Skip to main content

Modeling Liquidity Risk, with Implications for Traditional Market Risk Measurement and Management

  • Chapter
Risk Management: The State of the Art

Abstract

Market risk management has traditionally focussed on the distribution of portfolio value changes produced by changes in the midpoint of bid and ask prices. Hence market risk is traditionally assessed under the assumption of an idealized market with a negligible bid-ask spread. In reality, however, spreads can be both wide and variable; hence a superior approach would recognize that positions will not be liquidated at the mid-price, but rather at the mid-price less the uncertain bid-ask spread. Liquidity risk associated with the uncertainty of the spread, particularly for thinly traded or emerging market securities under adverse market conditions, is an important part of overall market risk and is therefore important to model. We do so, proposing a simple liquidity risk methodology that can be easily and seamlessly integrated into standard value-at-risk models. We show that ignoring the liquidity effect can produce underestimates of market risk in emerging markets by as much as thirty percent. Furthermore, we show that because the BIS is already implicitly monitoring liquidity risk, banks that fail to model liquidity risk explicitly and capitalize against it will likely experience surprisingly many violations of capital requirements, particularly if their portfolios are concentrated in emerging markets.

We thank Steve Cecchetti, Edward Smith and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are ours. This paper was written while the second author visited the Stern School of Business, New York University, whose hospitality is gratefully appreciated. An abridged version was published as “Liquidity on the Outside,” Risk Magazine, 12, 68–73, 1999.

“Portfolios are usually marked to market at the middle of the bid-offer spread, and many hedge funds used models that incorporated this assumption. In late August, there was only one realistic value for the portfolio: the bid price. Amid such massive sell-offs, only the first seller obtains a reasonable price for its security; the rest lose a fortune by having to pay a liquidity premium if they want a sale…. Models should be revised to include bid-offer behavior.”

Nicholas Dunbar (“Meriwether’s Meltdown,” Risk, October 1998, 32–36)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bertsimas, D. and A.W. Lo (1998), “Optimal Control of Execution Costs,” Journal of Financial Markets, 1, 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chriss, N. and R. Almgren (1998), “Optimal Liquidation,” Manuscript, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago, Goldman Sachs & Co., and Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, N. (1998), “Meriwether’s Meltdown,” Risk, 11 (October), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarrow, R. and A. Subramanian (1997), “Mopping up Liquidity,” Risk, 10 (December), 170–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longstaff, F. (1998), “Optimal Portfolio Choice and Valuation of Illiquid Securities,” Manuscript, Department of Finance, UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krakovsky, A (1999), “Gap Risk in Credit Trading,” Risk, March, 65–67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bangia, A., Diebold, F.X., Schuermann, T., Stroughair, J.D. (2001). Modeling Liquidity Risk, with Implications for Traditional Market Risk Measurement and Management. In: Figlewski, S., Levich, R.M. (eds) Risk Management: The State of the Art. The New York University Salomon Center Series on Financial Markets and Institutions, vol 8. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0791-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0791-8_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5241-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0791-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics