Authors : Attharva Chawla

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mry9ed6v

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/msf3y5fv

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25aug1095

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : This study presents a comprehensive empirical analysis of Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Expected Shortfall (ES) models across three major equity indices: S&P 500 (US), FTSE 100 (UK), and NIFTY 50 (India) over the period 2005–2025. We implement and backtest five different risk modeling approaches: Historical Simulation, Parametric Normal, Parametric Student-t, GARCH(1,1) with Student-t innovations, and Extreme Value Theory using Peaks-over-Threshold. The backtesting framework employs regulatory-standard tests including Kupiec's Proportion of Failures test, Christoffersen's Independence and Conditional Coverage tests, and the Basel Committee's Traffic Light approach. Our results reveal significant differences in model performance across markets and time periods, with particular emphasis on periods of financial stress including the 2007– 2009 Global Financial Crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. The study provides practical insights for risk managers and regulators on the comparative effectiveness of different VaR methodologies across developed and emerging markets.

Keywords : Value-at-Risk, Expected Shortfall, Backtesting, Risk Management, Financial Econometrics, GARCH, Extreme Value Theory.

References :

1. Alexander, C. (2008). Market Risk Analysis, Value at Risk Models. John Wiley & Sons.
2. Barone-Adesi, G., Bourgoin, F., & Giannopoulos, K. (1998). Don't look back. Risk, 11(8), 100–103.
3. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (1996). Supervisory framework for the use of "backtesting" in conjunction with the internal models approach to market risk capital requirements. Bank for International Settlements.
4. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2019). Minimum capital requirements for market risk. Bank for International Settlements.
5. Berkowitz, J., Christoffersen, P., & Pelletier, D. (2011). Evaluating value-at-risk models with desk-level data. Management Science, 57(12), 2213–2227.
6. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327.
7. Bollerslev, T. (1987). A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(3), 542–547.
8. Christoffersen, P. F. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4), 841–862.
9. Embrechts, P., Klüppelberg, C., & Mikosch, T. (2003). Modelling Extremal Events for Insurance and Finance. Springer-Verlag.
10. Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007.
11. Fama, E. F. (1965). The behavior of stock-market prices. Journal of Business, 38(1), 34–105.
12. Fissler, T., & Ziegel, J. F. (2016). Higher order elicitability and Osband's principle. Annals of Statistics, 44(4), 1680–1707.
13. Hansen, B. E. (1994). Autoregressive conditional density estimation. International Economic Review, 35(3), 705–730.
14. Kupiec, P. H. (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models. Journal of Derivatives, 3(2), 73–84.
15. Mandelbrot, B. (1963). The variation of certain speculative prices. Journal of Business, 36(4), 394–419.
16. McNeil, A. J. (1999). Extreme value theory for risk managers. In Internal Modelling and CAD II (pp. 93–113). Risk Books.
17. Pritsker, M. (2006). The hidden dangers of historical simulation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(2), 561–582.
18. So, M. K. P., & Yu, P. L. H. (2006). Empirical analysis of GARCH models in value at risk estimation. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 16(2), 180–197.