Evaluating Validity of Expected Shortfall Estimation Method in Measuring Market Risk for Bank's Trading Book Position

Abstract : Expected Shortfall (ES) has become a pivotal risk measure in financial regulation, particularly under the Basel III Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), which replaces Value-at-Risk (VaR) due to ES’s ability to capture tail risk better. This study investigates the performance of two ES estimation methods—GARCH-t and Historical Simulation (HS)—in the context of foreign exchange (FX) against the IDR currency. Unlike VaR, ES incorporates the magnitude of extreme losses and is thus more sensitive to volatility dynamics. However, each estimation method presents trade-offs between responsiveness, robustness, and capital allocation. Using exchange rate data from 2007 to 2024, the ES values were computed under each method and validated through Acerbi–Szekely Z-tests on both tails. The backtesting results reveal that GARCH-t performs best during stress periods but demonstrates instability in calm markets. In contrast, Basic HS demonstrates more consistent backtest in the overall performance score across years. These findings offer practical insights into ES model implementation, emphasizing the importance of model selection, dual-tail backtesting, and supervisory alignment with FRTB.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2025-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15546669
Primary Topic
Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating Validity of Expected Shortfall Estimation Method in Measuring Market Risk for Bank's Trading Book Position

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
article

Evaluating Validity of Expected Shortfall Estimation Method in Measuring Market Risk for Bank's Trading Book Position

article en

Abstract

Abstract : Expected Shortfall (ES) has become a pivotal risk measure in financial regulation, particularly under the Basel III Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), which replaces Value-at-Risk (VaR) due to ES’s ability to capture tail risk better. This study investigates the performance of two ES estimation methods—GARCH-t and Historical Simulation (HS)—in the context of foreign exchange (FX) against the IDR currency. Unlike VaR, ES incorporates the magnitude of extreme losses and is thus more sensitive to volatility dynamics. However, each estimation method presents trade-offs between responsiveness, robustness, and capital allocation. Using exchange rate data from 2007 to 2024, the ES values were computed under each method and validated through Acerbi–Szekely Z-tests on both tails. The backtesting results reveal that GARCH-t performs best during stress periods but demonstrates instability in calm markets. In contrast, Basic HS demonstrates more consistent backtest in the overall performance score across years. These findings offer practical insights into ES model implementation, emphasizing the importance of model selection, dual-tail backtesting, and supervisory alignment with FRTB.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
University of Indonesia (ID)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Evaluating Validity of Expected Shortfall Estimation Method in Measuring Market Risk for Bank's Trading Book Position · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS