Analyzing Tail Risk Using Crisis Utility Rankings

K. Wakeman
{"title":"Analyzing Tail Risk Using Crisis Utility Rankings","authors":"K. Wakeman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1710705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we put forth the notion of “Crisis Utility” as a way of estimating the tail risk of an asset or investment strategy. We believe that Crisis Utility is more functional than traditional, narrowly defined definitions of tail risk since it incorporates the concept of “resiliency,” or recovery rate, as well as the traditional concept of maximum loss potential. Our argument for the inclusion of resiliency comes from our observations of the recent credit crisis. During the depths of the crisis we observed (1) that allocations, particularly institutional allocations, were “sticky,” which is to say that investors either had trouble adjusting asset allocations or were not inclined to do so, and (2) high water marks, or the arrangement that allows investors to recoup losses before a manager can charge additional performance fees, proved to be a significant benefit for resilient strategies. In an environment of sticky allocations and high water marks, we feel that the resiliency of a strategy becomes an important allocation point, particularly for institutions seeking to make long-term, strategic allocations as opposed to short-term, tactical allocations. Our study shows that lower volatility, low correlation strategies have a demonstrably higher Crisis Utility Rating than higher volatility, high correlation strategies. Specifically, using the HFR dataset, we found the strategies with the highest Crisis Utility Ranking were Short Bias, Equity Market Neutral, our bond proxy, Relative Value (Total), Systematic Diversified, Merger Arbitrage, Convertible Arbitrage and Fund of Funds: Defensive. We anticipate that these strategies will receive a relative increase in allocations as investors adjust their allocation models to account for tail risk, all else being equal and free of constraint. We also analyze the VIX Index within our Crisis Utility framework and find that it handily outscores all other strategies in our study. Although it is currently difficult to find active long volatility managers, we conclude that this is an important area for growth.","PeriodicalId":103169,"journal":{"name":"CGDET: Risk Management","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGDET: Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1710705","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we put forth the notion of “Crisis Utility” as a way of estimating the tail risk of an asset or investment strategy. We believe that Crisis Utility is more functional than traditional, narrowly defined definitions of tail risk since it incorporates the concept of “resiliency,” or recovery rate, as well as the traditional concept of maximum loss potential. Our argument for the inclusion of resiliency comes from our observations of the recent credit crisis. During the depths of the crisis we observed (1) that allocations, particularly institutional allocations, were “sticky,” which is to say that investors either had trouble adjusting asset allocations or were not inclined to do so, and (2) high water marks, or the arrangement that allows investors to recoup losses before a manager can charge additional performance fees, proved to be a significant benefit for resilient strategies. In an environment of sticky allocations and high water marks, we feel that the resiliency of a strategy becomes an important allocation point, particularly for institutions seeking to make long-term, strategic allocations as opposed to short-term, tactical allocations. Our study shows that lower volatility, low correlation strategies have a demonstrably higher Crisis Utility Rating than higher volatility, high correlation strategies. Specifically, using the HFR dataset, we found the strategies with the highest Crisis Utility Ranking were Short Bias, Equity Market Neutral, our bond proxy, Relative Value (Total), Systematic Diversified, Merger Arbitrage, Convertible Arbitrage and Fund of Funds: Defensive. We anticipate that these strategies will receive a relative increase in allocations as investors adjust their allocation models to account for tail risk, all else being equal and free of constraint. We also analyze the VIX Index within our Crisis Utility framework and find that it handily outscores all other strategies in our study. Although it is currently difficult to find active long volatility managers, we conclude that this is an important area for growth.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用危机效用排名分析尾部风险
在本文中,我们提出了“危机效用”的概念,作为估计资产或投资策略尾部风险的一种方法。我们认为,危机实用程序比传统的、狭义的尾部风险定义更具功能性,因为它包含了“弹性”或恢复率的概念,以及最大潜在损失的传统概念。我们将弹性纳入其中的理由,来自于我们对近期信贷危机的观察。在危机最严重的时候,我们观察到(1)配置,特别是机构配置,是“粘性的”,也就是说投资者要么在调整资产配置方面有困难,要么不倾向于这样做;(2)高水位标志,或允许投资者在经理收取额外绩效费之前收回损失的安排,被证明是弹性策略的显著优势。在粘性分配和高水位线的环境中,我们认为战略的弹性成为一个重要的分配点,特别是对于寻求长期战略分配而不是短期战术分配的机构。我们的研究表明,低波动率、低相关性策略的危机效用评级明显高于高波动率、高相关性策略。具体而言,使用HFR数据集,我们发现危机效用排名最高的策略是空头偏见,股票市场中性,我们的债券代理,相对价值(总数),系统多元化,合并套利,可转换套利和基金中的基金:防御。我们预计,当投资者调整他们的配置模型以考虑尾部风险时,这些策略将获得相对增加的配置,所有其他因素都是平等和自由约束的。我们还在危机实用程序框架内分析了VIX指数,发现它在我们的研究中轻松超过了所有其他策略。虽然目前很难找到积极的长期波动经理,但我们认为这是一个重要的增长领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analyzing Tail Risk Using Crisis Utility Rankings Non Quadratic Local Risk-Minimization for Hedging Contingent Claims in Incomplete Markets Duru-Kleinert Asymptotic Expansions for Long-Term Foreign Exchange and Swaptions Implied Volatility Smile Catastrophic Risks: The Need for New Tools, Financial Instruments and Institutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1