Relevant:
- The Priced-In Risk of Marine Le Pen's Victory
- New Research Shows Diversification of Funds of Hedge Funds Increases Risk
- An $8bn Loss Or Was JPMorgan 'Unhedged, Long-And-Wrong' Post-LTRO2? - ZeroHedge
- JPMorgan's $2B Loss: A ‘Stupid' Bet with Big Implications
- Fortress Investment 3Q Loss Widens As Assets Fall
2009-02-16 — finalternatives.com
A common criticism of VaR has been that it does not measure the tail risk correctly. The criticism is correct to the extent that the VaR method could have predicted the dramatic losses seen in the markets. The fallacy of the argument is that VaR is not designed to predict tail events. VaR is defined as the “maximum/minimum loss that an investment is likely to suffer at most/least x% of the time.†VaR does not contain any information of the magnitude of the loss beyond the confidence interval, and thus cannot be used to estimate the tail loss.
source article |
permalink |
discuss |
subscribe by:
|
RSS |
email 
Comments: Be the first to add a comment
add a comment | go to forum thread
Note: Comments may take a few minutes to show up on this page. If you go to the forum thread, however, you can see them immediately.