Tail Risks in Corporate Finance: Simulation-Based Analyses of Extreme Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, simulation-based methods for assessing company-specific risks have become increasingly popular in corporate finance. This is because modern capital market theory, with its assumptions of perfect and complete capital markets, cannot satisfactorily explain the risk situation in companies and its effects on entrepreneurial success. Through simulation, the individual risks of a company can be aggregated, and the risk effect on a target variable can be shown. The aim of this article is to investigate which statistical methods can best assess tail risks in the overall distribution of the target variables. By doing so, the article investigates whether extreme value theory is suitable to model tail risks in a business plan independent of company-specific data. For this purpose, the simulated cash flows of a medium-sized company are analyzed. Different statistical ratios, statistical tests, calibrations, and extreme value theory are applied. The findings indicate that the overall distribution of the simulated cash flows can be multimodal. In the example studied, the potential loss side of the cash flow exhibits a superimposed, well-delimitable second distribution. This tail distribution is extensively analyzed through calibration and the application of extreme value theory. Using the example studied, it is shown that similar tail risk distributions can be modeled both by calibrating the simulation data in the tail and by using extreme value theory to describe it. This creates the possibility of working with tail risks even if only a few planning data are available. Thus, this approach contributes to systematically combining risk management and corporate finance and significantly improving corporate risk management. Based on these findings, further analyses can be performed in terms of risk coverage potential and rating to improve the risk situation in a company.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".