Abstract
The chapter briefly reviews the case for stress-testing risk models and recognizes the pressing ‘engineering’ problems that stand between the concept of stress testing and actually doing so for a risk model, such as a portfolio that includes a supposedly optimal allocation of assets. The chapter argues that the application of the Bayesian net ‘technology’ to stress testing introduced in the last decade lends itself particularly well to the need for a practical way to stress-test risk models. The chapter presents proposed solutions to the challenges of stress testing a model with particular reference to the use of Bayesian nets.
‘[Recent] developments will serve to further highlight the danger of […] being overly committed to an historical policy portfolio whose rigid backward-looking characterization no longer corresponds to the realities of today and tomorrow.’ ‘[W]ith its conventional (or, to be more precise, reduced-form) analytical foundation now subject to some motion, it will become even more difficult to rely just on a traditional portfolio diversification as both necessary and sufficient to deliver high returns and mitigate risks. Diversification will remain necessary, but a lot more attention will be devoted to the appropriate specification of tail scenarios and tail hedges.’ 1
Mohamed A. El-Erian
Chief Economic Advisor at Allianz
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aragones, J.R., C. Blanco, and K. Dowd. 2001. Incorporating Stress Testing into Market Risk Modelling. Institutional Investor 7 (3): 44–49.
Bank of England. 2007. A New Approach […] to Financial Stability, April 2007.
Berkowitz, J. 1999. A Coherent Approach for Stress-Testing. Journal of Risk 2 (2): 5–15.
Brush, S., and J. Glover. 2016. ECB Leaves Investors Guessing on Some Banks’ Stress Testing Results, Friday, August 5, 2016, Bloomberg. Accessed 5 August 2016. http://www.garp.org/
Cannata, F., and F. Quagliarello. 2011. Basel III and Beyond—A Guide to Banking Regulation After the Crisis. London: Risk Books.
Denev, A. 2015. Probabilistic Graphical Methods. London: Risk Books.
Gigerenzer, G., and H. Brighton. 2009. Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 107–143.
Gigerenzer, G., and A. Edwards. 2003. Simple Tools for Understanding Risk: From Innumeracy to Insight. British Medical Journal 327 (27, Sept.): 741–744.
Gigerenzer, G., and R. Selten. 2002. Rethinking Rationality. In Bounded Rationality—The Adaptive Toolbox, ed. G. Gigerenzer and R. Selten. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haldane, A., S. Hall, and S. Pezzini. 2007. A New Approach to Assessing Risks to Financial Stability. Financial Stability Paper No. 2, April 2007, Bank of England.
Heckerman, D., and J. Breese. July 1994. A New Look at Causal Independence. In Proceedings of Tenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 286–292. Seattle, WA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Jensen, F.V., and T.D. Nielsen. 2007. Bayesian Nets and Decision Graphs. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Jurgelanaite, R., and P.J.F. Lucas. 2005. Exploiting Causal Independence in Large Bayesian Networks. Knowledge-Based Systems 18: 153–162.
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane (Penguin Books).
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.
Kim, J., and C.C. Finger. 2000. A Stress Test to Incorporate Correlation Breakdown. Journal of Risk 2 (3, Spring): 5–19.
Kotz, S., and S. Nadarajah. 2000. Extreme Value Theory—Theory and Applications. London: Imperial College Press.
Kupiec, P.H. 1999. Stress Testing in a Value-at-Risk Framework. Journal of Derivatives 6: 7–24.
McNeil, A. 1999. Extreme Value Theory for Risk Managers. Working Paper, Departement Mathematik, ETH Zentrum. Accessed 12 March 2017. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.70.9298&rep=rep1&type=pdf
McNeil, A.J., R. Frey, and P. Embrechts. 2005. Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques, and Tools. Princeton, US and Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.
Meucci, A. 2005. Risk and Asset Allocation. Berlin: Springer.
———. 2008. Fully Flexible Views. Risk 21: 97–102.
———. 2010a. Factors on Demand. Risk 23: 84–89.
———. 2010b. Fully Flexible Bayesian Network, December 6, 2010. Accessed 26 September 2011. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1721302
Pearl, J. 2009. Causality. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rebonato, R. 2005. The Plight of the Fortune Tellers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. 2010. Coherent Stress Testing. Chichester: Wiley.
Rebonato, R., and A. Denev. 2010. A Bayesian Approach to Stress Testing and Scenario Analysis. Journal of Investment Management 8 (3): 1–13.
———. 2011. Coherent Asset Allocation and Diversification in the Presence of Stress Events. Journal of Investment Management 10 (4): 19–53.
———. 2012. Portfolio Management Under Stress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saroka, I., and R. Rebonato. 2015. How to Deform a Yield Curve: The Most Likely Deformation of a Yield Curve Consistent with Subjective Views. Journal of Fixed Income 24 (3, Winter): 30–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rebonato, R. (2017). Stress Testing with Bayesian Nets and Related Techniques: Meeting the Engineering Challenges. In: Pompella, M., Scordis, N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Unconventional Risk Transfer. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59297-8_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59297-8_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59296-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59297-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)