Catalina Bolancé, Montserrat Guillén, J. Gustafsson, J. Nielsen
{"title":"在量化操作风险模型中加入先验知识","authors":"Catalina Bolancé, Montserrat Guillén, J. Gustafsson, J. Nielsen","doi":"10.21314/JOP.2013.120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our approach is based on the study of the statistical severity distribution of a single loss. We analyze the fundamental issues that arise in practice when modeling operational risk data. We address the statistical problem of estimating an operational risk distribution, both abundant data situations and when our available data is challenged from the inclusion of external data or because of underreporting. Our presentation includes an application to show that failure to account for underreporting may lead to a substantial underestimation of operational risk measures. The use of external data information can easily be incorporated in our modeling approach. The paper builds on methodology developed in Bolance et al. (2012b). 1. Quantifying Operational Risk Guided by Prior Knowledge Operational risk is one of the risks that are incorporated in the Basel II regulatory framework for financial institutions and in the Solvency II regulatory framework for insurance companies (Gatzert and Wesker, 2012 and Ashby, 2011), hence the importance of the modelization and quantification of this risk. Also, operational risk is important in the context of Enterprise Risk Management (Hoyt and Liebenberg, 2011 and Dhaene et al. 2012). One major issue addressed in Bolance et al (2012b) is how to incorporate prior knowledge into operational risk models. Such prior knowledge can come in many disguises. One being prior knowledge of parametric shapes of distributions, another being prior knowledge of the frequency of underreporting and a third could be prior knowledge arising from external data sources. The fundamental principles of mixing internal and external operational risk data was originally published in this journal in Gustafsson and Nielsen (2008) and Guillen et al. (2008). Bolance et al. (2012b) take these originally ideas and put them into a broader context, see also the following recent papers proposing alternative methods to quantify operational risk (Cope, E.W., 2012, Cavallo et al., 2012, Feng et al., 2012 and Horbenko et al., 2011). In this paper we show, with a simple example, the effect of incorporating two different types of prior knowledge into the calculation of Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Tail Value-at Risk (TVaR): external operational risk data and expert information about underreporting probability. We 1 We thank the Spanish Ministry of Science / FEDER grant ECO2010-21787-C0301 and Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 1328. Corresponding author: jens.nielsen.1@city.ac.uk 2 We thank the Spanish Ministry of Science / FEDER grant ECO2010-21787-C0301 and Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 1328. Corresponding author: jens.nielsen.1@city.ac.uk","PeriodicalId":54030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Operational Risk","volume":"24 1","pages":"17-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adding prior knowledge to quantitative operational risk models\",\"authors\":\"Catalina Bolancé, Montserrat Guillén, J. Gustafsson, J. Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.21314/JOP.2013.120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our approach is based on the study of the statistical severity distribution of a single loss. We analyze the fundamental issues that arise in practice when modeling operational risk data. We address the statistical problem of estimating an operational risk distribution, both abundant data situations and when our available data is challenged from the inclusion of external data or because of underreporting. Our presentation includes an application to show that failure to account for underreporting may lead to a substantial underestimation of operational risk measures. The use of external data information can easily be incorporated in our modeling approach. The paper builds on methodology developed in Bolance et al. (2012b). 1. Quantifying Operational Risk Guided by Prior Knowledge Operational risk is one of the risks that are incorporated in the Basel II regulatory framework for financial institutions and in the Solvency II regulatory framework for insurance companies (Gatzert and Wesker, 2012 and Ashby, 2011), hence the importance of the modelization and quantification of this risk. Also, operational risk is important in the context of Enterprise Risk Management (Hoyt and Liebenberg, 2011 and Dhaene et al. 2012). One major issue addressed in Bolance et al (2012b) is how to incorporate prior knowledge into operational risk models. Such prior knowledge can come in many disguises. One being prior knowledge of parametric shapes of distributions, another being prior knowledge of the frequency of underreporting and a third could be prior knowledge arising from external data sources. The fundamental principles of mixing internal and external operational risk data was originally published in this journal in Gustafsson and Nielsen (2008) and Guillen et al. (2008). Bolance et al. (2012b) take these originally ideas and put them into a broader context, see also the following recent papers proposing alternative methods to quantify operational risk (Cope, E.W., 2012, Cavallo et al., 2012, Feng et al., 2012 and Horbenko et al., 2011). In this paper we show, with a simple example, the effect of incorporating two different types of prior knowledge into the calculation of Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Tail Value-at Risk (TVaR): external operational risk data and expert information about underreporting probability. We 1 We thank the Spanish Ministry of Science / FEDER grant ECO2010-21787-C0301 and Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 1328. Corresponding author: jens.nielsen.1@city.ac.uk 2 We thank the Spanish Ministry of Science / FEDER grant ECO2010-21787-C0301 and Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 1328. Corresponding author: jens.nielsen.1@city.ac.uk\",\"PeriodicalId\":54030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Operational Risk\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"17-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Operational Risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2013.120\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Operational Risk","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21314/JOP.2013.120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
摘要
我们的方法是基于对单个损失的统计严重性分布的研究。我们分析了操作风险数据建模在实践中出现的基本问题。我们解决了估算操作风险分布的统计问题,无论是在数据丰富的情况下,还是在我们的可用数据受到外部数据的挑战或由于漏报的情况下。我们的演示包括一个应用程序,以表明未能解释漏报可能导致对操作风险措施的严重低估。外部数据信息的使用可以很容易地结合到我们的建模方法中。本文以Bolance等人(2012b)开发的方法为基础。1. 操作风险是纳入金融机构巴塞尔协议II监管框架和保险公司偿付能力II监管框架的风险之一(Gatzert和Wesker, 2012和Ashby, 2011),因此对该风险进行建模和量化的重要性。此外,操作风险在企业风险管理的背景下也很重要(Hoyt和Liebenberg, 2011和Dhaene et al. 2012)。Bolance等人(2012b)解决的一个主要问题是如何将先验知识纳入操作风险模型。这种先验知识可以以多种形式出现。一个是分布参数形状的先验知识,另一个是低报频率的先验知识,第三个可能是来自外部数据源的先验知识。混合内部和外部操作风险数据的基本原则最初发表在该杂志的Gustafsson和Nielsen(2008)和Guillen et al.(2008)。Bolance等人(2012b)采用了这些最初的想法,并将其置于更广泛的背景下,参见以下最近提出量化操作风险的替代方法的论文(Cope, e.w., 2012, Cavallo等人,2012,Feng等人,2012和Horbenko等人,2011)。在本文中,我们通过一个简单的例子,展示了将两种不同类型的先验知识纳入风险价值(VaR)和尾部风险价值(TVaR)的计算中的效果:外部操作风险数据和关于低报概率的专家信息。我们感谢西班牙科学部/ FEDER资助ECO2010-21787-C0301和加泰罗尼亚政府资助SGR 1328。我们感谢西班牙科学部/ FEDER资助ECO2010-21787-C0301和Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 1328。通讯作者:jens.nielsen.1@city.ac.uk
Adding prior knowledge to quantitative operational risk models
Our approach is based on the study of the statistical severity distribution of a single loss. We analyze the fundamental issues that arise in practice when modeling operational risk data. We address the statistical problem of estimating an operational risk distribution, both abundant data situations and when our available data is challenged from the inclusion of external data or because of underreporting. Our presentation includes an application to show that failure to account for underreporting may lead to a substantial underestimation of operational risk measures. The use of external data information can easily be incorporated in our modeling approach. The paper builds on methodology developed in Bolance et al. (2012b). 1. Quantifying Operational Risk Guided by Prior Knowledge Operational risk is one of the risks that are incorporated in the Basel II regulatory framework for financial institutions and in the Solvency II regulatory framework for insurance companies (Gatzert and Wesker, 2012 and Ashby, 2011), hence the importance of the modelization and quantification of this risk. Also, operational risk is important in the context of Enterprise Risk Management (Hoyt and Liebenberg, 2011 and Dhaene et al. 2012). One major issue addressed in Bolance et al (2012b) is how to incorporate prior knowledge into operational risk models. Such prior knowledge can come in many disguises. One being prior knowledge of parametric shapes of distributions, another being prior knowledge of the frequency of underreporting and a third could be prior knowledge arising from external data sources. The fundamental principles of mixing internal and external operational risk data was originally published in this journal in Gustafsson and Nielsen (2008) and Guillen et al. (2008). Bolance et al. (2012b) take these originally ideas and put them into a broader context, see also the following recent papers proposing alternative methods to quantify operational risk (Cope, E.W., 2012, Cavallo et al., 2012, Feng et al., 2012 and Horbenko et al., 2011). In this paper we show, with a simple example, the effect of incorporating two different types of prior knowledge into the calculation of Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Tail Value-at Risk (TVaR): external operational risk data and expert information about underreporting probability. We 1 We thank the Spanish Ministry of Science / FEDER grant ECO2010-21787-C0301 and Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 1328. Corresponding author: jens.nielsen.1@city.ac.uk 2 We thank the Spanish Ministry of Science / FEDER grant ECO2010-21787-C0301 and Generalitat de Catalunya SGR 1328. Corresponding author: jens.nielsen.1@city.ac.uk
期刊介绍:
In December 2017, the Basel Committee published the final version of its standardized measurement approach (SMA) methodology, which will replace the approaches set out in Basel II (ie, the simpler standardized approaches and advanced measurement approach (AMA) that allowed use of internal models) from January 1, 2022. Independently of the Basel III rules, in order to manage and mitigate risks, they still need to be measurable by anyone. The operational risk industry needs to keep that in mind. While the purpose of the now defunct AMA was to find out the level of regulatory capital to protect a firm against operational risks, we still can – and should – use models to estimate operational risk economic capital. Without these, the task of managing and mitigating capital would be incredibly difficult. These internal models are now unshackled from regulatory requirements and can be optimized for managing the daily risks to which financial institutions are exposed. In addition, operational risk models can and should be used for stress tests and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). The Journal of Operational Risk also welcomes papers on nonfinancial risks as well as topics including, but not limited to, the following. The modeling and management of operational risk. Recent advances in techniques used to model operational risk, eg, copulas, correlation, aggregate loss distributions, Bayesian methods and extreme value theory. The pricing and hedging of operational risk and/or any risk transfer techniques. Data modeling external loss data, business control factors and scenario analysis. Models used to aggregate different types of data. Causal models that link key risk indicators and macroeconomic factors to operational losses. Regulatory issues, such as Basel II or any other local regulatory issue. Enterprise risk management. Cyber risk. Big data.