Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T06:54:05.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Common Elements in Validation of Risk Models Used in Financial Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2023

By
David Lynch ,
Iftekhar Hasan  and
Akhtar Siddique
Edited by
David Lynch ,
Iftekhar Hasan  and
Akhtar Siddique
David Lynch
Affiliation:
Federal Reserve Board of Governors
Iftekhar Hasan
Affiliation:
Fordham University Graduate Schools of Business
Akhtar Siddique
Affiliation:
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides a unified discussion of the framework for model validation. It describes how model validation developed over time across various disciplines. It then describes the various approaches that are applied for validation of risk management models at financial institutions.

Keywords

Overviewframeworkconceptual underpinnings
Type
Chapter
Information
Validation of Risk Management Models for Financial Institutions
Theory and Practice
 , pp. 1 - 21
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berkowitz, J. (2001). Testing density forecasts, with applications to risk management, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 19(4), 465–474.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, J. and O’Brien, J. (2002). How accurate Are Value-at-Risk models at commercial Banks? The Journal of Finance, 57(3), 1093–1111.Google Scholar
Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: The two cultures, Statistical Science, 16, 199–231.Google Scholar
Carson, E.R. and Flood, R.L. (1990). Model validation: Philosophy, methodology and examples, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 12(4), 178–185. DOI:10.1177/014233129001200404.Google Scholar
Efron, B. (2020). Prediction, estimation, and attribution, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 115(530), 636–655, DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2020.1762613.Google Scholar
Elliot, G., Granger, Clive W. J. and Alan, Timmerman. Eds. (2006). Handbook of Economic Forecasting, Vol. 1. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Elliott, G. and Timmermann, A. (2016). Economic Forecasting. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine, Annals of Statistics, 29, 1189–1232.Google Scholar
Gaglianone, W. P., Lima, L. R., Linton, O. and Smith, D. R. (2011). Evaluating Value-at-Risk models via quantile regression. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 29(1), 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomini, R., Komunjer, I., (2005). Evaluation and combination of conditional quantile forecasts. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 23, 416–431.Google Scholar
Gordy, M. and McNeil, A. (2020). Spectral backtests of forecast distributions with application to risk management, Journal of Banking and Finance, July, Volume 116. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2020.105817.Google Scholar
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. and Friedman, J. (2009). Elements of Statistical Learning, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Michael and Inanoglu, Hulusi. (2009). Models for risk aggregation and sensitivity analysis: An application to bank economic capital, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 2(1), 118–189.Google Scholar
Jarrow, R. (2011). Risk management Models: Construction, Testing, Usage Journal of Derivatives, 18(4), 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilbertus, N., Carulla, M. R., Parascandolo, G., Hardt, M., Janzing, D. and Scholkopf, B. (2017). Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 656–666.Google Scholar
Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J., Russell, C. and Silva, R. (2017). Counterfactual fairness, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 4066–4076.Google Scholar
Lopez, A. J. (1999). Regulatory evaluation of Value-at-Risk models. Journal of Risk, 1, 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, S. M. and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Guyon, I., Luxburg, U. V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765–4774. Curran Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Mincer, J. and Zarnowitz, V. (1969). The evaluation of economic forecasts. In Mincer, J. (ed.) Economic Forecasts and Expectations. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.Google Scholar
Naylor, Thomas H. and Finger, J. M. (1967). Verification of computer simulation models, Management Science , Oct., Vol. 14, B92–B106.Google Scholar
O’Brien, J. and Szerszen, P. (2017). An evaluation of bank measures for market risk before during and after the financial crisis, Journal of Banking & Finance, 80, July, 215–234.Google Scholar
Patton, A. and Timmermann, , A. Testing forecast optimality under unknown loss, working paper, University of California San Diego, 2006.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pérignon, C., Deng, Z. Y. and Wang, Z. Y. (2008). Do banks overstate their Value-at-Risk? Journal of Banking and Finance, 32, 783–794.Google Scholar
Phillips, Jonathon P., Hahn, Carina A., Fontana, Peter C., Broniatowski, David A. and Przybocki, Mark A. (2020). Four Principles of Explainable Artificial Intelligence National Institute of Standards and Technology, Draft.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Julius Springer, Hutchinson & Co, 1959.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, University of California Press, 1951.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S. and Guestrin, C. (2016). Why should I trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In KDD 2016: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
Sargent, Robert G. (2011). Verification and validation of simulation models, Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Validation and assessment of energy models: Proceedings of a symposium held at the National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, May 19–21, 1980.Google Scholar
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. and Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 31, 841.Google Scholar
Zhao, Qingyuan and Hastie, Trevor. (2021). Causal interpretations of black-box models, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 39(1), 272–281, DOI:10.1080/07350015.2019.1624293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×