Comparison of Variance Covariance and Historical Simulation Methods to Calculate Value At Risk on Banking Stock Portfolio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In investing, all investors must be faced with risk that must be borne. Therefore, to determine the best strategy in investing, every investor must calculate the risk. One statistical approach that can be used to measure the risk is Value at Risk (VaR). VaR is defined as a tolerable loss with a certain level of confidence. The purpose of this research is to estimate VaR using Variance Covariance and Historical Simulation methods on banking stock portfolio consisting of three stocks for the period 11 September 2020-30 September 2021. Both methods will then be evaluated using backtesting to determine the accuracy of VaR and to obtain the best method. From the research results, if the holding period is 1 day, then the VaR calculation for banking stock portfolio using both methods can be used to estimate the risk at 99% and 95% confidence levels, except for the VaR value using the Variance Covariance method for banking stock portfolio at 95% confidence level. The results show that Variance Covariance method is the best method for 99% confidence level. As for the 95% confidence level, Historical Simulation method is the best method.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".