MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086041263 · doi:10.3905/jod.2005.580517

Life after VaR

2005· article· en· W2086041263 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Derivatives · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue at riskTail riskExtreme value theoryQuantileEconometricsExpected shortfallEconomicsTime horizonMeasure (data warehouse)Coherent risk measureHorizonVector autoregressionCutoffActuarial scienceMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsRisk managementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Value at risk (VaR) is now universally used to measure and manage exposure to financial market risk. Yet its shortcomings are also well known, one of the most serious being that it is susceptible to being “gamed.” Since VaR focuses only on the loss at a single probability quantile, like 1%, it presents the opportunity for a tricky operator to inflate his returns by taking on unmeasured extreme risk exposure in the tail beyond the VaR cutoff, as the authors illustrate in the first part of this article. Use of the related concept of “conditional tail expectations” or “tail VaR” can mitigate this problem. But a second difficulty that is not addressed by tail VaR is that by focusing on a single horizon, the VaR methodology ignores how loss probabilities may evolve over the short run. For this, the authors offer “iterated conditional tail expectation,” a new dynamic risk measure that is based on repeated monitoring of tail VaR over the forecasting horizon.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it