Historical Simulation Systematically Underestimates the Expected Shortfall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expected Shortfall (ES) is a risk measure that is acquiring an increasingly relevant role in financial risk management. In contrast to Value-at-Risk (VaR), ES considers the severity of the potential losses and reflects the benefits of diversification. ES is often calculated using Historical Simulation (HS), i.e., using observed data without further processing into the formula for its calculation. This has advantages like being parameter-free and has been favored by some regulators. However, the usage of HS for calculating ES presents a potentially serious drawback: It strongly depends on the size of the sample of historical data, being typically reasonable sizes similar to the number of trading days in one year. Moreover, this relationship leads to systematic underestimation: the lower the sample size, the lower the ES tends to be. In this letter, we present examples of this phenomenon for representative stocks and bonds, illustrating how the values of the ES and their averages are affected by the number of chosen data points. In addition, we present a method to mitigate the errors in the ES due to a low sample size, which is suitable for both liquid and illiquid financial products. Our analysis is expected to provide financial practitioners with useful insights about the errors made using Historical Simulation in the calculation of the Expected Shortfall. This, together with the method that we propose to reduce the errors due to finite sample size, is expected to help avoid miscalculations of the actual risk of portfolios.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".