Research PaperNo Access

COMPARING THE SMALL-SAMPLE ESTIMATION ERROR OF CONCEPTUALLY DIFFERENT RISK MEASURES

Chair of Finance, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus-Senftenberg, Erich-Weinert-Str. 1, 03046 Cottbus, Germany

Department of Finance, University of Leipzig, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany

CESifo Munich, Research Network Area Macro, Money and International Finance, Schackstr. 4, 80539 Munich, Germany

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

and

FRANK SCHUHMACHER

Department of Finance, University of Leipzig, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219024921500242Cited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Motivated by the need to correctly rank risky alternatives in many investment, insurance and operations research applications, this paper uses a generalized location and scale framework from utility theory to propose a simple but powerful metric for comparing the estimation error of conceptually different risk measures. In an illustrative application, we obtain this metric — the probability that a risk measure ranks two assets falsely in finite samples — via Monte Carlo simulation for fourteen popular measures of risk and different distributional settings. Its results allow us to highlight interesting risk measure properties such as their relative quality under varying degrees of skewness and kurtosis. Because of the generality of our approach, the error probabilities derived for classic risk measures can serve as a benchmark for newly proposed measures seeking to replace the classic ones in decision making. It also supports the identification of the most suitable risk measures for a given distributional environment.

Keywords:

References

C. Adcock, M. Eling & N. Loperfido (2015) Skewed distributions in finance and actuarial science: A review, European Journal of Finance 21 (13–14), 1253–1281. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
B. Auer (2015) On the Role of skewness, kurtosis, and the location and scale condition in a Sharpe ratio performance evaluation setting, International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance 18 (6), 1550037. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
B. Auer & F. Schuhmacher (2013) Robust evidence on the similarity of Sharpe ratio and drawdown-based hedge fund performance rankings, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 24, 153–165. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
C. Bacon (2008) Practical Portfolio Performance Measurement and Attribution, second edition. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
T. Bali (2007) A generalized extreme value approach to financial risk measurement, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 39 (7), 1613–1649. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
G. Boyle & D. Conniffe (2008) Compatibility of expected utility and $μ / σ$ approaches to risk for a class of non location-scale distributions, Economic Theory 35 (2), 343–366. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
S. Bozóki, L. Csató & J. Temesi (2016) An application of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices for ranking top tennis players, European Journal of Operational Research 248 (1), 211–218. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Caporin, G. Jannin, F. Lisi & B. Maillet (2014) A survey of the four families of performance measures, Journal of Economic Surveys 28 (5), 917–942. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
L. Chen, S. He & S. Zhang (2011) When all risk-adjusted performance measures are the same: In praise of the Sharpe ratio, Quantitative Finance 11 (10), 1439–1447. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
Y. Chen, K. Ho & L. Tzeng (2014) Riskiness-minimizing spot-futures hedge ratio, Journal of Banking and Finance 40, 154–164. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
S. Chun, A. Shapiro & S. Uryasev (2012) Conditional value-at-risk and average value-atrisk: Estimation and asymptotics, Operations Research 60 (4), 739–756. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
P. Cogneau & G. Hübner (2009a) The (more than) 100 ways to measure portfolio performance part 1: Standardized riskadjusted measures, Journal of Performance Measurement 13, 56–71. Google Scholar
P. Cogneau & G. Hübner (2009b) The (more than) 100 ways to measure portfolio performance part 2: Special measures and comparison, Journal of Performance Measurement 14, 56–69. Google Scholar
A. Damodaran (2012) Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of any Asset, third edition. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
K. Dowd & D. Blake (2006) After VaR: The theory, estimation and insurance applications of quantile-based risk measures, Journal of Risk and Insurance 73 (2), 193–229. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Eling (2008) Does the measure matter in the mutual fund industry?, Financial Analysts Journal 64 (3), 54–66. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Eling (2009) Does hedge fund performance persist? Overview and new empirical evidence, European Financial Management 15 (2), 362–401. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Eling & F. Schuhmacher (2007) Does the choice of performance measure influence the evaluation of hedge funds?, Journal of Banking and Finance 31 (9), 2632–2647. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
S. Farinelli, M. Ferreira, D. Rossello, M. Thoeny & L. Tibiletti (2008) Beyond Sharpe ratio: Optimal asset allocation using different performance ratios, Journal of Banking and Finance 32 (10), 2057–2063. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
A. Frazzini & L. Pedersen (2014) Betting against beta, Journal of Financial Economics 111 (1), 1–25. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
E. Frees, G. Meyers & A. Cummings (2014) Insurance ratemaking and a Gini index, Journal of Risk and Insurance 81 (2), 335–366. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
N. Gatzert & A. Kling (2007) Analysis of participating life insurance contracts: A unification approach, Journal of Risk and Insurance 74 (3), 547–570. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
C. Genest & J. Plante (2003) On Blest’s measure of rank correlation, Canadian Journal of Statistics 31 (1), 35–52. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Goerigk, H. Hamacher & A. Kinscherff (2018) Ranking robustness and its application to evacuation planning, European Journal of Operational Research 264 (3), 837–846. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
B. Hansen (1994) Autoregressive conditional density estimation, International Economic Review 35 (3), 705–730. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
C. Harvey & A. Siddique (2000) Conditional skewness in asset pricing tests, Journal of Finance 55 (3), 1263–1295. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
C. Harvey & G. Zhou (1993) International asset pricing with alternative distributional specifications, Journal of Empirical Finance 1 (1), 107–131. Crossref, Google Scholar
T. Huang (2013) A novel group ranking model for revealing sequence and quantity knowledge, European Journal of Operational Research 231 (3), 654–666. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
H. Jacobs (2015) What explains the dynamics of 100 anomalies?, Journal of Banking and Finance 57, 65–85. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
D. Joanes & C. Gill (1998) Comparing measures of sample skewness and kurtosis, The Statistican 47 (1), 183–189. Crossref, Google Scholar
E. Jondeau & M. Rockinger (2003) Conditional volatility, skewness, and kurtosis: Existence, persistence, and comovements, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 27 (10), 1699–1737. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
G. Kaplanski & Y. Kroll (2002) VaR risk measures versus traditional risk measures: An analysis and a survey, Journal of Risk 4 (3), 1–27. Crossref, Google Scholar
R. Kihlstrom & A. Roth (1982) Risk aversion and the negotiation of insurance contracts, Journal of Risk and Insurance 49 (3), 372–387. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
H. Konno & H. Yamazaki (1991) Mean-absolute deviation portfolio optimization model and its application to Tokyo stock market, Management Science 37 (5), 519–531. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
K. Kuester, S. Mittnik & M. Paolella (2006) Value-at-risk prediction: A comparison of alternative strategies, Journal of Financial Econometrics 4 (1), 53–89. Crossref, Google Scholar
O. Ledoit & M. Wolf (2008) Robust performance hypothesis testing with the Sharpe ratio, Journal of Empirical Finance 15 (5), 850–859. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
B. Liang (2000) Hedge funds: The living and the dead, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 35 (3), 309–326. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
A. Lim, J. Shanthikumar & G. Vahn (2011) Conditional value-at-risk in portfolio optimization: Coherent but fragile, Operations Research Letters 39 (3), 163–171. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
H. Markowitz (1952) Portfolio selection, Journal of Finance 7 (1), 77–91. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
J. Martinez & B. Iglewicz (1984) Some properties of the Tukey g and h distributions, Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 13 (3), 353–369. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
C. Martins-Filho & F. Yao (2006) Estimation of value-at-risk and expected shortfall based on nonlinear models of return dynamics and extreme value theory, Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics 10 (2), Article 4. Web of Science, Google Scholar
A. McNeil & R. Frey (2000) Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: An extreme value approach, Journal of Empirical Finance 7 (3–4), 271–300. Crossref, Google Scholar
J. Meyer (1987) Two-moment decision models and expected utility maximization, American Economic Review 77 (3), 421–430. Web of Science, Google Scholar
J. Meyer & R. Rasche (1992) Sufficient conditions for expected utility to imply meanstandard deviation rankings: Empirical evidence concerning the location and scale condition, Economic Journal 102 (410), 91–106. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
S. Nadarajah, B. Zhang & S. Chan (2014) Estimation methods for expected shortfall, Quantitative Finance 14 (2), 271–291. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Ormiston & J. Quiggin (1993) Two-parameter decision models and rank-dependent expected utility, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7 (3), 273–282. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
S. Ortobelli, S. Rachev, S. Stoyanov, F. Fabozzi & A. Biglova (2005) The proper use of risk measures in portfolio theory, International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance 8 (8), 1107–1133. Link, Google Scholar
C. Pedersen & S. Satchell (1999) Choosing the right measure of risk: A survey. In: The Current State of Economic Science ( S. Dahiya , ed.), Vol. 2, 883–908. Rohtak: Spellbound Publications. Google Scholar
D. Rossello (2015) Ranking of investment funds: Acceptability versus robustness, European Journal of Operational Research 245 (3), 828–836. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Rothschild & J. Stiglitz (1970) Increasing risk: I. A definition, Journal of Economic Theory 2 (3), 225–243. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
J. Schoemaker & H. Kunreuther (1979) An experimental study of insurance decisions, Journal of Risk and Insurance 46 (4), 603–618. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
F. Schuhmacher (2012) The Sharpe ratio is better than you may think, Journal of Business Economics 82 (6), 685–706. Crossref, Google Scholar
F. Schuhmacher & B. Auer (2014) Sufficient conditions under which SSD- and MR-efficient sets are identical, European Journal of Operational Research 239 (3), 756–763. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
F. Schuhmacher & M. Eling (2011) Sufficient conditions for expected utility to imply drawdown-based performance rankings, Journal of Banking and Finance 35 (9), 2311–2318. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
F. Schuhmacher & M. Eling (2012) A decision-theoretic foundation for reward-to-risk performance measures, Journal of Banking and Finance 36 (7), 2077–2082. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
F. Schuhmacher, H. Kohrs & B. Auer (2021) Justifying mean-variance portfolio selection when asset returns are skewed, Management Science, forthcoming. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
J. Singleton & J. Wingender (1986) Skewness persistence in common stock returns, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 21 (3), 335–341. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
H. Sinn (1983) Economic Decisions Under Uncertainty. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Google Scholar
H. Sinn (1989) Two-moment decision models and expected utility maximization: Comment, American Economic Review 79 (3), 601–602. Google Scholar
H. Sinn (1990) Expected utility, $μ$ - $σ$ preferences, and linear distribution classes: A further result, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3 (3), 277–281. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
G. Szegö (2005) Measures of risk, European Journal of Operational Research 163 (1), 5–19. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
R. Wilcox (2006) Comparing medians, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 51 (3), 1934–1943. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
W. Wong (2008) Backtesting trading risk of commercial banks using expected shortfall, Journal of Banking and Finance 32 (7), 1404–1415. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Young (1998) A minimax portfolio selection rule with linear programming solution, Management Science 44 (5), 673–683. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
M. Zabarankin, K. Pavlikov & S. Uryasev (2014) Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) with drawdown measure, European Journal of Operational Research 234 (2), 508–517. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
V. Zakamouline (2011) The performance measure you choose influences the evaluation of hedge funds, Journal of Performance Measurement 15 (3), 48–64. Google Scholar
V. Zakamouline (2014) Portfolio performance evaluation with loss aversion, Quantitative Finance 14 (4), 699–710. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
D. Ziggel, T. Berens, G. Weiß & D. Wied (2014) A new set of improved value-at-risk backtests, Journal of Banking and Finance 48, 29–41. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar