Elbahtouri  and
Marie Kratz
Michel Dacorogna
Affiliation:
DEAR-Consulting, Scheuchzerstrasse 160, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
Laila Elbahtouri
Affiliation:
SCOR, 5 Avenue Kléber, 75795 Paris, France
Marie Kratz*
Affiliation:
ESSEC Business School, CREAR Risk Research Center, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, BP50105, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise, France
*
*Correspondence to: ESSEC Business School, CREAR Risk Research Center, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, BP50105, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise, France. E-mail: kratz@essec.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Validation of risk models is required by regulators and demanded by management and shareholders. Those models rely in practice heavily on Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Given their complexity, the convergence of the MC algorithm is difficult to prove mathematically. To circumvent this problem and nevertheless explore the conditions of convergence, we suggest an analytical approach. Considering standard models, we compute, via mixing techniques, closed form formulas for risk measures as Value-at-Risk (VaR) VaR or Tail Value-at-Risk (TVaR) TVaR on a portfolio of risks, and consequently for the associated diversification benefit. The numerical convergence of MC simulations of those various quantities is then tested against their analytical evaluations. The speed of convergence appears to depend on the fatness of the tail of the marginal distributions; the higher the tail index, the faster the convergence. We also explore the behaviour of the diversification benefit with various dependence structures and marginals (heavy and light tails). As expected, it varies heavily with the type of dependence between aggregated risks. The diversification benefit is also studied as a function of the risk measure, VaR or TVaR.

Keywords

Diversification (benefit)Heavy tailMixing techniqueModel validationMonte-Carlo simulation
Type
Paper
Information
Annals of Actuarial Science , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , September 2018 , pp. 433 - 454
Copyright
© Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albano, M., Amdeberhan, T., Beyerstedt, E. & Moll, V.H. (2011). The integrals in Gradshteyn and Ryzhik. Part 19: the error function. SCIENTIA Series A: Mathematical Sciences, 21, 25–42.Google Scholar
Albrecher, H., Constantinescu, C. & Loisel, S. (2011). Explicit ruin formulas for models with dependence among risks. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 48(2), 265–270.Google Scholar
Bürgi, R., Dacorogna, M.M. & Iles, R. (2008). Risk aggregation, dependence structure and diversification benefit. In D. Rösch & H. Scheule (Eds.), Stress Testing for Financial Institutions (pp. 265–306), Riskbooks, Incisive Media, London.Google Scholar
Busse, M., Dacorogna, M.M. & Kratz, M. (2014). The impact of systemic risk on the diversification benefits of a risk portfolio. Risks, 2, 260–276.Google Scholar
Constantinescu, C., Hashorva, E. & Ji, L. (2011). Archimedean copulas in finite and infinite dimensions – with application to ruin problems. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 49, 487–495.Google Scholar
Dacorogna, M. (2017). Approaches and techniques to validate internal model results. Available online at the address https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2983837 [accessed May 2017].Google Scholar
Dacorogna, M., Elbahtouri, L. & Kratz, M. (2015–2016). Explicit diversification benefit for dependent risks, ESSEC WP 1522 (2015) & SCOR Paper 38.Google Scholar
Emmer, S., Kratz, M. & Tasche, D. (2015). What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measures. Journal of Risk, 18(2), 31–60.Google Scholar
Feller, W. (1966). An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications (Vol. II). Wiley, New-York.Google Scholar
Gradshteyn, I.S. (1988). Tables of Integrals, Series, and Products, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Hashorva, E. & Ji, L. (2014). Random shifting and scaling of insurance risks. Risks, 2, 277–288.Google Scholar
Kohl, K.T. & Moll, V.H. (2011). The integrals in Gradshteyn and Ryzhik. Part 20: hypergeometric functions. SCIENTIA Series A: Mathematical Sciences, 21, 43–54.Google Scholar
Kratz, M. (2014). Normex, a new method for evaluating the distribution of aggregated heavy tailed risks. Application to risk measures. Extremes 17(4), Special issue on Extremes and Finance (Guest Ed. P. Embrechts), 661–691.Google Scholar
Marshall, A.W. & Olkin, I. (1988). Families of Multivariate Distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 834–841.Google Scholar
Oakes, D. (1989). Bivariate Survival Models Induced by Frailties. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 487–493.Google Scholar
Sarabia, J., Gómez-Déniz, E., Prietoa, F. & Jordá, V. (2017). Aggregation of Dependent Risks in Mixtures of Exponential Distributions and Extensions. Available online at the address https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00289 [accessed May 2017].Google Scholar