Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

A Decision Rule to Minimize Daily Capital Charges in Forecasting Value-at-Risk

By Juan-Ángel Jiménez-Martín, Michael McAleer and Teodosio Pérez-Amaral


Under the Basel II Accord, banks and other Authorized Deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs) have to communicate their daily risk estimates to the monetary authorities at the beginning of the trading day, using a variety of Value-at-Risk (VaR) models to measure risk. Sometimes the risk estimates communicated using these models are too high, thereby leading to large capital requirements and high capital costs. At other times, the risk estimates are too low, leading to excessive violations, so that realised losses are above the estimated risk. In this paper we propose a learning strategy that complements existing methods for calculating VaR and lowers daily capital requirements, while restricting the number of endogenous violations within the Basel II Accord penalty limits. We suggest a decision rule that responds to violations in a discrete and instantaneous manner, while adapting more slowly in periods of no violations. We apply the proposed strategy to Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and show there can be substantial savings in daily capital charges, while restricting the number of violations to within the Basel II penalty limits.Daily capital charges, endogenous violations, frequency of violations, optimizing strategy, risk forecasts, value-at-risk.

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2007). An econometric analysis of asymmetric volatility: theory and application to patents,
  2. (1998). Assessing the dispersion in banks’ estimates of market risk: the results of a value-at-risk survey, Discussion Paper 1, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
  3. (2003). Asymptotic theory for a vector ARMA-GARCH model,
  4. (2005). Automated inference and learning in modeling financial volatility,
  5. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation,
  6. (1996). Committee on Banking Supervision,
  7. (1991). Conditional heteroscedasticity in asset returns: a new approach,
  8. (1986). Generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity,
  9. (2001). How accurate are value-at-risk models at commercial banks?, Discussion Paper, Federal Reserve Board.
  10. (1999). Nonlinear Time Series Models in Empirical Finance, Cambridge,
  11. On adaptive estimation in nonstationary ARMA models with GARCH errors,
  12. (1992). On the relation between the expected value and volatility of nominal excess return on stocks,
  13. (2002). Recent theoretical results for time series models with GARCH errors,
  14. Stationarity and the existence of moments of a family of GARCH processes,
  15. (2008). The Ten Commandments for optimizing value-at-risk and daily capital charges, to appear in
  16. (2000). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk,
  17. Veiga (2008a), Forecasting value-at-risk with a parsimonious portfolio spillover GARCH (PS-GARCH) model,
  18. Veiga (2008b), Single index and portfolio models for forecasting value-at-risk thresholds,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.