操作风险中常用的复合分布的分位数近似技术的模拟比较

IF 0.4 4区 经济学 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Riaan de Jongh, T. de Wet, K. Panman, H. Raubenheimer
{"title":"操作风险中常用的复合分布的分位数近似技术的模拟比较","authors":"Riaan de Jongh, T. de Wet, K. Panman, H. Raubenheimer","doi":"10.21314/JOP.2016.171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many banks currently use the loss distribution approach (LDA) for estimating economic and regulatory capital for operational risk under Basel's advanced measurement approach. The LDA requires the modeling of the aggregate loss distribution in each operational risk category (ORC), among others. The aggregate loss distribution is a compound distribution resulting from a random sum of losses, where the losses are distributed according to some severity distribution, and the number (of losses) is distributed according to some frequency distribution. In order to estimate the economic or regulatory capital in a particular ORC, an extreme quantile of the aggregate loss distribution has to be estimated from the fitted severity and frequency distributions. Since a closed-form expression for the quantiles of the resulting estimated compound distribution does not exist, the quantile is usually approximated using a brute force Monte Carlo simulation, which is computationally intensive. However, a number of numerical approximation techniques have been proposed to lessen the computational burden. Such techniques include Panjer recursion, the fast Fourier transform and different orders of both the single-loss approximation and perturbative approximation. The objective of this paper is to compare these methods in terms of their practical usefulness and potential applicability in an operational risk context. We find that the second-order perturbative approximation, a closed-form approximation, performs very well at the extreme quantiles and over a wide range of distributions, and it is very easy to implement. This approximation can then be used as an input to the recursive fast Fourier algorithm to gain further improvements at the less extreme quantiles.","PeriodicalId":54030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operational Risk","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Simulation Comparison of Quantile Approximation Techniques for Compound Distributions Popular in Operational Risk\",\"authors\":\"Riaan de Jongh, T. de Wet, K. Panman, H. Raubenheimer\",\"doi\":\"10.21314/JOP.2016.171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many banks currently use the loss distribution approach (LDA) for estimating economic and regulatory capital for operational risk under Basel's advanced measurement approach. The LDA requires the modeling of the aggregate loss distribution in each operational risk category (ORC), among others. The aggregate loss distribution is a compound distribution resulting from a random sum of losses, where the losses are distributed according to some severity distribution, and the number (of losses) is distributed according to some frequency distribution. In order to estimate the economic or regulatory capital in a particular ORC, an extreme quantile of the aggregate loss distribution has to be estimated from the fitted severity and frequency distributions. Since a closed-form expression for the quantiles of the resulting estimated compound distribution does not exist, the quantile is usually approximated using a brute force Monte Carlo simulation, which is computationally intensive. However, a number of numerical approximation techniques have been proposed to lessen the computational burden. Such techniques include Panjer recursion, the fast Fourier transform and different orders of both the single-loss approximation and perturbative approximation. The objective of this paper is to compare these methods in terms of their practical usefulness and potential applicability in an operational risk context. We find that the second-order perturbative approximation, a closed-form approximation, performs very well at the extreme quantiles and over a wide range of distributions, and it is very easy to implement. This approximation can then be used as an input to the recursive fast Fourier algorithm to gain further improvements at the less extreme quantiles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Operational Risk\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Operational Risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2016.171\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operational Risk","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2016.171","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

许多银行目前使用损失分配法(LDA)来估计巴塞尔先进测量方法下的操作风险的经济和监管资本。LDA需要对每个操作风险类别(ORC)中的总损失分布进行建模。总损失分布是损失随机和的复合分布,损失按某种严重分布分布,损失数按某种频率分布分布。为了估计特定ORC中的经济或监管资本,必须从拟合的严重程度和频率分布中估计总损失分布的极端分位数。由于所得到的估计复合分布的分位数的封闭形式表达式不存在,所以通常使用蛮力蒙特卡罗模拟来近似分位数,这是计算密集型的。然而,已经提出了一些数值近似技术来减轻计算负担。这些技术包括Panjer递归、快速傅立叶变换以及单损失近似和微扰近似的不同阶数。本文的目的是比较这些方法在操作风险背景下的实际用途和潜在适用性。我们发现二阶微扰近似,一种封闭形式的近似,在极端分位数和大范围的分布上表现得很好,并且很容易实现。然后,这个近似可以用作递归快速傅立叶算法的输入,以在不太极端的分位数处获得进一步的改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Simulation Comparison of Quantile Approximation Techniques for Compound Distributions Popular in Operational Risk
Many banks currently use the loss distribution approach (LDA) for estimating economic and regulatory capital for operational risk under Basel's advanced measurement approach. The LDA requires the modeling of the aggregate loss distribution in each operational risk category (ORC), among others. The aggregate loss distribution is a compound distribution resulting from a random sum of losses, where the losses are distributed according to some severity distribution, and the number (of losses) is distributed according to some frequency distribution. In order to estimate the economic or regulatory capital in a particular ORC, an extreme quantile of the aggregate loss distribution has to be estimated from the fitted severity and frequency distributions. Since a closed-form expression for the quantiles of the resulting estimated compound distribution does not exist, the quantile is usually approximated using a brute force Monte Carlo simulation, which is computationally intensive. However, a number of numerical approximation techniques have been proposed to lessen the computational burden. Such techniques include Panjer recursion, the fast Fourier transform and different orders of both the single-loss approximation and perturbative approximation. The objective of this paper is to compare these methods in terms of their practical usefulness and potential applicability in an operational risk context. We find that the second-order perturbative approximation, a closed-form approximation, performs very well at the extreme quantiles and over a wide range of distributions, and it is very easy to implement. This approximation can then be used as an input to the recursive fast Fourier algorithm to gain further improvements at the less extreme quantiles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Operational Risk
Journal of Operational Risk BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
40.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: In December 2017, the Basel Committee published the final version of its standardized measurement approach (SMA) methodology, which will replace the approaches set out in Basel II (ie, the simpler standardized approaches and advanced measurement approach (AMA) that allowed use of internal models) from January 1, 2022. Independently of the Basel III rules, in order to manage and mitigate risks, they still need to be measurable by anyone. The operational risk industry needs to keep that in mind. While the purpose of the now defunct AMA was to find out the level of regulatory capital to protect a firm against operational risks, we still can – and should – use models to estimate operational risk economic capital. Without these, the task of managing and mitigating capital would be incredibly difficult. These internal models are now unshackled from regulatory requirements and can be optimized for managing the daily risks to which financial institutions are exposed. In addition, operational risk models can and should be used for stress tests and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). The Journal of Operational Risk also welcomes papers on nonfinancial risks as well as topics including, but not limited to, the following. The modeling and management of operational risk. Recent advances in techniques used to model operational risk, eg, copulas, correlation, aggregate loss distributions, Bayesian methods and extreme value theory. The pricing and hedging of operational risk and/or any risk transfer techniques. Data modeling external loss data, business control factors and scenario analysis. Models used to aggregate different types of data. Causal models that link key risk indicators and macroeconomic factors to operational losses. Regulatory issues, such as Basel II or any other local regulatory issue. Enterprise risk management. Cyber risk. Big data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信