<%BANNER%>

Comparing Estimators of VAR and CVAR under the Asymmetric Laplace Distribution

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101122_AAAACF INGEST_TIME 2010-11-23T04:44:52Z PACKAGE UFE0011960_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 3892 DFID F20101122_AABDJZ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH hsu_h_Page_16thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
032d2525098e14093715f44729479e02
SHA-1
0130d84d83b734c1366a362e685cce508d8f1d07
24210 F20101122_AABDHB hsu_h_Page_30.pro
8acce283dd637e5e54d53da39b6f1448
6a60cf56e4dd32a8c3eb7009265154a9f8dc4482
70538 F20101122_AABDCE hsu_h_Page_12.jpg
b8dbb68d24cfaddda23a03c0e73df6ac
448e40b69770bf68b64528a7f56473dee86799ec
27632 F20101122_AABDHC hsu_h_Page_31.pro
81380ac7d350ca7bf2a51ce7db1fb074
54b81762c8ede07cfeb0ec6a5bd9a2d8b66fa90e
61698 F20101122_AABDCF hsu_h_Page_13.jpg
285d517309cb9182212ca072742e007f
8db8f8a746b6046800a0e352d0a772261c66227b
24974 F20101122_AABDHD hsu_h_Page_33.pro
8a78d081e7cb354e1e4c98221abf8e8a
67391cfebca18b509dabbe71a737b076e52c7f54
45652 F20101122_AABDCG hsu_h_Page_14.jpg
ad55cfa9d1459eb55601396a6b3be5a5
120a72440248b7ab36953613d359a24a88641ce5
24571 F20101122_AABDHE hsu_h_Page_34.pro
2c9a2d595ded17f5b492476244d5a33b
8d70ba91cdae84a7f726cbcf3fee7884891808d5
41803 F20101122_AABDCH hsu_h_Page_15.jpg
b4fd0fd28056fc5aec9897382aaccef4
53ba4cb9d887679b30e8ecf670d34c05826e259c
20569 F20101122_AABDHF hsu_h_Page_35.pro
c8a0c7a2114d5d6d23b0fa372714b37a
3108c8b94f5dd456953ff70013586b39d88d51b1
37612 F20101122_AABDCI hsu_h_Page_16.jpg
59303f31c4973101941bfd5422055499
1d1867339c75eb93ffa758d2ebb2f9fd4508c28f
40163 F20101122_AABDHG hsu_h_Page_36.pro
2d380220cb523a45cc71a389bfa0a5fc
32ee54d60b839a056bec8ef310185ca66fcb0fe3
50364 F20101122_AABDCJ hsu_h_Page_17.jpg
e8e97a416c85abe1f742f59511d37cd6
27ee2ab193f563232231555664a159524ed3048b
44168 F20101122_AABDHH hsu_h_Page_37.pro
7aa3a7b41f6aa9cb4caef665dbfa04e3
dc1b009809b570bf32c363bd7425eadd7080ddc3
37291 F20101122_AABDCK hsu_h_Page_19.jpg
278e235563a9c26ee3acef449f429564
b5540cdf98eae9235aac35ffdad3343cff52a1dc
34496 F20101122_AABDHI hsu_h_Page_39.pro
36b96e7fe5604efce0b376a7b3c0d209
12a417b939eac9e3d4b3d8e8a5df8a2b22f0732f
45362 F20101122_AABDCL hsu_h_Page_21.jpg
f14a785c8484548ad0c8d26f90c23e44
782388fb56ef379a0a173ee7536b49f71be8cace
45421 F20101122_AABDCM hsu_h_Page_22.jpg
8183eb922ff3713d15378e1d32caf20c
2da97add593ac1315340ade988f75712811d59b4
45583 F20101122_AABDHJ hsu_h_Page_41.pro
83bef4a4b8166bc19389457683757236
13d7bf88b53987fc728307d9ca890b4673d30511
34751 F20101122_AABDCN hsu_h_Page_23.jpg
18f71e7967cc8319e221095b4476545c
61579a22f31d0ee1ee1a51c919772c8b4dc34deb
10602 F20101122_AABDHK hsu_h_Page_42.pro
17d2f00fda45f0bc565a100df357e401
f590d2f467ecdf1d555aba62c1114709ac86f6f9
51669 F20101122_AABDCO hsu_h_Page_25.jpg
74a1742dbdc7bb1681bcf7264587a953
76e78177aa701b0d4ddcc5d047df7724234a426c
23454 F20101122_AABDHL hsu_h_Page_43.pro
e09bfea538db9d7864cda26f5526afe3
b37e87a0a965d47c0533aea009842b4ff7fb8099
53428 F20101122_AABDCP hsu_h_Page_26.jpg
613b6edc7b12d3d80f510b318411ab2d
bb02e644f936a247d4c1257e85ccac5e44e36dbd
39259 F20101122_AABDHM hsu_h_Page_44.pro
41e049bf996ceba0b714236d4b7aa5ac
fce6201c2727c4d7572c17b79a6ca17dd748408e
57915 F20101122_AABDCQ hsu_h_Page_27.jpg
7c0b0ddef08604474f3ccbecd890e7f1
60029cbc97f41f62f8c06b2ff4da97feb64da94c
30833 F20101122_AABDHN hsu_h_Page_45.pro
cb8c9c3f41a89864446a37ffa44db9c9
5304f2f6f7ba65f7e441b468c09f14c706a1b0d6
59510 F20101122_AABDCR hsu_h_Page_28.jpg
b437562c199bddca6acb15f107fc0b6d
2f75de51ebf1d87c655c112efaf4c67214162257
19948 F20101122_AABDHO hsu_h_Page_46.pro
96e87898834395d4a34df086b21e9d46
b3dfe3d9dc2926253a0dbcef9277b37215e323df
52488 F20101122_AABDCS hsu_h_Page_29.jpg
c1f21d25ce1f0d94535299fa23227857
bfa7549718a89523dbcb1cbdda4f02705b7f874d
26576 F20101122_AABDHP hsu_h_Page_47.pro
67386bc6cf4348ff473a9ea019f760c3
e5293133f910ea2f9721dbb3217648e3285d283c
56341 F20101122_AABDCT hsu_h_Page_31.jpg
0e71e62ac065d0f04dc717eef345bd9d
d76a082549c4ddd7dd8cfce6a6e1e0a7a479b711
46471 F20101122_AABDHQ hsu_h_Page_48.pro
f25faeae569699b4a40f663fc4db25c3
68a3df3642777f93b9a2889c3fe4c33e0b96c5e5
45020 F20101122_AABDCU hsu_h_Page_34.jpg
ecff83d41f80e7a2b5e84f29c74e9f41
cc7555e9bde2dd0bf16e6af5eb1ef374b5c56388
3791 F20101122_AABDHR hsu_h_Page_49.pro
876c63f17e35ba1598b77849d87f2c33
e63875f51ce77876d1082d0d3fb2b988a376d595
68142 F20101122_AABDCV hsu_h_Page_36.jpg
0cfe0dcafcadf61d249aa29f15fd86a7
a86251d265abc4e969d40db4ef74f97f01ab0d8c
10861 F20101122_AABDHS hsu_h_Page_50.pro
14d40286fcc06fceea8303284f7992be
c31fc6408d6d751e140fdb37ca33651b0235fd7e
69338 F20101122_AABDCW hsu_h_Page_37.jpg
533b467fae20e0dd71ecc52388d31dfc
dd63a6618c55bae473814e2af387996b7e661388
440 F20101122_AABDHT hsu_h_Page_01.txt
47d70a5c5f689311c2e8e27804fbafdc
646b2620fafd80917c078074464fe9337d294685
37478 F20101122_AABDCX hsu_h_Page_38.jpg
5ed16d6bf3433b50636b35684587f144
06e3e885d2f4d9cf4a34bfb070b397c8202102ee
100 F20101122_AABDHU hsu_h_Page_03.txt
f7672fc8ce7bdc9a927c187405d5c2bd
bfa9f92e0cab5f95bf8c89ec00d2728e6e7e988b
57812 F20101122_AABDCY hsu_h_Page_39.jpg
e54f5be4a2623a53daeb95c9ae57b3c1
c9263e9bd15509bdd1e6742a5939224b56f42ecd
3077 F20101122_AABDHV hsu_h_Page_05.txt
e6382c257766a0910f1d737dd459e869
6aa4365d3a8b8f91b571cf642fb7c903b2711a0d
728794 F20101122_AABDAA hsu_h_Page_20.jp2
09ea11ce4f107da56c7d8ea636300e1d
f51621571c40388244ae07f80f8f03272b8b1991
1188 F20101122_AABDHW hsu_h_Page_07.txt
cd7d1c9d9c7a1486ba89efb89e4e526f
e5de7a756d2a2b70efae0a171c7ebec67c72e7cc
12354 F20101122_AABDAB hsu_h_Page_16.QC.jpg
7e5e8d41b6bc7a4e8e5849dc9d326e56
20b662e219aea97b3029a5d316075163d056b29c
67151 F20101122_AABDCZ hsu_h_Page_41.jpg
b16ef41153eb8e900be1ef7dde0dd85b
509f5f071e9e4208ede1c2c2ea676494fb1f9380
2317 F20101122_AABDHX hsu_h_Page_08.txt
d8ed9d48cb25b213d07c47aa5330017b
0bf17791bdfa9b1df842ae952b1ce9fbdfe22c17
1053954 F20101122_AABDFA hsu_h_Page_10.tif
60639539cd647572597827ec0d7f1e1c
0e642719112f8c3062a6e1cf012b5150791cf8af
1696 F20101122_AABDHY hsu_h_Page_09.txt
dfab9e7eb701f355b71097c0af4e6adc
02514b4e681ec3714bfdab83ebeffe66f5b05c27
F20101122_AABDAC hsu_h_Page_26.tif
58a6ce701f30e4afc4351e9f2a5c0fe0
8a63da29aa56a3d460667ce94535e383e71ec038
F20101122_AABDFB hsu_h_Page_11.tif
1fc0d54d9c4d848979c6d8b8ff37bead
667af411edbc778538e0413287e9caea7ace2183
1262 F20101122_AABDHZ hsu_h_Page_10.txt
3a1c958eaadb2fce9eb11a6f62095215
912a0637c93a466e67784e118faea03ebe8694c3
6022 F20101122_AABDAD hsu_h_Page_27thm.jpg
84d5c4ce189b4109e335ac7a26898332
a880905a6370c35d17abf97e39292614b6ac858d
F20101122_AABDFC hsu_h_Page_12.tif
24db0b9984e03713f1e52153a7ecb15e
ca041d0d35f85c217c0b4047824a3804db544081
F20101122_AABDAE hsu_h_Page_02.tif
0ac2564441e3263c21de097eb955afe7
72536d4f25816643019f9312d260705eaecaaf0f
25271604 F20101122_AABDFD hsu_h_Page_13.tif
03bbdf6e47397f871f3e20443eaea121
3f06d4e5b6f6dfc65979f98caad8052b1b2b81d5
30572 F20101122_AABDAF hsu_h_Page_40.pro
4b852ae782e1b5e8cab88558fbb5d80d
98a2809436769246c956fc4c29ff0c474c91249a
16627 F20101122_AABDKA hsu_h_Page_17.QC.jpg
c7866754bf37e561ab41eb3c8a86db31
17a2c4f63b8c51a75141110aa3f325513d46f950
F20101122_AABDFE hsu_h_Page_14.tif
b9631039af9b06f72ecfb1a55d126df4
a4db2157db6a3638f42f5bb36009d20bb7e6c8d5
14985 F20101122_AABDAG hsu_h_Page_21.QC.jpg
063dde1746fe2864654a9ca95b963e8c
dd084cdc4b17f8030c091f596a4caee1c7db80ec
5048 F20101122_AABDKB hsu_h_Page_17thm.jpg
d3436e57ceca2822e01d73449cba8ff4
d618839c3e22228988a745cb25cb4d6189500ef4
F20101122_AABDFF hsu_h_Page_16.tif
2925c84693c1b71bd111e7662a127458
ffb49a66a650daa034eca9c7def2b44617fc85e4
5811 F20101122_AABDAH hsu_h_Page_08thm.jpg
8a9851db0ef94e8cf8efb3c023e40646
0b73235aa2e6031bd9f3df67c4e7d6f86e62c791
4339 F20101122_AABDKC hsu_h_Page_18thm.jpg
945fa31ef8c0288fbda1d99ebc1464f2
8d7cb525061c567f8c88b6926b4797a9fbc5b61f
F20101122_AABDFG hsu_h_Page_17.tif
7964018a8e259401ef86f59bd6c82885
430f54c4a9303a094e98962bce8c6a8f010cb88f
23467 F20101122_AABDAI hsu_h_Page_38.pro
380b516f4831d0c48a164017b0fa178a
3b418de088dee8d6d362cd1c84279196dca70fd3
4353 F20101122_AABDKD hsu_h_Page_19thm.jpg
cf45b00acfaee0a0b00edb4a16be6514
531c6df1e74fb02bbed4ec9f929bbbb31daff566
15241 F20101122_AABCYJ hsu_h_Page_14.QC.jpg
5af0d193f4dbd0cc89b95a14a6d45a55
ca18c7663b0c50e5a3feced9caaa2a9f62c9ed66
678848 F20101122_AABDAJ hsu_h_Page_40.jp2
feb51de6a401a0503b07dcd9cd8d1898
506480e45ab95856f13c061b54eda4f1b6693eab
16099 F20101122_AABDKE hsu_h_Page_20.QC.jpg
fe443b306efc64059d076cfcd0bb0f2e
925a8673b531889cdaeeca4248e21ca70380ddec
F20101122_AABDFH hsu_h_Page_18.tif
d298911aee65ad0ab98f48eeeb07c688
5f25ae152c5d48696b20ec99c8ed419ea488e9d8
37224 F20101122_AABCYK hsu_h_Page_13.pro
3a365ed0992d21feff58c40061a494cc
e77d7674d1caa66110ecabc5c65aae06074cdacd
54274 F20101122_AABDAK hsu_h_Page_33.jpg
dc8d496dc946102f3660b2b985331e3b
ac8418c2950463f81e295552c08f2231221b7790
5082 F20101122_AABDKF hsu_h_Page_20thm.jpg
66cc65128cf073c649a1628871b1c16b
521fa9e3558c424b8c42d73c3d67466124f91ba5
F20101122_AABDFI hsu_h_Page_20.tif
eb12faca0a46a378a246e2d5309b1ade
0a45265a1d1ce24cb59123070834b0cd5e00a080
53686 F20101122_AABCYL hsu_h_Page_20.jpg
9225a54c2bb087bd2b7b73afb8acee18
fa83359816616e8ab5b96c666e7aa8eb58f7b193
2401 F20101122_AABDAL hsu_h_Page_01thm.jpg
2bd895fc2f5dd56651988e3762d3c2e0
3024415ede9a683764465032b1ea0d30e7d5a6b6
4528 F20101122_AABDKG hsu_h_Page_21thm.jpg
7a9c8afde412e0feb09d47570d244c5b
43fe780502774c7b8d8031d965e25770e2fde90f
F20101122_AABDFJ hsu_h_Page_21.tif
d3a34e398a4dfb0a72c1ec7c823f91b6
bef33963b3334c843206780e8372252203057ddb
29194 F20101122_AABCYM hsu_h_Page_28.pro
24d9eddeae7fb671ae29022774f19366
62d21d8c280b00c61ef288854f66acbbf44b3045
F20101122_AABDAM hsu_h_Page_15.tif
e95111b332c1b168fe4484c87a38a451
b8c702aa9fac9dd400e3fe897210b4f98076aa71
14640 F20101122_AABDKH hsu_h_Page_22.QC.jpg
11e15f543d1be01b59d3674a0d1980c9
1d5fe315e61c4abf99c0aa2b89ad37eeedee33cd
F20101122_AABDFK hsu_h_Page_22.tif
a6539008ac8d08862e69096e42eed813
4cec19603caa64720eda4741612680b5c3ed19d6
3298 F20101122_AABCYN hsu_h_Page_02.QC.jpg
828a8b949e1ce4f20969579f9f56fa80
8cec8829013d729761dec7cb2f16b7379047eba6
1731 F20101122_AABDAN hsu_h_Page_36.txt
1f03b8cd29d6dacc283c4577a15352c9
cee36051d30b8b067faf95bd65c3ebbb561116e3
4549 F20101122_AABDKI hsu_h_Page_22thm.jpg
5c1a8d383584494d8897b73e746c6d31
517f253c2cc70b1f71b832b926f8838ac7c641d0
F20101122_AABDFL hsu_h_Page_23.tif
38b1688b39a6cfda0780991191110228
3379261cfc75d6d9aa6787a3e995397d6f4d65a3
4520 F20101122_AABCYO hsu_h_Page_43thm.jpg
39140b93dc39fb48c6a28ad4d24d3c0e
fd30a94f6a045226df9983e193cd3753c32befe2
5223 F20101122_AABDAO hsu_h_Page_32thm.jpg
087dd5dbd5ce90b156ad09c26323c47e
ee50fa2e1bc0e5fafd00980088b8859e30b3e4dc
11079 F20101122_AABDKJ hsu_h_Page_23.QC.jpg
397ecb078045422af271dc7c10006e0b
e6bcb3cf182e63037ea455d4decfa9f408f52788
F20101122_AABDFM hsu_h_Page_24.tif
855b89806b5863c714318b2c20fe08e6
5ce8c85b0d4ace6c2e081ff71808fbdcacb72775
19510 F20101122_AABCYP hsu_h_Page_44.QC.jpg
c926ae85c78c75eaf7243249ced89698
e156ffc48cba0a486da65c6cd829aeda6a3c9f3e
21850 F20101122_AABDAP hsu_h_Page_23.pro
53bc868f3e57546a374b0f214fcfaa9e
603cf1bc8910d4a852cabbe630d75ab5b3d607af
16154 F20101122_AABDKK hsu_h_Page_24.QC.jpg
4189b5f1f93aee8bd94132932596fb67
8982e865ef6aa79223d8fa97d03220f0c1456075
F20101122_AABDFN hsu_h_Page_25.tif
d5fdb5991ce3f3caa610fc1110b3921d
2774bda1b69172561a06c58383b6c2f700449c7b
1024 F20101122_AABCYQ hsu_h_Page_16.txt
9f0860c3f97a0e072d397c4fc79755e2
d327d93afc52e0dd6b05f24f72a754125c14931b
F20101122_AABDAQ hsu_h_Page_33.tif
2a08b14e800d0bfa7ba10f313aaddab7
90586b75a26f1b367a28407a0d0d06b339dc7e01
17584 F20101122_AABDKL hsu_h_Page_25.QC.jpg
b774e30aaa577f3a7cc570c147500d58
500baef4842da1cd15a191e8f85d79bc9cdfb4de
F20101122_AABDFO hsu_h_Page_27.tif
5a60759b354ead85f65da523de44c49f
1d10558c3a51eaebd9f6b8bf245a03767ef44c93
53956 F20101122_AABCYR hsu_h_Page_40.jpg
27b260e845cdbdf29720ef4bf7ecaa03
03bd283aac13e31f0d5c60ffb4db187cb3a2d06c
35178 F20101122_AABDAR hsu_h_Page_17.pro
a035d145a9b86c4a945ff47b5bd915ea
af08518b3f3f71d31369a98b24f98aea38c64a59
F20101122_AABDFP hsu_h_Page_30.tif
35b791f1ab1292966ce1ea1eeb3deb22
4eaf18eba1fd65e65b0e84a626e7024b7f88b806
5080 F20101122_AABCYS hsu_h_Page_24thm.jpg
5d7d92932a9f673ef042128525972c28
8c72a3539091e013354f713994893f465cc02708
612 F20101122_AABDAS hsu_h_Page_04.txt
8bdd1d21b82d9e256f445060f333207c
a5519c4524f17584af1945b4a546bcee53ef0ff8
5065 F20101122_AABDKM hsu_h_Page_25thm.jpg
dd8e8df82c28c0b1d1007179548a48fa
85dcf2a7a07f62eae97251d271fbaeff155572fb
F20101122_AABDFQ hsu_h_Page_31.tif
ecd1eb01cd1c6d18c3da19fbbeaffadf
f7a31734d943d2daa55acfcb21e66c8db0efc7e3
29864 F20101122_AABCYT hsu_h_Page_21.pro
793b4f5fc7241be2aa0f23d67178a607
2ad5c04de9b6f0cf3be006c0571bb84edc28a65b
56048 F20101122_AABDAT hsu_h_Page_32.jpg
2532f4d7dbaebe6a716a718b18cd1d5d
25c3a3ea79d31d3fbe734fae9333d734c7646dbe
17245 F20101122_AABDKN hsu_h_Page_26.QC.jpg
db5c60a3716e2a4442c5cc1a7402b5b7
14376b2ae01c61e9bd2af0b9117cbfe3aabeba03
F20101122_AABDFR hsu_h_Page_34.tif
4f4d28b2a19182fa67fe822453ef0aad
ae189568e388dba162f17674e166568c837d27c1
21328 F20101122_AABCYU hsu_h_Page_48.QC.jpg
351080af637fd607c85eef7cddee8f03
729e51fa0c31e6308690bc9e2ef4e88bb960552d
480 F20101122_AABDAU hsu_h_Page_50.txt
a87452e935f6a4003f8005184862edd0
df9b15e5668d3bcc6c166db471101c046a1c195a
5228 F20101122_AABDKO hsu_h_Page_26thm.jpg
400cd3479a4985d432d1679b0885c1b7
65f2870bef86464d3ca46e27b293915ac1c47a4f
F20101122_AABDFS hsu_h_Page_35.tif
60e521fd76d253c0fc2606dfb6f332c6
dfb9579da2f336c59fb3310204ecdebe11e6cc4b
33503 F20101122_AABCYV hsu_h_Page_04.jp2
91b5202e1e65f8c28231839490d94801
3f98d4e82be5db443a59ed0e265754dd6acac6cc
1609 F20101122_AABDAV hsu_h_Page_17.txt
ee4faa02a1e48bf23e563e24e7f8500c
df0b56fc8b7be55a440085121adc7fd5af981098
19414 F20101122_AABDKP hsu_h_Page_27.QC.jpg
d5ea33be50c88a5f97749d129cb8dfd6
df3456cdbddb0b850c283900d1edf3876866e4dc
F20101122_AABDFT hsu_h_Page_36.tif
b18c3737c06785b5fb16e63a0fe170e3
994de49f55e4072a41fdc2703bc353a94ba68c74
890 F20101122_AABCYW hsu_h_Page_46.txt
609a44c05430a012be3eb9dbd4781924
f68c06e411f27f5ad5a55148f60aa4c1b8d53b7a
18384 F20101122_AABDAW hsu_h_Page_16.pro
9973ef48b3641a51b08a6e0c9dfbca0a
ceacad2ff21462f3dd38f5a134cb0f500d1827ab
19365 F20101122_AABDKQ hsu_h_Page_28.QC.jpg
2ad6ee3056848db44282134ce7fdce36
638a29ad98b330b98d63d2fbbcbdad95b249064f
F20101122_AABDFU hsu_h_Page_37.tif
eaff507bfa80813ecd7b560eb63cb741
360cbc00d49dfbf716cf20451f681532a2fbfe4e
1955 F20101122_AABCYX hsu_h_Page_48.txt
8b48e65afa198f2a87981e3a47b10fe5
4c7802c4d931885964bf4b933c8b33359fbc0b4e
F20101122_AABDAX hsu_h_Page_28.tif
8c9bbdc1c3c1f7c485f29937e072f312
be99ea507b33f7d31529f86b4fb9fbae62a32034
16871 F20101122_AABDKR hsu_h_Page_29.QC.jpg
6bc8812b1eba882ae12057d8d0357fbf
068771831a6e99d51f4eaddf73997c474204e866
4266 F20101122_AABCYY hsu_h_Page_09thm.jpg
fe38d7ec78d8e083cdbd4b5c80328c3f
d96b145fac293e79fe3c5eb90d0d529c493554e7
104 F20101122_AABDAY hsu_h_Page_02.txt
74d96bafcaca7c5db7f15d5a66dce064
336a111b7a2400ad6efe05db0a2b23bd1ab80bd0
5186 F20101122_AABDKS hsu_h_Page_29thm.jpg
0748e9e0aeb73146010b9029fa9f0ed6
2b3a4d7bd98815b0cdfd82c3381e94a2fe998489
F20101122_AABDFV hsu_h_Page_38.tif
38bff1e830176de73bf6595752270055
e0ef6ac7511bb17cc78b60847b5159aa649d4ced
17942 F20101122_AABCYZ hsu_h_Page_31.QC.jpg
e5812f8c657541c68f47af14b11a1f45
9810980cebf3073100c52df280703d35ce4656b0
639426 F20101122_AABDAZ hsu_h_Page_24.jp2
cf451d2b39c861de5896ad560c856d61
c5560e9a479ea0f7a84c4b562b3c300061f61478
14170 F20101122_AABDKT hsu_h_Page_30.QC.jpg
8ff14c721b6e3b6ec7d7419341e67f4e
1ba6b3ad68a904606c65106606411adf3e5704f4
F20101122_AABDFW hsu_h_Page_39.tif
2ddd24d4af6b3e841c5287a6222804b1
58a9f7673e81200c607aea11ad115fd65c201a9f
4417 F20101122_AABDKU hsu_h_Page_30thm.jpg
8852f8221a536e5a21236ac760731ccb
31393ccf4fa2e2e59ea49f6bc0ad498e44f577bf
8423998 F20101122_AABDFX hsu_h_Page_40.tif
ff9b04365ff7d962422617b49ea294e6
26bd6cc8dcc12ef7bfb1318ee41f43852e0d30ce
5096 F20101122_AABDKV hsu_h_Page_31thm.jpg
a883efb298ec5e2e51542ec8b418eb2a
4aeb7164ae3964e5d4d5aca661ef49e5c30ae46f
32148 F20101122_AABDDA hsu_h_Page_42.jpg
6d5ea20a545784055f9e1f030b1c778e
10d1658fe3c90ccf97316febfb9c26eb0918075a
F20101122_AABDFY hsu_h_Page_44.tif
02a7b51b6171d7150570502f150e23a2
10f3e662464014a5efd5cb0c834292f07701cef7
17952 F20101122_AABDKW hsu_h_Page_32.QC.jpg
d7719687eaac20e7a0a16e7965834e66
c645bee73d368ee40ca9785011951034d990a495
42835 F20101122_AABDDB hsu_h_Page_43.jpg
df696294305cfa813d8f5d687aef0f83
15e2f13e8286f711d6e71e6af93b3caf7f6ca992
F20101122_AABDFZ hsu_h_Page_45.tif
6a51a122512aee44c7a53d4f73c59b7f
a4699b1aea5b7615c338ef1f44dde0b1de792135
17635 F20101122_AABDKX hsu_h_Page_33.QC.jpg
18c089e0edfa43675f995d3fc7741d21
caa491c68709461bc37cc929f2d22ecc1b45bdeb
61815 F20101122_AABDDC hsu_h_Page_44.jpg
9591ee522059ff56ef19f076386493bf
a542dada51d6feb8c2f789f63f78fe181b886a22
1926 F20101122_AABDIA hsu_h_Page_11.txt
5f239ea98b870e78590db89182412aa6
0816ecf62e89aa32eaed9ed50930c4382c4882ed
5342 F20101122_AABDKY hsu_h_Page_33thm.jpg
0d93aa010e25dce2c7dd66e0c18e6382
bfbce9c476b159e68e28ba8a2e4d66682181fb14
33827 F20101122_AABDDD hsu_h_Page_46.jpg
c33eed02e0272a1b6e8a793d63023d2c
edc270f147c24bd6a9479deb81ddc9b0a1878fd4
1976 F20101122_AABDIB hsu_h_Page_12.txt
977c3aa00f5b91e459f08d404a23b193
d3e67528e26eaa0f57e95b8edf3d4b0b1fa9c425
14804 F20101122_AABDKZ hsu_h_Page_34.QC.jpg
9437effcae720ee0d80b614f573fa542
6c0336f036dd2a89855d7671cf1d65cf8062b8fe
57845 F20101122_AABDDE hsu_h_Page_47.jpg
e4238305c6ce4a87c37f5f798fc7c6e0
fbae1946f2e32653a9aa047e16d5b33921b68c81
1491 F20101122_AABDIC hsu_h_Page_13.txt
f7ce27ce64d36dac751b28ac44a791de
6d1bced70e92e0acfd3ca6191f809d13fc143015
1510 F20101122_AABDID hsu_h_Page_14.txt
66963d381c05a2a27443a4ca525a4562
a75a7323a48b44ae09314574a4ef4785ccb32394
66309 F20101122_AABDDF hsu_h_Page_48.jpg
330de50a46d2b4e397d54d95e01f7453
0411575f661bac6d51c3197ced64afff7d5720b5
1058 F20101122_AABDIE hsu_h_Page_15.txt
332470cfa4aa0855b3f4f38f09233418
eac918367f00b1de18a1f13a8457f3ae6ab6577e
13396 F20101122_AABDDG hsu_h_Page_49.jpg
4b4e26069f040813c20505e1e2318684
fa4ade1e1508f8000bcfab4c9d081435cd553fae
1493 F20101122_AABDIF hsu_h_Page_18.txt
de838eed5ed13d14e23eac9e47b1dab3
35b735d126a6b67bf3b5c8454418ba7cb9c76ac2
23295 F20101122_AABDDH hsu_h_Page_50.jpg
9aea0d1a5653bbcd7da241550cabc77a
1aa2a7b045591af215119273b408db8e70d32e72
1271 F20101122_AABDIG hsu_h_Page_19.txt
acba03d4c3351b764129595457e0bfc1
8220e0713b39a83b9ac5e6ae8471bfd7be16e542
24234 F20101122_AABDDI hsu_h_Page_01.jp2
4e256ea89c61a2e66a40c122edff7f05
00a63b1fa5e57fabb055bce691c149ab05a15a56
1096 F20101122_AABDIH hsu_h_Page_20.txt
78db22a9c8e5bbd4383df5caf1638932
b156174de2dc933f3a854464f84180ba03996fa2
5610 F20101122_AABDDJ hsu_h_Page_03.jp2
c3e9f4ade3834dae4e94a655e28d2c9a
0adb87d9ed4573a46bd96e487850bed272d75628
1378 F20101122_AABDII hsu_h_Page_21.txt
2de2817103fdf1a8ae9b14638e2de6cd
d02da5348e8277fe7b17ef3014d108b019303db2
1051981 F20101122_AABDDK hsu_h_Page_05.jp2
c6f9f399034c3673d7c81f30447bc36c
dcf95dacd546e72d19e861df71e1dd16fbdbb691
1220 F20101122_AABDIJ hsu_h_Page_23.txt
0554b14a493ad0db271c86f7ed0a302e
758da63be60a4c06058872d90fa8c8d9b0f14ee6
668332 F20101122_AABDDL hsu_h_Page_06.jp2
d53ac2563363e0488eb647e64e5597ce
c45ebbaa6516b7ba55ce72842a8dfa0e0b300bb1
1051976 F20101122_AABDDM hsu_h_Page_07.jp2
8858af5b2d69100accc388f714a959f8
c25c5edd83496c2c78775b3c4e64c5e48cffd9e1
1576 F20101122_AABDIK hsu_h_Page_24.txt
851e5d83ad5e4a5e8e6179fd28e9d6af
287f281dcb62ce852c209822f95cba588575a39f
1051986 F20101122_AABDDN hsu_h_Page_08.jp2
6e10ead4d20692e451f691a701f49b68
73a8b3ee94fb089c73e3eec1af22110a7c07123f
1524 F20101122_AABDIL hsu_h_Page_25.txt
09c3944379bfc2b5cd2e1065791fee47
cffa355689745cfcf3fe2736d996a4b545ec193a
1051977 F20101122_AABDDO hsu_h_Page_09.jp2
102e1e8ee3e9d832e0a4b2e820280c07
0f5f69da347583bc778b3a58fa1238feffecfa0c
1592 F20101122_AABDIM hsu_h_Page_26.txt
75bfa9ea888ea81ee0eec4fe6d6a560b
7e1856baff2227ca9d3ca2de6e91809400c56484
61756 F20101122_AABDDP hsu_h_Page_10.jp2
1b43c07e10d5ac127c1baa16809979ab
a255ad036adb59e2fb6ad32fbba9748cdd75d83d
1691 F20101122_AABDIN hsu_h_Page_27.txt
1400d391a49831eab240957e88a3df21
4d0ba4fd6cf211b8fbb1c55b037b9988edf5f36c
99508 F20101122_AABDDQ hsu_h_Page_11.jp2
110b331fbbe068507e6ef7e65dae2f5e
f1819dc56b468c227f5e594ed945a9a42de74aab
1470 F20101122_AABDIO hsu_h_Page_28.txt
9ae6b911b5bfad15f10c3b6ee4ddb964
cc4174a7e143465a919de165bd5fbdc94d7c611a
105973 F20101122_AABDDR hsu_h_Page_12.jp2
a5655be5839b6e8b5666f425e764ecf5
3aa7cc70c1101221f472e2fdf73d49965d32fba7
1198 F20101122_AABDIP hsu_h_Page_29.txt
db83fcb3659b69f2559899359afc019a
417f22bc38770780dab1632fed4b440ca1052d8f
462258 F20101122_AABDDS hsu_h_Page_15.jp2
1d428655b37e92859ef94db4a6e9802b
ff560a2b6a8b4b98007eca6641e0a0a0791122e9
1189 F20101122_AABDIQ hsu_h_Page_30.txt
e3a0c0852226289f0bbafa10899a95de
72536064333929d47ae17f337727701d7499e508
477102 F20101122_AABDDT hsu_h_Page_16.jp2
011524599dda8a82b3799015efd8d258
3cfdf615e401e9729039e4527436238c14a02690
73564 F20101122_AABDDU hsu_h_Page_17.jp2
24f17ca1d8c499c2091b54da0c507951
7a057fc36f269063e49390912f79c3b7b775cff6
1422 F20101122_AABDIR hsu_h_Page_31.txt
f3719668df270614043715d0d5a5a6d3
5fb211778af71bae7213bbb6229addcbbf1cdba0
57292 F20101122_AABDDV hsu_h_Page_18.jp2
49b499a8c29f05f443ae1e76a6d0f3ae
bac0e9952340487a093b18d2b6a036d1818cbcb9
1248 F20101122_AABDIS hsu_h_Page_32.txt
52a714abcd28f4abcc0f323bb0fd51eb
705a2fcd005cf0d87e0e39d594f351608c82b3ca
52142 F20101122_AABDDW hsu_h_Page_19.jp2
8bf4d40f048da911f7b51169be8f5e35
3be54098f98b3faa6192c16d5d50961abc82b7ff
1255 F20101122_AABDIT hsu_h_Page_33.txt
8558531fa32715561f2aa61de13fde69
ed6fa922f947dd27a7ccd94b308bd4a119c579e3
65551 F20101122_AABDDX hsu_h_Page_22.jp2
a72a1a6090e6985c19bdba811a753db1
b4249ddb781dce9f1808599dc394d129cdfeb11b
1311 F20101122_AABDIU hsu_h_Page_34.txt
435c45a66d0009a9e8aaf197e79cd8c7
a55e3c8a7d06efe8aa9fae870d5a2f3761475d59
374343 F20101122_AABDBA hsu_h_Page_42.jp2
37eff507fe65b15c430800523c1daed8
f27602d3211c74a0c5376e1eb9490b26668e56df
48424 F20101122_AABDDY hsu_h_Page_23.jp2
de2a1b3db1f40f5f0121ffd4aa32963d
737b04f9e0bd24d8cec157aec8946a3a16038ab6
1313 F20101122_AABDIV hsu_h_Page_38.txt
e44f973e7c2c4a818a9a4104e99be6b3
8470399fc7fffa6f2db93588d96a2cb34df62309
3850 F20101122_AABDBB hsu_h_Page_23thm.jpg
1a23edbd9b255307780dcfc88040354e
ec17d17bb84b3420317be10b8119697af0c6cf93
76480 F20101122_AABDDZ hsu_h_Page_25.jp2
33e41e288ba38a2e7168fc609b2fd8f5
33bfebe91890dd2f1f50dde0ed498008f8b9c456
1599 F20101122_AABDIW hsu_h_Page_39.txt
7348c394a2cfaec381b44b280bfa8dee
be5af8c1d03f75945597b5f190cae686b670e2ac
10196 F20101122_AABCZA hsu_h_Page_02.jpg
520d84837783713d7d1dae22368e1f31
8dd9591ce4a1c823a7c569de95a4ecd45582fa7b
64389 F20101122_AABDBC hsu_h_Page_21.jp2
fde3f3e728b75bc8d44fbbedb204afca
077380fe92f03a660eac8d7c3d1478d1b8001dd9
1873 F20101122_AABDIX hsu_h_Page_41.txt
9646afacad8c6187ce3072684fcaf07e
34cd3a48d846d52be7e727ea072833877c4d6652
22196 F20101122_AABCZB hsu_h_Page_37.QC.jpg
4ee7adc40a5e33687c5329ba2e88d2f1
2c974545495f552a686fec4c90afc032e16d9947
F20101122_AABDGA hsu_h_Page_46.tif
99aabc328512f686bb5ed468596469f2
b278d3c02fbdd372d1046b54dc200fc8e2a07818
589 F20101122_AABDIY hsu_h_Page_42.txt
a9aadaaa50c0d150892fc918a4db348e
0386b1ba76e255a71a5bdfaa974937351d491ca3
40936 F20101122_AABCZC hsu_h_Page_18.jpg
3e03c376e578d423ccc95518cfa741a2
6b137f841b27533ff372beb3d4836b0c6027d3e4
1439 F20101122_AABDBD hsu_h_Page_22.txt
a3dac1f62edfdd8d51879a738b52c330
e8d75234a3b096f303cc90b722a0a625e0822d80
F20101122_AABDGB hsu_h_Page_47.tif
7b23aac62ec77611720696f9621de14a
31de9e1a53af7629900f80b2f7866f76a53fecf3
1963 F20101122_AABDIZ hsu_h_Page_44.txt
a7bfea0e940ef493d5188cf695cffda0
cb7bc2d1ae96e5ac11b11d80693ed982adbad2fc
F20101122_AABCZD hsu_h_Page_32.tif
e11862bad9a9741b567eba82c8183259
d099a536efafec40cbd3e1cf4e77bfe5c3485c1c
F20101122_AABDGC hsu_h_Page_48.tif
a4f7777c2198d16d2597617379681577
665a1170d933b277a27ffa72c64d8ea54b48cdc6
692954 F20101122_AABCZE hsu_h_Page_33.jp2
6b7aee1e1632e2fd193f8fca8f51eec4
b4a602bbdcc204a3511c4639ab324c596aac6773
2897 F20101122_AABDBE hsu_h_Page_04thm.jpg
d50bc77ecf7da09bedc3f4c250e5cf0e
30cdafa81dabef4fdb7a6240bf0b3f15bb69c50d
4622 F20101122_AABDLA hsu_h_Page_34thm.jpg
85ff68aff320a13fc6858ca8a4ad260f
61e849d997a895aa5a3f20feb44b90fe3df9ab4d
F20101122_AABDGD hsu_h_Page_49.tif
d33285a72a2df0567b453286b5a7b3ef
ed740b845e78ca3197f6a5ff99a8ae8312a5eb9d
F20101122_AABCZF hsu_h_Page_01.tif
ce566b9e97bef4eb698a4913008b50fd
5e42c9435712409c430b2f4da495ae2b84106537
23245 F20101122_AABDBF hsu_h_Page_12.QC.jpg
a9d78ba61175211a7ecbe833a9d52275
21577562e84e21a54c6c88cf1bb91e0ba844be64
15844 F20101122_AABDLB hsu_h_Page_35.QC.jpg
c9758332246cfa70033f45223cc71030
d2c5e31c1c25cc52a71fa72340d654deac528b62
F20101122_AABDGE hsu_h_Page_50.tif
a782174b12350151ae2ef4b8384a90bf
673c1b2083d591cea00971c141c9d47b030f4be6
F20101122_AABCZG hsu_h_Page_29.tif
54aaf6c94dfba2ea4f4d42e6231b0be3
c2d58471230148527328802c403c8aaf447928ec
50509 F20101122_AABDBG hsu_h_Page_45.jpg
8d6715f131bb89b1a0b6a03cb83425c2
3b5821e911ff90f10adbe72bdc81b7c185ca3f98
5336 F20101122_AABDLC hsu_h_Page_35thm.jpg
8fb8832ceb5bca6a40654652eaac87f4
d5080c45da3f9e13799b9f09207ce13db04872b6
8217 F20101122_AABDGF hsu_h_Page_01.pro
0aed149564c7902262d20c297b75ac72
01e86ca9298a4ade2cdd0b4a81f829b94abc324a
1758 F20101122_AABCZH hsu_h_Page_37.txt
17657e7c744649bfcb7f9b0f405aebfe
d521033dd5a7800cf4ea562f650c3ba3f0a7bebc
F20101122_AABDBH hsu_h_Page_08.tif
27b13b01df0d32196ae974a5202ed1a5
c5b71c8839296eb39201a7a2be787f13a6ca8abc
20687 F20101122_AABDLD hsu_h_Page_36.QC.jpg
70a7d514e658a3153934ae5db676ea0b
6f72efb8062f45f2d7f6163e08b570fd15acc928
1196 F20101122_AABDGG hsu_h_Page_02.pro
582fc8d60e5535f5cbe7502542a1682b
63f507b6480bf1977866075d0eee485c7051954b
54671 F20101122_AABCZI hsu_h_Page_35.jpg
1682e2868a15ed4cd8e49cc3e7be2195
fa37c7f9d21c4b3c8ba1d4d2f143dbe346040a75
27558 F20101122_AABDBI hsu_h_Page_32.pro
f384ada49ed6ce849a961ee4c4aedfc9
33ce9c28a95212c5c6dffe7955d58985e1b07ed3
5962 F20101122_AABDLE hsu_h_Page_36thm.jpg
a9bc039e60f0bb9a8f7a114284cd4bbb
3ffadc93cda74161cf9ae372fe444c6ea220e932
1192 F20101122_AABDGH hsu_h_Page_03.pro
a676c3cef2aabb036633bc1da18fc280
f0f4f589bd3eb65b0a41879c26dc4b9371ba2cab
F20101122_AABCZJ hsu_h_Page_41.tif
128acd9da1afa2e835af475439768ccd
8424ddc70c7b7b47a907a9c46f5b0dc2ed5f0be5
538212 F20101122_AABDBJ hsu_h_Page_30.jp2
c1cadfab81684b95e5734f46fec5b572
219a6afd26732c91aad7d7292232dc534950d0cc
6135 F20101122_AABDLF hsu_h_Page_37thm.jpg
2cb023716a2e67a46af898e7aadd18d5
ebf9145d265be8c808e4ed64a55b653e0a5f935c
F20101122_AABCZK hsu_h_Page_43.tif
fa4bf4c5d82a4873b131533f867b4c9f
209a4e9d7b31c416cad4665c7842ea9b589b765f
F20101122_AABDBK hsu_h_Page_19.tif
74d245291c46c872076f526fe24073a1
7156de179368a51b82747207aa944979631c5422
11836 F20101122_AABDLG hsu_h_Page_38.QC.jpg
b412671222810fcf9ad542024525c780
fc971491d81b01286d3add01b348835efc45b42e
13766 F20101122_AABDGI hsu_h_Page_04.pro
48ca1a3d85c9497b9c10bb74684a3ac5
c3f7f4319afa6b45eba7b8789fe6ae7bed847791
843695 F20101122_AABCZL hsu_h_Page_13.jp2
58251d010431879fed80571c4e043387
2940d131d954f5822de4c3ddaba909bff7619255
4455 F20101122_AABDBL hsu_h_Page_49.QC.jpg
ae75e234afffe2862f94c3c1dd714730
0d87480a0e332604bf74a9b2ba06d8186ed51789
3861 F20101122_AABDLH hsu_h_Page_38thm.jpg
f9962efa462989d259217faf5d48bf43
3829285ac74612f55c6506b7975ad01e85f5cab6
71560 F20101122_AABDGJ hsu_h_Page_05.pro
6b231e6ee4745a3b57fc5857d7449d98
22c581d0d31c0899b0e2999300a94324fa5751e1
12551 F20101122_AABCZM hsu_h_Page_19.QC.jpg
7e4bf7ce1eaa1f13cb93b9760c59fb16
9adbeddb39b881459bb655488bd250c1260179a0
5484 F20101122_AABDBM hsu_h_Page_28thm.jpg
0fba2580b11ee0d8a03afabeafcacc1f
4e0ea216ca1e82f01bfac2671dda2c00bf6bb165
18313 F20101122_AABDLI hsu_h_Page_39.QC.jpg
7abc65be1981a4b54e2fc31aae8ec5e1
745725d8b1b129e346ac42f3a9e47d8aa3cba13a
27245 F20101122_AABDGK hsu_h_Page_06.pro
7baeb626d16e41486c69ae2c22b89089
2b59db8d2bf59053c744bbdbb2b79087a139cf43
20316 F20101122_AABCZN hsu_h_Page_41.QC.jpg
120a7badec823d7916f2e8dd9cead004
9d6bbfa266660cb9fbe888cba59cd72e031a49e2
51759 F20101122_AABDBN hsu_h_Page_24.jpg
ca9665f3efd6d0c134f5b6aae53b9847
8dc414e5a82586d1bbf7ac4df8708dc33dee2bc8
5456 F20101122_AABDLJ hsu_h_Page_39thm.jpg
8507a9d4329d04b30f54e6ee8ce8b132
286e85228cfe5b154d2b14eb4dd256dcee72f09b
28224 F20101122_AABDGL hsu_h_Page_07.pro
e04190528f57546489b8c56ea4d53052
1a175208d670d16a024e1dd85d2bd2f186b48998
608481 F20101122_AABCZO hsu_h_Page_34.jp2
083fb52f649ed305d7291e499bc82e97
445fa1e520bb70615df154ae92967a279465a1a1
5821 F20101122_AABDBO hsu_h_Page_48thm.jpg
0d4b0d2dcfdb8dec1132ddc261eef138
401c43462910aa0198095b607e71ad54efb17f1d
17421 F20101122_AABDLK hsu_h_Page_40.QC.jpg
74724870c970f83183ebfc29635004d0
8094688a2034cc794efd81ce5bb3fac0134ebd47
55431 F20101122_AABDGM hsu_h_Page_08.pro
40a432133cab67dbb6b0c933322be469
9f806e05de3f1aa7abc139a21338fa51b13d735e
12781 F20101122_AABCZP hsu_h_Page_18.QC.jpg
4fef3641f6e0734ac03d3621bf8722a7
0fff708ea25f99d83646f43032c382b80ddd7673
44329 F20101122_AABDBP hsu_h_Page_07.jpg
3eb703262b167b4567a625203576ed79
64600a0545a383cac8bc9126518aa8af8d424d5c
5121 F20101122_AABDLL hsu_h_Page_40thm.jpg
f22660fc7548103e9c6a854bc5353454
280e085cc7fa788390b75572dbbcb3fdc1a5e31c
39744 F20101122_AABDGN hsu_h_Page_09.pro
8371295583e78e09502a4d5bba3443f8
ab75590fac512715ab74116123372b4bed5c6335
45040 F20101122_AABCZQ hsu_h_Page_10.jpg
482c929e03ca69955cd1ab805b27d3e8
bab65bf00ee784b7423d15f7d6a047a7bea587a2
F20101122_AABDBQ hsu_h_Page_42.tif
a6822619f93b979b5ff581952dd90b54
712ae700053f6e28d1fe3d66b0064e9355faa6fc
6060 F20101122_AABDLM hsu_h_Page_41thm.jpg
ff185030c64e284a218e6283edab62f2
1fa22dcb78a5f3ea9e3e0ed83fe143a4c3ade212
26668 F20101122_AABDGO hsu_h_Page_10.pro
2c248ef8f2f4ff9b511cd8304458089e
b0c9c34d7b462d72b07669bbe8af309d48637eb9
2634 F20101122_AABCZR hsu_h_Page_06thm.jpg
b40e4458e1f80888a6cf9c833bdf6cd7
dbce8b8caaec955362c04dcf7b1d90f121f480b9
7637 F20101122_AABDBR hsu_h_Page_50.QC.jpg
d169559289878896dbe3fc8a256aa66f
a304ce7a71a55d5b1c67b28c7dfe4eeb9382cec7
47088 F20101122_AABDGP hsu_h_Page_11.pro
9bd900325bf11f48a6c79469a9ad30f8
fc759e943ab84a6020daa33b3224cccd41681b32
1073 F20101122_AABCZS hsu_h_Page_06.txt
23e401d5f16ca4003d4dddd605ac0a0e
0f86a0dd5bb361ac0944c40a82e49386d00bba83
45542 F20101122_AABDBS hsu_h_Page_30.jpg
f01221f53f882c95e49875becf12eec0
0d72f51e1a2f917b8fbd5b4be5e69d1404204e93
50205 F20101122_AABDGQ hsu_h_Page_12.pro
efc31fd0dc36a4fd4c571d29fe3cee15
9f1419bfdaa253cf2a0f9c8b3bab007d6ae14d87
58474 F20101122_AABCZT hsu_h_Page_09.jpg
83abc66e95ab5a3d7d19b79e3c3c8e9c
5740f263311873c1290ff220cb9855718b156796
1054 F20101122_AABDBT hsu_h_Page_35.txt
456f808c61e467ac20d07a9aeb98b3a7
e57497690f6e5ee5ffaaf399d5f86f87bcbc04f6
9792 F20101122_AABDLN hsu_h_Page_42.QC.jpg
87fdbb694e79b398d4ed31ca1010b60a
48981b43063f90cfe801f019a94a22eeee55122f
30666 F20101122_AABDGR hsu_h_Page_14.pro
ec82992035d31e911dd5a288e94b882b
a0e38bc50398c0a106a6b7dd20852ab4ccd1d34b
5707 F20101122_AABCZU hsu_h_Page_02.jp2
853b770315b88b763d612fe6c5463f41
2c7de580d0fe96cc741b1aad5f376cd64b6a6f7a
76664 F20101122_AABDBU UFE0011960_00001.xml FULL
377c9f884249f21285131913a4f24dc3
6ef9a284c91eabade4c3dd063e519b07ebe6ce0c
3251 F20101122_AABDLO hsu_h_Page_42thm.jpg
e4ba4ccda524d5a68eeb98693b07ff58
2963db526aa80efe92e274c4c781d8b5033dd564
26343 F20101122_AABDGS hsu_h_Page_18.pro
335654537569f8b1e56155dbaef61a4a
2238bafa0e3111f973953771eddbfe60604900b0
1395 F20101122_AABCZV hsu_h_Page_02thm.jpg
4353fab41d00f20e644d8627cc002918
8c20faed1345f1912637e5b3cb11a617e88db9fd
13571 F20101122_AABDLP hsu_h_Page_43.QC.jpg
81bef15a1d05052409ca0c66480cf3a1
9289552d96476004293793f65f394f8d153824cd
23801 F20101122_AABDGT hsu_h_Page_19.pro
fdb03706368038d4624611b047a1bd79
f2f8dff29db77de414fab0122f32c09ea6a40b43
1274 F20101122_AABCZW hsu_h_Page_43.txt
090617a98817ba329ce7a86564410b4a
3913b0cd92ec0c45e68e11e242d5a633b48a527b
5663 F20101122_AABDLQ hsu_h_Page_44thm.jpg
dc78cdf55b3634cdee1afc63ae096178
ed5de57bd429dbd81e6c7c1dc0112a3256e3ff7d
23857 F20101122_AABDGU hsu_h_Page_20.pro
4873c20ee5aa8a9ba36e847388ae5feb
37567562a32d764a02e62896309d3fb782085bd9
65591 F20101122_AABCZX hsu_h_Page_14.jp2
dfd706e57c3d909b953db5d5661f2307
6f93ea0cb91d1fc5bc9f845182e4b158e07d37be
23362 F20101122_AABDBX hsu_h_Page_01.jpg
cf1935c5eb04f5eb14ccc8a198e5230e
65a00b553acb0ec7d0f9ce0a1162b0ff9d2d6810
16371 F20101122_AABDLR hsu_h_Page_45.QC.jpg
1c03e92512e696f103c7850b8a581db7
36a52d64dfc7b5fa43f9093022b727e4ace5669c
29802 F20101122_AABDGV hsu_h_Page_22.pro
0e23ca6c12c8c925ab4004a9f587d0ff
69d55e7467c5ed0688ecb7443be699afb2d3b9ba
F20101122_AABCZY hsu_h_Page_40.txt
c2aa23b09b5645f6794d7c9e04e44db7
dc4c7a91b50c4a3f9b6e0154bb875a1615a68784
10283 F20101122_AABDBY hsu_h_Page_03.jpg
9a5ee342c73dfb655184a2c4afb1a87c
c7870ba4526ac604f7c727d5ce642c90a1dcf2be
4697 F20101122_AABDLS hsu_h_Page_45thm.jpg
2a5495220b736836307d8de3da98b9d0
34d707a82eb5a1c94134f65b822c9c452f5be74b
27976 F20101122_AABDGW hsu_h_Page_24.pro
bf1c6d44136c1b392beb6c9394397df2
d4ac98d89f91d4614a17f4d501e3497ceb730c88
17118 F20101122_AABCZZ hsu_h_Page_15.pro
3d71c07fd08739b4eb1dbe470ff0d34a
3a6fd670a89d9e012250c7d6e0b579b0b9a7bf72
26418 F20101122_AABDBZ hsu_h_Page_04.jpg
f043d4a9a8c159917e74e6ed6327adeb
248f74c7a57fc9b004e9a48240d633a5d0d235f6
11535 F20101122_AABDLT hsu_h_Page_46.QC.jpg
b7d25c0b778906fb74081a4bbc61e24c
2439f598116aeaecca505ad378acfc7122c9aa4c
34979 F20101122_AABDGX hsu_h_Page_25.pro
df7c1329bee88131e909a1e96eb018f0
9cc2506b27d4a7d95ee0a4a5252aa408e460c9aa
3423 F20101122_AABDLU hsu_h_Page_46thm.jpg
0edc929949e1149d646e024eef8dd56b
7410ba3bf123923a54f454eec863f64b954fa005
79671 F20101122_AABDEA hsu_h_Page_26.jp2
b06ae15a8af012846e18e685e1683d02
2604ae06b1d7f9e5be18c33f0a6c3a5309888004
35622 F20101122_AABDGY hsu_h_Page_26.pro
7660d5798369b279c652e4178350354c
5939733a143b6ded46405c7a7be1158d39fcfc38
20608 F20101122_AABDLV hsu_h_Page_47.QC.jpg
09c792f7bc2be31e6c1315ca26182620
7bb1896d1cae33b4e1ff441e2c6964f3064cafa2
38264 F20101122_AABDGZ hsu_h_Page_27.pro
e90e52c03e55deef7b8949b97227670c
99d93751c5f589fd673236289141fc6ea9fafc7c
5936 F20101122_AABDLW hsu_h_Page_47thm.jpg
6e7cf124d59feaa559b4e0e3408154f6
77b0bac0d244f5128dd1ed4c61073c73e90f6217
85112 F20101122_AABDEB hsu_h_Page_27.jp2
af34f689f555b231320079d9133dfbbd
51dc4a2afdd789a3612ee1985c436863eedd41c5
1581 F20101122_AABDLX hsu_h_Page_49thm.jpg
b144a25015c93f61a51cb38422572322
fa649a101e505472af17dd7c37c4744036545a74
674007 F20101122_AABDEC hsu_h_Page_28.jp2
b8709157a7f0a7286b3ecb513ae29926
6611a4f57a72d17abdca4eb9b744eae9ddc6f4ba
1453 F20101122_AABDJA hsu_h_Page_45.txt
ac879e71c99b904b054ee37bcac95da2
574751fac617f584ff81aec33d96508d429e30f4
2484 F20101122_AABDLY hsu_h_Page_50thm.jpg
674fe3bc1e894b6ce8d30b6081385392
80b97ba1ca97f649c203a18d1d1f3c5b271a9437
703592 F20101122_AABDED hsu_h_Page_29.jp2
e3ebca6cfe07c0e24f30e38e9c794d9a
1e0bf35359bafd733a5417b282a0dbeee24f1927
1406 F20101122_AABDJB hsu_h_Page_47.txt
aea5e29a3e5bd1926e171a750e6f435b
cd1b78fd97cdef7b57031b8069192021bc457ede
59686 F20101122_AABDLZ UFE0011960_00001.mets
66c11c9e8af84b9f104e817b31cf0046
d4b7aabc78d2196c7d3c5c5cef854aa1c01673f3
697410 F20101122_AABDEE hsu_h_Page_31.jp2
991bf8c1743cb6074f68cc6df8d9bacc
4f23520ac8606102bc84a14098d346b1088dc445
198 F20101122_AABDJC hsu_h_Page_49.txt
186988441ddceb1feb810e7d4bd0182a
20d630473bbf26070d73b9a8832dfc2100abd8ac
707813 F20101122_AABDEF hsu_h_Page_32.jp2
102f00d3aba7b04cf8b23280d90c769a
3af201d1a471f83782ba1f1d8711fac14cebad2c
719583 F20101122_AABDJD hsu_h.pdf
bc786cd5267b5afef8e7aeaed4d72a51
de8fda11f70db416fda33130350a0de0e1948d55
7250 F20101122_AABDJE hsu_h_Page_01.QC.jpg
0cda491bd84e01f4d14d068b77d1987a
25eeeaf690ba41a2f76b8620cc174fe80c08474e
775838 F20101122_AABDEG hsu_h_Page_35.jp2
6babb73fa4f93b970ddeb9dd75a00c0a
72d02892a4955c6233b8e8bc4b750d464862ed68
3131 F20101122_AABDJF hsu_h_Page_03.QC.jpg
caa3d2b78412d80174dca453906c22d2
35c909c9365d16fb4fda044d07aa11c39b6483f6
926427 F20101122_AABDEH hsu_h_Page_36.jp2
44e267dbcc98173fcf9eb96fc7938f70
2126f23919183d5ce1855edbce8fac82b55049af
1344 F20101122_AABDJG hsu_h_Page_03thm.jpg
3babdf9cddbf531c6924f8b07dd2d597
bc7bdc818e7e45aea93bd92f329c386448424fe6
950549 F20101122_AABDEI hsu_h_Page_37.jp2
57090ae98ae725d2d907625f6c8a3a6c
d3df4ce7761dcb2165f4f9042ddea628b933ca25
8483 F20101122_AABDJH hsu_h_Page_04.QC.jpg
9d3fcd00475e5c81ebaba9466dce07ae
1246b1b082588837ddd9e2381824a420756e170d
479647 F20101122_AABDEJ hsu_h_Page_38.jp2
de4f2125b17b1f288d24bc42cf8b0015
b01f74cc5aec83bc50223a9db29b72ce1d12c510
17426 F20101122_AABDJI hsu_h_Page_05.QC.jpg
15e196961967c073fe876c787e42184c
b994686e40bb25e505a6bdca11ede290931b7e22
769496 F20101122_AABDEK hsu_h_Page_39.jp2
99f4054283c4829e089a57b23f05ac49
360283c1230ffc0916dd62364bd7f3cf75890396
4792 F20101122_AABDJJ hsu_h_Page_05thm.jpg
95d79c719d5a8884b5eeedeb178f410a
c7bcdffe41772d14a5aa2d6e5f5aacacecb19bfa
97517 F20101122_AABDEL hsu_h_Page_41.jp2
5005620e621ea8a7d28223a22c9d0a17
f21f77ef0051b8fb5ec19b8490260a20582ce01f
8642 F20101122_AABDJK hsu_h_Page_06.QC.jpg
63f5ed1d2aa8d8acf0de5b74e39d3e5b
1cf55550b036f90b1df32e356e69bf1f70d24596
520836 F20101122_AABDEM hsu_h_Page_43.jp2
c9dfa4a983246e817927668ae5e8860b
a86f1e3763c6d141c93aaf36a538e540c500ffb6
849979 F20101122_AABDEN hsu_h_Page_44.jp2
afb2075abf9071c0923f0cd24cc52b6f
bd3ae445fb56ce5213d7b020df06fe15ee13f109
13203 F20101122_AABDJL hsu_h_Page_07.QC.jpg
493c3e065bcb1df19ddad69731ef241a
c76f7be71d777d5ebd8348f059faeda09062f7ba
680470 F20101122_AABDEO hsu_h_Page_45.jp2
3077955d9512c611148d3c8caf94fcec
eee8ba4a84544f3d03d714d5e91ef3a44cde6c41
3751 F20101122_AABDJM hsu_h_Page_07thm.jpg
71ef1f42af6c2466176ead398ec7a58b
7771f2f15b895c7140925351f830ef901385df83
46618 F20101122_AABDEP hsu_h_Page_46.jp2
ae9f4a71d65015420939367de08cd8e3
d722ecab32d27431bb5b03b4ea15a300cbd45748
21557 F20101122_AABDJN hsu_h_Page_08.QC.jpg
9ad375766a3318b0e6f180fa0203db32
4badd6c31a99f122c2312cc467d095436a62f28a
48769 F20101122_AABDEQ hsu_h_Page_47.jp2
2527609e8f73b6004d74921d27e0f8a8
459f2148aa8bef5fed2b484ca64b5437b4fe736c
15516 F20101122_AABDJO hsu_h_Page_09.QC.jpg
b4ab42d7d27f47e9f0799bbc09656d6e
50a5ae7aa1a1f1c583fab7a85b1beda7e1c9e794
99806 F20101122_AABDER hsu_h_Page_48.jp2
0ff6ecdc2ef1b3242f943a64a73f55e8
7f685453be3da32b30186d76468f29d4de3d1694
14087 F20101122_AABDJP hsu_h_Page_10.QC.jpg
fb9323d27403f56514f1adbf262ce8c4
a104151efef138cdf715a3864de01cde9e3baada
10951 F20101122_AABDES hsu_h_Page_49.jp2
eadf61d8af254759c8acdd20425df2da
5f8438aebf1bf1aeb2010c0aa0883d817cb74a70
4085 F20101122_AABDJQ hsu_h_Page_10thm.jpg
a7eaddb3de42a2521380310724ba2af2
12740fba529eb56e3cf54fadfd467b2f587315b0
27187 F20101122_AABDET hsu_h_Page_50.jp2
800e6d0a37057fba6052eee7803d54dc
39a42df82c10679df288fbba5e255779933bb132
21905 F20101122_AABDJR hsu_h_Page_11.QC.jpg
ffd428f0be0b2a162b3d050da42a9949
c0b4ef121f549eaa898d14ca77162b29f65eecde
F20101122_AABDEU hsu_h_Page_03.tif
2013fc00ed56ed121e43e222a3252fa3
f1157b28c8cd05a78ded5ae68d3c435124373d5e
6145 F20101122_AABDJS hsu_h_Page_11thm.jpg
6d2ec11b338bdab79203886a4622bc05
0de7305c1ef052b599fb72ea4c43abff6f7dfaab
F20101122_AABDEV hsu_h_Page_04.tif
183e93d194bfeb1ed023d0bcc0e9b31d
e4c01027b5f49848a45532b944fe9a5a30982462
6393 F20101122_AABDJT hsu_h_Page_12thm.jpg
35bf967f6ba22cbe80aabc88a327d0ac
ceeeefba7d63d1a82fd963b393b3ad4532f44323
F20101122_AABDEW hsu_h_Page_05.tif
9ca949f5d0d0073a19a057fceb6a8444
ef32072ed13caa409a107f267aaaf02f5ebeb4c7
19854 F20101122_AABDJU hsu_h_Page_13.QC.jpg
c89723f61a482356103c6c71d9861ab0
303c50074dbce8b1e21e01adeaf68b96ee5d7bd9
F20101122_AABDEX hsu_h_Page_06.tif
d41ea0557a335a44415515fdf9ad7d84
5216a780ca7fed8c3a62f0d5ecef6d0a7d789ab8
5378 F20101122_AABDJV hsu_h_Page_13thm.jpg
e41db0328af23196a03f9c7da97bf4ff
701530e36502ef4a4efab4e4ba4649be57f94144
68964 F20101122_AABDCA hsu_h_Page_05.jpg
7ed771ecd36ac688ac12cf412a3b894f
ae458e3d71734a7ca9400ec8f750963c60529bd8
F20101122_AABDEY hsu_h_Page_07.tif
8edd37c88806a7128365a55cdf79a584
fc9b3f093eddae5c3ef92e30142ea521ff88d29a
4714 F20101122_AABDJW hsu_h_Page_14thm.jpg
e5ddd871fa0b31c7b11568e2bacf9df8
306f671cf4d2cd924ffe8b0d3ac7f4803207b304
30768 F20101122_AABDCB hsu_h_Page_06.jpg
9db5553e0c21b8505622b180c8fa2a8d
c0ee91f5f69890dc9600e6b85ec7dfaba0a91600
F20101122_AABDEZ hsu_h_Page_09.tif
1324ce6f7afe68a4297669b481119db3
77e02d4baa41494b401c7f0308d1fded4aee65fa
13317 F20101122_AABDJX hsu_h_Page_15.QC.jpg
9697a2ca6635c35001bbe9558686a89f
80bfac84bb42e02a3053c6d22d6e4492116d8804
77286 F20101122_AABDCC hsu_h_Page_08.jpg
f0726fe67d31dc5a20fe11b1432b05c1
a53edbf971d9e93bfbea421c105a2082c75352f8
4240 F20101122_AABDJY hsu_h_Page_15thm.jpg
77ef0d0dd9fd2cdc9ef5770d2687330b
53ff4a987013dd3d307514493d95eccefbc83995
67442 F20101122_AABDCD hsu_h_Page_11.jpg
7e17335746d6b06aeef116d1173073cd
aab93f7c009633aa560e73cfe1633bdc22c9f343
23856 F20101122_AABDHA hsu_h_Page_29.pro
37fa13fcb780764e13dfb7a314be10cf
c9742655c6092db832046945f3414c64e0ff941b



PAGE 1

COMPARING ESTIMATORS OF VAR AND CVAR UNDER THE ASYMMETRIC LAPLACE DISTRIBUTION By HSIAO-HSIANG HSU A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STATISTICS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Hsiao-Hsiang Hsu

PAGE 3

To my parents, brother, and husband

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to especially thank my advisor, Dr. Alexandre Trindade. He guided me through all the research, and gave me invaluable advice, suggestions and comments. This thesis could never have been done without his help. I also want to thank Dr. Ramon C. Littell and Dr. Ronald Randles for serving on my committee and providing valuable comments. I am also grateful to Yun Zhu for her support and patience. Finally, I would like to thank my families for their unwaving affection and encouragement. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 DEFINITIONS, PROPERTIES AND ESTIMATIONS...............................................4 Definitions....................................................................................................................4 Definition 2.1: VaR (Value at Risk).....................................................................4 Definition 2.2: CVaR (Conditional Value at Risk)...............................................4 Definition 2.3: AL distribution (The Asymmetric Laplace distribution)..............5 Basic Properties............................................................................................................7 Proposition 2.1: The Coefficient of Skewness......................................................7 Proposition 2.2: The Coefficient of (excess) Kurtosis.........................................7 Proposition 2.3: The Quantiles..............................................................................7 Proposition 2.4: VaR and CVaR for the AL distribution......................................8 Estimations...................................................................................................................8 Parametric Estimation...........................................................................................8 Maximum Likelihood Estimation ( MLE )....................................................9 Method of Moments Estimation ( MME )...................................................11 Semi-parametric Estimation................................................................................12 Nonparametric Estimation...................................................................................15 3 SIMULATION STUDY.............................................................................................16 Simulation...................................................................................................................16 Comparison.................................................................................................................16 Y~AL(1, 0.8, 1)...................................................................................................17 Y~AL(0, 1, 1)......................................................................................................20 Y~AL(1, 1.2, 1)...................................................................................................21 v

PAGE 6

4 EMPIRICAL APPLICATIONS.................................................................................26 Data.............................................................................................................................26 Interest Rates.......................................................................................................26 Exchange Rates...................................................................................................31 Comparison.................................................................................................................34 5 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................36 APPENDIX THE PROBABILITIES OF THE MLES OF VAR AND CVAR BEING DEGENERATE..........................................................................................................37 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................38 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................40 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1. Summary of related parameters of Y~AL(0,0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500].....................17 3-2. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99 of Y~AL(0, 0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500].............................................................18 3-3. Summary of related parameters ofY~AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500].........................20 3-4. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99 of Y~AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500].................................................................21 3-5. Summary of related parameters of Y~(0,1.2,1). [n=200, reps=500]..........................22 3-6. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99 of Y~AL(0,1.2,1). [n=200, reps=500]..............................................................22 4-1. Summary statistics for the interest rates, after taking logarithm conversion..............26 4-2. Summary statistics for the exchange rates, after taking logarithm conversion..........31 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1. VaR and CVaR for the possible losses of a portfolio...................................................5 2-2. Asymmetric Laplace densities with =0, =1, and =2, 1.25, 1, 0.8,0.5.....................6 2-3. The probabilities of the MLEs of VaR and CVaR being degenerate at different confidence levels..........................................................................................10 2-4. Estimating tail index by plotting log,knkyn where n=200 in this case. The largest value of m, 98, gives a roughly straight line, and the slope of the line is .865421. 2 R =0.96....................................................................14 3-1. Histogram of simulated AL (0,0.8,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]..................................18 3-2. The comparisons of three estimators of Y~AL(0, 0.8,1) at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500].........................................19 3-3. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1,1) data. [n=200, reps=500].....................................20 3-4. The comparisons of three estimators of Y~AL(0, 1, 1) at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500].........................................21 3-5. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1.2,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]..................................22 3-6. The comparisons of three estimators of Y~AL(0, 1.2, 1) at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500].........................................23 3-7. Relationships between the skewness parameter, and MSEs at different confidence levels, =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500].......................24 3-8. Relationships among MSEs of VaR and CVaR, the skewness parameter, and confidence level, for the three different estimators (parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric)............................................................25 4-1. Histogram and normal quantile plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds, sample size = 202.........................................................................................28 viii

PAGE 9

4-2. The Q-Q plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds vs. fitted AL distributions..................................................................................................30 4-3. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of interest rates on 30 year Treasury bonds (top) and and that of simulated AL distributions (with different simulation seeds)(bottom)....................................................31 4-4. Histogram and normal quantile plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates, 6/1/00 to 6/7/05, sample size = 1833.......................................................................32 4-5. The Q-Q plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates, 6/1/00 to 6/7/05 vs. fitted AL distribution.............................................................................................33 4-6. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates from 6/1/00 to 6/7/05 and and that of simulated AL distributions (with different simulation seeds).............................................34 4-7. The comparison of three estimators of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds, from February 1977 to December 1993, at different confidence levels:=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]..........................................34 4-8. The comparison of three estimators of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates,from 6/1/00 to 6/7/05, at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]........................................................................................35 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Statistics COMPARING ESTIMATORS OF VAR AND CVAR UNDER THE ASYMMETRIC LAPLACE DISTRIBUTION By Hsiao-Hsiang Hsu December 2005 Chair: Alexandre Trindade Major Department: Statistics Assessing the risk of losses in financial markets is an issue of paramount importance. In this thesis, we compare two common estimators of risk, VaR and CVaR, in terms of their mean squared errors (MSEs). Three types of estimators are considered: parametric, under the asymmetric laplace (AL) law; semiparametric by assuming Pareto tails; and ordinary nonparametric estimators, which can be expressed as L-statistics. Parametric and nonparametric estimators have respectively the lowest and highest MSEs. By assessing two types of quantile plots on interest rate and exchange rate data, we determine that the AL distribution provides a plausible fit to these types of data. x

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Risk management has been an integral part of corporate finance, banking, and financial investment for a long time. Indeed, the idea has been dated to at least four decades ago, with Markowitzs pioneering work on portfolio selection [1]. However, the paper did not attract interest until twenty years after it was published. It was the financial crash of 1973-1974 that proved that past good performance was simply a result of bull market and that risk also had to be considered. This resulted in the increasing popularity of Markowitzs ideas on risk, portfolio performance and the benefits of diversification. In the past few years, the growth of financial market and trading activities has prompted new studies investigating reliable risk measurement techniques. The Value-at-Risk (VaR) is a most popular measure of risk in either academic research or industry application. This is a dollar measure of the minimum loss that would be expected over a period of time with a given probability. For example, a VaR of one thousand dollars for one day at a probability of 0.05 means that the firm would expect to lose at least $1 thousand in one day 5 percent of the time. Or we can also express this as a probability of 0.95 that a loss will not exceed one thousand dollars. In this way, the VaR becomes a maximum loss with a given confidence level. The most influential contribution in this field has been J.P Morgans RiskMetrics methodology, within which a multivariate normal distribution is employed to model the joint distribution of the assets in a portfolio [2]. However, the VaR approach suffers problems when the return and losses are not normally distributed which is often the case. It underestimates the losses since extreme 1

PAGE 12

2 events should happen with equally chance at each day. Obvious explanations for this finding are negative skewness and excess kurtosis in the true distribution of market returns, which cannot be accounted for by using a normal density model as in RiskMetrics. Another risk measure that avoids the problem is Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR). The concept of CVaR was first introduced by Artzuer, Delbaen, Eber, and Heath [3], and formulated as an optimization problem by Rockefellar and Uryasev [4]. CVaR is the conditional mean value of the loss exceeding VaR. It is a straightforward way to avoid serial dependency in the predicted events and thus base ones forecast on the conditional distribution of the portfolio returns given past information. Although CVaR has not become a standard in the finance industry, it is likely to play a major role as it currently does in the insurance industry. Therefore, in the thesis, we consider both of those two measurements for broader application. A correct statistical distribution of financial data is needed first before any proper predicative analysis can be conducted. Although the normal distribution is widely used, it has several disadvantages when applied to financial data. The first potential problem is one of statistical plausibility. The normal assumption is often justified by reference to the central limit theory, but the central limit theory applies only to the central mass of the density function, and not to its extremes. It follows that we can justify normality by reference to the central limit theory only when dealing with more central quantiles and probabilities. When dealing with the extremes, which are often the case in financial data, we should therefore not use the normal to model. Second, most financial returns have excess kurtosis. The empirical fact that the return distributions have fatter tails than

PAGE 13

3 normal distribution has been researched since early 1960s when Mandelbrot reported his first findings on stable (Parentian) distributions in finance [5]. Since then, several researchers have observed that practically all financial data have excess kurtosis, which is the leptokurtic phenomena. Thus, using the statistics of normal distributions to characterize the financial market is potentially very hazardous. Since Laplace distributions can account for leptokurtic and skewed data, they are natural candidates to replace normal models and processes. In this thesis, the aim is to compare parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric estimators of VaR and CVaR random sampling from the Asymmetric Laplace distribution. To do so, we calculate their mean squared error (MSE), a popular criterion for measuring the accuracy of estimators. Broadly speaking, the best estimator should have smallest MSE. The plan of this thesis is as follows. Chapter 2 provides some background to the study by introducing some definitions and propositions related to VaR, CVaR and the Asymmetric Laplace distribution. Chapter 3 compares the parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric three different estimators of Asymmetric Laplace distribution. Chapter 4 provides empirical analysis by using interest rates and currency exchange rates data. Chapter 5 concludes the article. Additional tables are included in the Appendix A.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS, PROPERTIES AND ESTIMATIONS Let Y be a continuous real-valued random variable defined on some probability space (, ), with distribution function and density function f(.). Both the first and second moments of Y are finite. F.bg Definitions Definition 2.1: VaR (Value at Risk) The VaR refers to a particular amount of money, the maximum amount we are likely to lose over a period of time, at a specific confidence level. If positive values of Y represent losses, the VaR of Y at probability level is defined to be the th quantile of Y. VaR Y YF 1 (2.1) Definition 2.2: CVaR (Conditional Value at Risk) The CVaR of Y at probability level ,is the mean of the random variable that results by turncasting Y at and discarding its lower tail. CVaRY Y EYY (2.2) Expanding on the definition, we obtain YEYIYPYydFyyfydybgbgchbgbgbg z z 1111 (2.3) or we can have an equivalent definition of CVaR in terms of the quantile function of Y: YFbgbg udu z 1111 (2.4) 4

PAGE 15

5 Figure 2-1. VaR and CVaR for the possible losses of a portfolio Definition 2.3: AL distribution (The Asymmetric Laplace distribution) Random variable Y is said to follow an Asymmetric Laplace distribution if there exist location parameter scale parameter 0, and skewness parameter 0, such that the probability density function of Y is of the form fy2 (12) exp2 y ,ifyexp2 y ,ify (2.5) or, the distribution function of Y is of the form Fy1112 exp2 y ,ify212 exp2 y ,ify (2.6)

PAGE 16

6 We denote the distribution of Y by AL(, ) and write Y~ AL(, ). The mean of the distribution is given by 2 1 (2.7) Its variance is 2222221 2 F HGIKJ (2.8) The value of the skewness parameter is related to and as follows, 22222222 (2.9) and it controls the probability assigned to each side of If =1, the two probabilities are equal and the distribution is symmetric about This is the standard Laplace distribution Figure 2-2. Asymmetric Laplace densities with =0, =1, and =0.5, 1, and 2.

PAGE 17

7 Basic Properties Proposition 2.1: The Coefficient of Skewness For a distribution of an random variable Y with a finite third moment and standard deviation greater then zero, the coefficient of skewness is a measure of symmetry that is independent of scale. If Y~ AL(, ), the coefficient of skewness, 1 is defined by 1332232211FHGIKJ (2.10) The coefficient of skewness is nonzero for an AL distribution. As increases within the interval then the corresponding value of 0,bg 1 decreases from 2 to Thus, the absolute value of 1 is bounded by two. Proposition 2.2: The Coefficient of (excess) Kurtosis For a random variable Y with a finite fourth moment, the coefficient of (excess) kurtosis can be defined as 2612(12 2)2 (2.11) It is a measure of peakness and of heaviness of the tails. If 2 >0, the distribution is said to be leptokurtic (heavy-tailed). Otherwise, it is said to be platykurtic (light-tailed). The skewness coefficient of the AL distribution is between 3 ( the least value for asymmetric Laplace distribution when =1) and 6 (the largest value attained for the limiting exponential distribution when 0). Proposition 2.3: The Quantiles If Y~ AL(, ), then the qth quantile of an AL random variable is,

PAGE 18

8 q2 log122 qforq0,122 ,2 log(12)(1q)forq122 ,1. (2.12) Proposition 2.4: VaR and CVaR for the AL distribution If Y~ AL(, ), for 0.5, then its standardization XYAL bgbg~,01 Since both VaR and CVaR are translation invariant and positively homogenous [7], VaR Y VaRX (2.13) and CVaRY CVaRX (2.14) Therefore, no generality is lost by focusing on the standard case X ~ AL (0, 1), provided and are known. VaR and CVaR are then easily obtained. Xbgchbglog1122 (2.15) and XXbgbg12 (2.16) Estimations We now look at some of the most popular approaches to the estimation of VaR and CVaR. Parametric Estimation The parametric approach estimates the risk by fitting probability curves to the data and then inferring the VaR from the fitted curve.

PAGE 19

9 Maximum Likelihood Estimation ( MLE ) Consider now the most general case of estimating all three parameters. If Y ~ AL(, ), the maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) are available in closed form [6]. Define first the functions, 11n Yii1n (2.17) 21n Yii1n (2.18) and h2log1 2 12 (2.19) Letting the index 1 r n be such that hYrhYi,fori1,.....,n, the MLE of is. Provided 1 < r < n, the MLEs of ( ) are: r 4112rrY (2.20) // / L N MOQP21214112212YYYYrrrrbgbgbgbgejejejej (2.21) (If r = 1 or r = n, the MLEs of ( ) do not exist.) Defining ,log121 (2.22) the MLEs of VaR and CVaR are then obtained by equivariance, 2, Y (2.23) 2 YY (2.24)

PAGE 20

10 However, after doing some experiments, we found the MLEs of VaR and CVaR will be degenerate most of the time when all three parameters are unknown (Appendix). Figure 2-3. shows that the probabilities of the MLEs being degenerate rise with both the sample size, n, and the skewness parameter, 05. 0625. 075. 0875. Figure 2-3. The probabilities of the MLEs of VaR and CVaR being degenerate at different confidence levels There is another way to estimate the parameters when all of them are unknown. According to Ayebo and Kozubowski [8], in the case when all parameters are unknown, one can estimate the mode ( ) using one of the nonparametric methods (Bickel [9] and

PAGE 21

11 Vieu [10]) for several estimation models). After getting we can apply the following formulas for and assuming is known, ([6], Chapter 3), to get the maximum likelihood estimates. ,n214bgbg (2.25) .n2142412bgbgbgbgch (2.26) Remark: In our analysis, we assume that the location parameter, is zero. This is a reasonable assumption when the data consists of logarithmic growth rates such as interest rates, stock returns, and exchange rates [8]. Method of Moments Estimation ( MME ) The method of moments approach is also considered in the thesis. Assuming that the is known, which is set to be zero in the study, the method of moments estimators of and are given by ([6], Chapter 3) nninYnY11 i (2.27) niinnnYY12212 (2.28) Then, we can compute k using relation (2.9). Remark: After checking all the cases in the thesis, we found that the MLE and the MME of each parameter are almost the same. Therefore, we only calculate the MLEs for parametric estimation in the study.

PAGE 22

12 Semi-parametric Estimation When observing financial data, e.g. stock returns, interest rates, or exchange rates, a much less restrictive assumption is to model the return distributions as having a Pareto left tail, or equivalently that the loss distribution has a Pareto right tail. This allows for the skewness and kurtosis of returns, while making no assumptions about the underlying distribution away from the tails. We follow the development of Rupport ([11], Chapter 11. ) For y> 0, PYyLyyabgbg (2.29) where is slowly varying at infinity and a is the tail index. Therefore, if and then Lybg y10 y00 PYyPYyLyLyyya F HG I KJ101010bgbgbgbg (2.30) now suppose that and yVaRY11() yVaRY00 () where 0 01 Then, ( 2.29 ) becomes 1110101010 F HG I KJPYVaRYPYVaRYLVaRYLVaRYVaRYVaRYabgnsbgnsbgnsbgnsbgbg (2.31) Because L is slowly varying at infinity and VaR and VaR are assumed to be reasonably large, we make the approximation that Y1bg Y0bg LVaRXLVaRX101bgnsbgns (2.32) so ( 2.32) simplifies to

PAGE 23

13 VaRYVaRYa1011011bgbgFHGIKJ (2.33) Now dropping the subscript of 1 we have VaRYVaRYabgbgFHGIKJ01101 (2.34) that is, YYabgbgFHGIKJ~01101 (2.35) We now extend this idea to CVaR similarly, giving CVaRYCVaRYabgbgFHGIKJ01101 (2.36) or we can write, YYabgbgFHGIKJ~01101 (2.37) Equations (2.35) and (2.37) become semiparametric estimators of VaR and when VaR and CVaR are replaced by nonparametric estimates (2.41), (2.42) and the tail index a is estimated by the regression estimator. Ybg CVaRYbg Y0bg Y0bg To see this, note that by (2.29), we have log[]loglogPYyLyay bgbg (2.38) If n is the sample size and 1 k n then PYynknnbgej (2.39)

PAGE 24

14 F HG I KJlogloglog.nknLaynbgej (2.40) One can then use the linearity of the plot of log,nknykkm F HGIKJ F HGIKJRSTUVWbgej1 for different to guide the choice of m m The value of m is selecting by plotting log,nknykkm F HGIKJ F HGIKJRSTUVWbgej1 for various values of m and choosing the largest value of m giving a roughly linear plot. If we fit a straight line to these points by least squares then minus the slope estimates the tail index a. For example, if a random sample YY is drawn from the AL (0, 0.8,1) distribution, and denote the corresponding order statistics of the sample. For getting the value of m, we first need to plot YY123200,,,... YYYY123200bgbgbgbg,,,... log,nknykkm F HGIKJ F HGIKJRSTUVWbgej1 where n=200. The plotted points and the least squares line can be seen in Figure 2-4. Figure 2-4. Estimating tail index by plotting kynkn,log where n=200 in this case. The largest value of m, 98, gives a roughly straight line, and the slope of the line is 1.865421. 2 R =0.96

PAGE 25

15 A least squares line was fit to these 98 points and R 2 =0.96, indicating a good fit to a straight line. The slope of the line is .865421, so a is 1.865421. After getting a, we can obtain the semiparametric estimators by functions (2.35) and (2.37). Nonparametric Estimation This is the least restrictive approach to the estimation of VaR and CVaR. The nonparametric approach seeks to estimate VaR or CVaR without making any assumptions about the distribution of returns and losses. The essence of the approach is that one can try to let the data speak for themselves as much as possible. (See for example [7].) When a random sample, Y 1,..., Y n from AL distribution is available, consistent nonparametric estimators (NPEs) of VaR and CVaR taken the form of L-statistics. If Y 1... Y n denote the corresponding order statistics of the sample, the estimator of VaR is the th empirical quantile, ~ ,YYkbgbg (2.41) where kn denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to n The estimator of CVaR is the corresponding empirical tail mean, ~YnkYrrknbgbg11 (2.42) Theoretically, parametric approaches are more powerful than nonparametric approach, since they make use of additional information contained in the assumed density or distribution function.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 3 SIMULATION STUDY In this chapter, we compare the three types of estimators (parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric) of VaR and CVaR in terms of their bias, variance, and MSE. The data is generated via Monte Carlo from AL distribution. The MSEs are obtained empirically. Simulation There are several ways to generate random values from an AL distribution. Here is an example of using two i.i.d standard exponential random variables. We can generate the YA L~(,, ) by the following algorithm. Generate a standard exponential random variable W. 1 Generate a standard exponential random variable W, independent of W. 2 1 Set YW W 2112() RETURN Y. Comparison In this section, we would like to compare three different approaches: parametric, semiparimetric, and nonparametric to estimate VaR and CVaR. In order to measure the goodness of those estimation procedures, using mean square error (MSE) to check their goodness. MSE is a common criterion for comparing estimators and it is composed of bias and variance. A better estimator should have smaller MSE. Besides checking the goodness of those estimators, we would also like to know how different the skewness parameter, would affect the MSEs. Without loss of generality, here, we focus only on the standard case, Y AL ~ (,,)01 16

PAGE 27

17 Before doing the following analysis, we need first to know how to estimate the VaR and CVaR in the standard case. After some routine calculations from (2.23),(2.24), the MLEs of VaR and CVaR in the standard case are: ,Ybg2 (3.1) YYbgbg12 (3.2) Remark: Note that YYbgbg12 which is independent of Thos will form the basis of a goodness-of-fit tool in Chapter 4. Y~AL(1, 0.8, 1) The skewness parameter, controls the probability assigned to each side of Therefore, while = 0.8, the distribution would be moderately skewed to the right. The histogram of simulated values fromis shown in Figure 3-1, In Table below, we summarize the corresponding estimated parameters and coefficients of skewness and kurtosis for a random sample of size=200, reps=500, drawn fromYA. AL(,.,)0081 L~,.,0081bg Table 3-1. Summary of related parameters of Y~AL(0,0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500] skewness kurtosis(adjusted) 0.79954 0.99336 0.134882 3.52629 Since 90%, 95% and 99% are the most common quantiles when analyzing financial data, we consider only those three confidence levels in this study. As mentioned already, the VaR and CVaR are contingent on the choice of confidence level, and will generally change when the confidence level changes. Thus, the MSEs of VaR and CVaR of different quantiles will also change correspondingly.

PAGE 28

18 This is illustrated in Table 3-2, which shows the corresponding MSEs of VaR and CVaR at the 95%, 99%, 99.5% levels of confidence. Figure 3-1. Histogram of simulated AL (0,0.8,1) data. [n=200, reps=500] Table 3-2. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99 of Y~AL(0, 0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500] MSEs of VaR =0.9 =0.95 =0.99 Parametric 0.0044458 0.0086326 0.023385 Semiparametric 0.014017 0.012534 0.20382 Nonparametric 0.82425 1.5001 3.9623 MSEs of CVaR =0.9 =0.95 =0.99 Parametric 0.020068 0.029502 0.054907 Semiparametric 0.025519 0.054298 0.35212 Nonparametric 0.78834 1.3716 3.1509 Figure 3-2 illustrates the comparisons of three different estimation approaches. Because MSEs are composed of bias and variance, the comparisons of biases and variances of VaR and CVaR are also shown in this figure. From Figure 3-2, not

PAGE 29

19 surprisingly, one can find that the parametric approach is the best way for estimating the VaR and CVaR according to its minimum MSE among those three approaches. The parametric approach is more powerful than the others, because it makes use of most information contained in the assumed density or distribution function. A A A A A A Figure 3-2. The comparisons of three estimators of Y~AL(0, 0.8,1) at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]

PAGE 30

20 Y~AL(0, 1, 1) In this case, the skewness parameter, is assumed to be 1, which means that the two probabilities are equal and the distribution is symmetric about which is assumed to be 0 here. This is the standard Laplace distribution. In Figure 3-3, the symmetric distribution was shown very clearly; therefore, one can expect that the coefficient of skewness should be close to zero. As for the MLEs of parameters and other coefficients are demonstrated in Table 3-3. Table 3-3. Summary of related parameters ofY~AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500] skewness kurtosis(adjusted) 1.0018 0.99435 0 3 Figure 3-3. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1,1) data. [n=200, reps=500] A summary of MSEs of VaR and CVaR under different estimation approaches is given in Table 3-4.

PAGE 31

21 Table 3-4. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99 of Y~AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500] MSEs of VaR =0.9 =0.95 =0.99 Parametric 0.0031112 0.0057482 0.01605 Semiparametric 0.0063773 0.012763 0.17371 Nonparametric 0.42144 0.79774 2.3073 MSEs of CVaR =0.9 =0.95 =0.99 Parametric 0.0031112 0.0057482 0.01605 Semiparametric 0.0063773 0.012763 0.17371 Nonparametric 0.42144 0.79774 2.3073 The comparison of different estimation approaches is shown in Figure 3-4. A A Figure 3-4. The comparisons of three estimators of Y~AL(0, 1, 1) at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] Remark: Since the results are similar to the previous one, we only demonstrate the comparison of MSEs in the following two cases.

PAGE 32

22 Y~AL(1, 1.2, 1) Now, ,which is set to be 1.2. As the histogram of simulated AL numbers shown in Figure 3-5, the distribution seems to be lightly skewed left. The coefficient of skewness is therefore less than zero. Table3-5 illustrates some related parameters. Table 3-5. Summary of related parameters of Y~(0,1.2,1). [n=200, reps=500] Skewness Kurtosis(adjusted) 1.2019 0.99386 -0.118189 3.36603 Figure 3-5. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1.2,1) data. [n=200, reps=500] The comparison result of VaR and CVaR for those three approaches is illustrated in Table 3-6, and is the same as previous two cases: the parametric one is the best one and the nonparametric one is the worst. The comparison is also shown in Figure 3-6. Table 3-6. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99 of Y~AL(0,1.2,1). [n=200, reps=500] MSEs of VaR =0.9 =0.95 =0.99 Parametric 0.0026005 0.0046065 0.013319 Semiparametric 0.0075317 0.017683 0.15612 Nonparametric 0.2238 0.46272 1.4338

PAGE 33

23 MSEs of CVaR =0.9 =0.95 =0.99 Parametric 0.013104 0.016882 0.032377 Semiparametric 0.031763 0.056587 0.23916 Nonparametric 0.21668 0.42903 1.1449 A A Figure 3-6. The comparisons of three estimators of Y~AL(0, 1.2, 1) at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] Before moving on, it might be a good idea to pause at this point to see the relationships among the confidence level, the skewness parameter, and the MSEs. From Figure 3-7, we could recognize that the MSEs of VaR and CvaR might fall or remain constant as rises. =0.9 K K

PAGE 34

24 =0.95 K K =0.99 K K Figure 3-7. Relationships between the skewness parameter, and MSEs at different confidence levels, =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] To form a more complete picture, we need to see how the MSEs change as we allow both those two parameters to change under different estimation approaches. The results are illustrated in Figure 3-8, which enables us to read off the value of the MSEs for any given combination of these two parameters. Those histograms show how the MSEs change as the underlying parameters change and convey information that the MSEs rise with but decline with

PAGE 35

25 MSEs of VaR for parametric estimator MSEs of CVaR for parametric estimator MSEs of VaR for semiparametric estimator MSEs of CVaR for semiparametric estimator S emi MSEs of VaR for nonparametric estimator MSEs of CVaR for nonparametric estimator non non Figure 3-8. Relationships among MSEs of VaR and CVaR, the skewness parameter, and confidence level, for the three different estimators (parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric)

PAGE 36

CHAPTER 4 EMPIRICAL APPLICATIONS We present in this section the interest rates and exchange rates data sets along with the quantitative analysis to determine if the AL distribution is an adequate model for the data by using goodness-of-fit techniques. If the data sets do fit the AL distribution, we would like to compare the MSEs of VaR and CVaR for the three estimation approaches and to see which one is the best estimator. Data Interest Rates Table 4-1 reports summary statistics, including estimates of the coefficients of skewness and kurtosis. The data are the interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds on the last working days of the month. The database was downloaded from: http://finance.yahoo.com The variable of interest is the logarithm of the interest rate ratio for two consecutive days. The data were transformed accordingly. This sample is the same as that previously consider by Kozubowski and Podgorski [12], and it goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size = 202. Table 4-1. Summary statistics for the interest rates, after taking logarithm conversion. Mean S.D. Min Max Q1 Q3 Skewness Kurtosis Interest rate -0.00046 0.01492 -0.04994 0.05855 -0.00933 0.00761 -0.05706 1.9603 Remark: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202 Figure 4-1 contains a histogram and a normal quantile plot. The normal quantile plot is one of the most useful tools for assessing normality. The plot is to compare the 26

PAGE 37

27 data values with the values one would predict for a standard normal distribution. The comparison is based on the idea of quantiles. If the data came perfectly from a standard normal distribution, the theoretical and empirical quantiles would be expected to be similar. Thus, all the points would fall along a straight line. However, if the plot is markedly nonlinear, then it is doubtful those data are normally distributed. From the histogram, we can find that the data have a higher peak in the center and heavier tails than normal distribution. Since it is quite symmetric, we could expect a skewness near zero. Due to the heavier tails, we might expect the kurtosis to be larger than for a normal distribution. In fact, from the summary statistics in Table 4-1, the skewness is around zero and the kurtosis is near two, which indicate moderate kurtosis. Furthermore, by looking at the normal quantile plot, it is quite clear that the data do not follow normal distribution, since the dots do not quite fit to a straight line and have some outliers. Now, we have observed that the data set do not follow the normal distribution. However, there is no agreement regarding the best theoretical model for fitting the interest rates data. In a recent study, Kotz et al., [6], try to fit the skew Laplace distribution to both interest rates and currency exchange rates data because of its fat-tail and sharp peaks at the origin. In their experiment, they found except for a slight discrepancy in skewness, the match between empirical and theoretical values is close. Thus, in the study, we consider fitting the AL models to both interest rates and currency exchange rates.

PAGE 38

28 Figure 4-1. Histogram and normal quantile plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds. Remark: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202 To determine if the AL distribution functions describe the data well, we employ here the most popularly used Quantile-Quantile plot or Q-Q plot graphical technique to examine the data set. The idea of the Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot is similar to the

PAGE 39

29 normal quantile plot. It is a graphical technique for determining if two data sets come from populations with a common distribution. A Q-Q plot is a plot of the quantiles of the first data set against the quantiles of the second data set. By a quantile, it means the fraction (or percent) of points below the given value. If the two datasets come from a population with the same distribution, the points should fall approximately along this reference line. The greater the departure from this reference line, the greater the evidence for the conclusion that the two data sets have come from populations with different distributions. The plot in Figure 4-2 is the Q-Q plot of interest rates data set and AL distributions. To obtain the Q-Q plot, we need to fit an AL distribution to the interest rates data. Estimate the and by formula (2.25), and (2.26), and then plot the empirical quantiles, from the 1st to the 99th, against the corresponding quantiles calculated from (2.12) with the MLEs for and substituted in. From this plot, we can see that most of the data points fall on a straight line. It is evident even to the naked eyes that AL distributions model these data more appropriately than normal distributions.

PAGE 40

30 Figure 4-2 The Q-Q plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds vs. fitted AL distributions Remark1: We compute 99 quantiles for the Q-Q plot. Remark2: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202 Now, we apply another goodness-of-fit test. The idea is similar to the Q_Q plot. If the distance between the nonparametric estimators of CVaR and VaR for each quantile from the interest rates data set is similar to that of AL distributions, then we can conclude that the data might fit an AL distribution. In Figure 4-3, we can observe that the difference between CVaR and VaR for each quantile of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bond is similar to that of an AL distribution. This provides additional evidence that the interest rates data set can be plausibly explained by AL distributions.

PAGE 41

31 Figure 4-3. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds (top) and that of simulated AL distribution (with different simulation seeds) (bottom). Remark1: We compute 99 quantiles for the dataset. Remark2: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202 Exchange Rates The data below consist of Taiwan dollar daily exchange rates (interbank rates) against the U.S. dollar. The historical sample covers the period June 1, 2000, to June 7, 2005 (1833 days) downloaded from: http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory. The variable of interest is the logarithm of the price ratio for two consecutive days. The data were transformed accordingly, yielding n=1832 values for each currency. The summary statistics for the transformed data are showed in Table 4-2, including the coefficient of skewness and kurtosis. Table 4-2. Summary statistics for the exchange rates, after taking logarithm conversion. Currency Mean S.D. Min Max Q1 Q3 Skewness Kurtosis TWD 0.00000 0.00197 -0.0222 0.02204 -0.0002 0.00015 0.0012129 50.365 Remark: The sample goes from June 1, 2000 through June 7, 2005, yielding a sample size =1833 The histogram and normal quantile plot of the data are presented in Figure 4-4. From the histogram, it is quite obvious that the data have a high peak, which is close to 0. Due to the high peak, we might expect the kurtosis to be larger than for a normal distribution. In fact, the kurtosis is 50.63, which is extremely high. Besides, the normal quantile plot confirms our findings that the data are not normally distributed. The data do not fit a straight line, not even the 95% confidence interval.

PAGE 42

32 Figure 4-4. Histogram and normal quantile plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates, 6/1/00 to 6/7/05, sample size=1833. The remaining challenge is to confirm if AL distributions fit the data well, and we will use the same strategy as that used for the interest rates data.

PAGE 43

33 Figure 4-5. The Q-Q plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates, 6/1/00 to 6/7/05 vs. fitted AL distribution Remark: We compute 99 quantiles for the Q-Q plot The quantile plots of the data set with theoretical AL distributions are presented in Figure 4-5. We see only a slight departure from the straight line. Comparing to the normal quantile plot in Figure 4-4, it is quite obvious that the AL distributions fit the data much better than the normal distributions. In Figure 4-6, the distance between the nonparametric estimators of VaR and CVaR for each quantile (99 quantiles) of the exchange rates dataset is similar to that of AL distributions.

PAGE 44

34 Figure 4-6. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates (top), and that of simulated AL distributions (with different simulation seeds)(bottom). Comparison In the previous section, we have confirmed that both the data sets: interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds and Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates can be plausibly modeled by AL distributions. Therefore, in the following section, a comparison of three estimation approaches: parametric, nonparametric, and semiparametric will be made to check if the results are consistent with those of Chapter 3: the parametric approach is the best estimation method, and the nonparametric is the worst. A A Figure 4-7. The comparison of three estimators of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds, from February 1977 to December 1993, at different confidence levels:=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]

PAGE 45

35 A A Figure 4-8.The comparison of three estimators of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates,from 6/1/00 to 6/7/05, at different confidence levels: =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] From Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8, we can find that the results are quite consistent with those of Chapter 3. The parametric estimation approach is the best method to estimate the VaR and CVaR of the AL distribution because of the lower MSEs. Besides, we can also notice that the MSEs are getting bigger while the confidence level is rising, especially for the nonparametric approach. That is because the nonparametric approach is more sensitive for extreme values, and it may overestimate the VaR and CVaR for large The higher confidence level means a smaller tail, a cut-off point further to the extreme and, therefore, a higher VaR and CVaR. As a result, the corresponding MSEs would become higher.

PAGE 46

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION In this thesis, we compare three different estimates for the risk measures: VaR and CVaR when sampling from an AL distribution: parametric, semiparametric ,and nonparametric. The standard AL case is investigated in chapter 3, and we found that in general, the parametric approach is the best estimator since it has the smallest MSEs for both VaR and CVaR. We then applied the AL distribution to interest rates and exchange rates data and find it to be a plausible fit. This is because AL distributions can account for leptokurtosis and skewness typically present in financial data sets. Finally, we compared those three approaches again based on the empirical data sets and the results are consistent with those obtained earlier. 36

PAGE 47

APPENDIX THE PROBABILITIES OF THE MLES OF VAR AND CVAR BEING DEGENERATE =0.5 n 5 10 15 20 25 0.25 1 1 1 1 1 0.50 1 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.92 0.75 1 0.93 0.89 0.73 0.71 1 0.99 0.96 0.84 0.69 0.58 =0.625 n 5 10 15 20 25 0.25 1 1 1 1 1 0.50 1 0.99 0.98 0.93 0.9 0.75 1 0.94 0.87 0.72 0.59 1 0.99 0.98 0.87 0.71 0.51 =0.75 n 5 10 15 20 25 0.25 1 1 1 1 1 0.50 1 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.92 0.75 1 0.93 0.94 0.72 0.65 1 1 0.93 0.79 0.66 0.58 =0.625 n 5 10 15 20 25 0.25 1 1 1 1 1 0.50 1 0.99 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.75 1 0.94 0.89 0.8 0.66 1 1 0.95 0.85 0.73 0.63 37

PAGE 48

LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Markowitz, H. 1952. Portfolio Selection Journal of Finance, Vol. 7, page 78. 2. J.P. Morgan. 1997. RiskMetrics Technical Documents, 4th edition. New York. 3. Artzuer, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J., and Heath, D. 1999. Coherent Measures of Risk. Mathematical Finance, Vol. 9, pages 203-228. 4. Rockefeller R. T. and Uryasev S. 2000. Optimization of Conditional Value-At-Risk. The Journal of Risk, Vol. 2, No. 3, pages 21-41. 5. Mandelbrot, B.1963. The Variation of Certain Speculative Prices. Journal of Business, Vol. 36, pages 394-419. 6. Kotz, S., Kozubowski, T., and Podgorski, K. 2001. The Laplace Distribution and Generalizations, A Revisit with Applications to Communications, Economics, Engineering, and Finance. Birkhauser. Boston. 7. Gaivoronski, A.A. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. Pflug, G. University of Vienna, Austria. 2000. Value at Risk in Portfolio Optimization: Properties and Computational Approach, working paper. 8. Ayebo, A. and Kozubowski, T. 2003. An Asymmetric Generalization of Gaussian and Laplace Laws. Journal of Probability and Statistical Science, Vol. 1(2), pages 187-210. 9. Bickel, D.R. 2002. Robust Estimators of the Mode and Skewness of Continuous data. Comput. Statist. Data Anal, Vol. 39, pages 153-163. 10. Vieu, P. 1996. A Note on Density Mode Estimation, Statist. Probab. Lett, Vol. 26, pages 297-307. 11. Ruppert, D. 2004. Statistics and Finance: An Introduction, pages 348-352. Spring Verlag. Berlin, Germany. 12. Kozubowski, T. and Podgorski, K. 1999. A Class of Asymmetric Distributions. Actuarial Research Clearing House, Vol. 1, pages 113-134. 13. Dowd, K. 2002. Measuring Market Risk. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. West Success, England. 38

PAGE 49

39 14. Linden, M. 2001. A Model for Stock Return Distribution. International Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 6, pages 159.

PAGE 50

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Hsiao-Hsiang Hsu was born in Taipei, Taiwan. She received her Bachelor of Business Administration (B.B.A.) degree in international trade and finance from Fu-Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan. In Fall 2003, she enrolled for graduate studies in the Department of Statistics at the University of Florida and will receive her Master of Science in Statistics degree in December 2005. 40


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011960/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparing Estimators of VAR and CVAR under the Asymmetric Laplace Distribution
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011960:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011960/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparing Estimators of VAR and CVAR under the Asymmetric Laplace Distribution
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011960:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












COMPARING ESTIMATORS OF VAR AND CVAR UNDER
THE ASYMMETRIC LAPLACE DISTRIBUTION















By

HSIAO-HSIANG HSU


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN STATISTICS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005





























Copyright 2005

by

Hsiao-Hsiang Hsu

































To my parents, brother, and husband
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to especially thank my advisor, Dr. Alexandre Trindade. He guided

me through all the research, and gave me invaluable advice, suggestions and comments.

This thesis could never have been done without his help. I also want to thank Dr. Ramon

C. Littell and Dr. Ronald Randles for serving on my committee and providing valuable

comments.

I am also grateful to Yun Zhu for her support and patience.

Finally, I would like to thank my families for their unwaving affection and

encouragement.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... .................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............ ......... ......................... viii

A B ST R A C T .......... ..... ...................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ............................................................................. .............. ...

2 DEFINITIONS, PROPERTIES AND ESTIMATIONS.......................... ..................

D definitions ........................................4
Definition 2.1: VaR (Value at Risk)....................... ... ... ...............4
Definition 2.2: CVaR (Conditional Value at Risk) ...........................................4
Definition 2.3: AL distribution (The Asymmetric Laplace distribution)..............5
B asic P properties ............................. ...................................... ... ....... 7
Proposition 2.1: The Coefficient of Skewness ............................................... 7
Proposition 2.2: The Coefficient of (excess) Kurtosis ......................................7
Proposition 2.3: The Quantiles .................. ..................... ...........7
Proposition 2.4: VaR and CVaR for the AL distribution ...................................8
E stim action s ............................................................................. 8
Param etric E stim action .................. ...................................... ..................... 8
Maximum Likelihood Estimation ( MLE ) ........................................9
Method of Moments Estimation (MME) ...................................................11
Sem i-param etric Estim ation ...................................................... ..... .......... 12
N onparam etric E stim ation........................................................ ............... 15

3 SIM U L A T IO N ST U D Y .................................................................. .....................16

S im u la tio n ............................................................................................................. 1 6
C om prison .............................................................................................................16
Y A L (1, 0 .8 1) ............................................................17
Y-AL(0, 1, 1) ................................ ......... 20
Y A L (1, 1.2, 1) ............................................................2 1




V









4 EM PIRICAL APPLICA TION S ............................................. .......................... 26

D a ta ...............................................................................2 6
In te re st R ate s .................................................................................................. 2 6
E x ch an g e R ate s .............................................................................................. 3 1
Comparison ............................ .................... 34

5 CONCLUSION..................... ..................36

APPENDIX

THE PROBABILITIES OF THE MLES OF VAR AND CVAR BEING
D E G E N E R A T E ....................................................................................37

L IST O F R EFER EN CE S ..................................... .................................................................38

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................................................................ 40
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1. Summary of related parameters of Y-AL(0,0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500].....................17

3-2. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99
of Y-AL(0, 0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500]............ ........... ..................... ...18

3-3. Summary of related parameters ofY-AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500].........................20

3-4. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99
of Y-AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500]......................... ................ ............ 21

3-5. Summary of related parameters of Y-(0,1.2,1). [n=200, reps=500] ........................22

3-6. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99
of Y-AL(0,1.2,1). [n=200, reps=500]..................... ... .................. ......... 22

4-1. Summary statistics for the interest rates, after taking logarithm conversion..............26

4-2. Summary statistics for the exchange rates, after taking logarithm conversion. .........31
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

2-1. VaR and CVaR for the possible losses of a portfolio........................................5

2-2. Asymmetric Laplace densities with 0=0, z=1, and K =2, 1.25, 1, 0.8,0.5...................6

2-3. The probabilities of the MLEs of VaR and CVaR being degenerate at different
confidence levels ........ ................... ......... ................ ............. 10


2-4. Estimating tail index by plotting log n ,(k) where n=200 in this case.

The largest value of m, 98, gives a roughly straight line, and the slope of
the line is 1.865421. R 2 =0.96............................................... ............... 14

3-1. Histogram of simulated AL (0,0.8,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]...............................18

3-2. The comparisons of three estimators of Y-AL(0, 0.8,1) at different confidence
levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] ...................................... 19

3-3. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]............... .......... 20

3-4. The comparisons of three estimators of Y-AL(0, 1, 1) at different confidence
levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] ...................................... 21

3-5. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1.2,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]................................22

3-6. The comparisons of three estimators of Y~AL(0, 1.2, 1) at different confidence
levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] ...................................... 23

3-7. Relationships between K, the skewness parameter, and MSEs at different
confidence levels, a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] .....................24

3-8. Relationships among MSEs of VaR and CVaR, the skewness parameter, K, and
confidence level, a for the three different estimators parametricc,
semiparametric, and nonparametric) .......... ..............................................25

4-1. Histogram and normal quantile plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds,
sam ple size = 202 .. ................................. ............. .... ...... .. 28









4-2. The Q-Q plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds vs. fitted AL
d istrib u tio n s ...................................... ............ .......... ............... 3 0

4-3. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of interest rates on 30
year Treasury bonds (top) and and that of simulated AL distributions
(with different simulation seeds)(bottom).............................................. 31

4-4. Histogram and normal quantile plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates, 6/1/00
to 6/7/05, sam ple size = 1833.................................... ....................... 32

4-5. The Q-Q plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates, 6/1/00 to 6/7/05 vs. fitted
A L distrib u tion ............................................... ................ 3 3

4-6. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of Taiwan Dollar daily
exchange rates from 6/1/00 to 6/7/05 and and that of simulated AL
distributions (with different simulation seeds).. ........................................34

4-7. The comparison of three estimators of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds,
from February 1977 to December 1993, at different confidence
levels:a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500] ............... .................34

4-8. The comparison of three estimators of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates,from
6/1/00 to 6/7/05, at different confidence levels: a =0.9, 0.95 and 0.99.
[n=200, reps=500] ....................................... ................................ 35















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science in Statistics

COMPARING ESTIMATORS OF VAR AND CVAR UNDER
THE ASYMMETRIC LAPLACE DISTRIBUTION

By

Hsiao-Hsiang Hsu

December 2005

Chair: Alexandre Trindade
Major Department: Statistics

Assessing the risk of losses in financial markets is an issue of paramount

importance. In this thesis, we compare two common estimators of risk, VaR and CVaR,

in terms of their mean squared errors (MSEs). Three types of estimators are considered:

parametric, under the asymmetric laplace (AL) law; semiparametric by assuming Pareto

tails; and ordinary nonparametric estimators, which can be expressed as L-statistics.

Parametric and nonparametric estimators have respectively the lowest and highest MSEs.

By assessing two types of quantile plots on interest rate and exchange rate data, we

determine that the AL distribution provides a plausible fit to these types of data.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Risk management has been an integral part of corporate finance, banking, and

financial investment for a long time. Indeed, the idea has been dated to at least four

decades ago, with Markowitz's pioneering work on portfolio selection [1]. However, the

paper did not attract interest until twenty years after it was published. It was the financial

crash of 1973-1974 that proved that past good performance was simply a result of bull

market and that risk also had to be considered. This resulted in the increasing popularity

of Markowitz's ideas on risk, portfolio performance and the benefits of diversification.

In the past few years, the growth of financial market and trading activities has

prompted new studies investigating reliable risk measurement techniques. The Value-at-

Risk (VaR) is a most popular measure of risk in either academic research or industry

application. This is a dollar measure of the minimum loss that would be expected over a

period of time with a given probability. For example, a VaR of one thousand dollars for

one day at a probability of 0.05 means that the firm would expect to lose at least $1

thousand in one day 5 percent of the time. Or we can also express this as a probability of

0.95 that a loss will not exceed one thousand dollars. In this way, the VaR becomes a

maximum loss with a given confidence level. The most influential contribution in this

field has been J.P Morgan's RiskMetrics methodology, within which a multivariate

normal distribution is employed to model the joint distribution of the assets in a portfolio

[2]. However, the VaR approach suffers problems when the return and losses are not

normally distributed which is often the case. It underestimates the losses since extreme









events should happen with equally chance at each day. Obvious explanations for this

finding are negative skewness and excess kurtosis in the true distribution of market

returns, which cannot be accounted for by using a normal density model as in

RiskMetrics.

Another risk measure that avoids the problem is Conditional Value at Risk

(CVaR). The concept of CVaR was first introduced by Artzuer, Delbaen, Eber, and

Heath [3], and formulated as an optimization problem by Rockefellar and Uryasev [4].

CVaR is the conditional mean value of the loss exceeding VaR. It is a straightforward

way to avoid serial dependency in the predicted events and thus base one's forecast on

the conditional distribution of the portfolio returns given past information. Although

CVaR has not become a standard in the finance industry, it is likely to play a major role

as it currently does in the insurance industry. Therefore, in the thesis, we consider both

of those two measurements for broader application.

A correct statistical distribution of financial data is needed first before any proper

predicative analysis can be conducted. Although the normal distribution is widely used, it

has several disadvantages when applied to financial data. The first potential problem is

one of statistical plausibility. The normal assumption is often justified by reference to the

central limit theory, but the central limit theory applies only to the central mass of the

density function, and not to its extremes. It follows that we can justify normality by

reference to the central limit theory only when dealing with more central quantiles and

probabilities. When dealing with the extremes, which are often the case in financial data,

we should therefore not use the normal to model. Second, most financial returns have

excess kurtosis. The empirical fact that the return distributions have fatter tails than









normal distribution has been researched since early 1960s when Mandelbrot reported his

first findings on stable (Parentian) distributions in finance [5]. Since then, several

researchers have observed that practically all financial data have excess kurtosis, which is

the leptokurtic phenomena. Thus, using the statistics of normal distributions to

characterize the financial market is potentially very hazardous. Since Laplace

distributions can account for leptokurtic and skewed data, they are natural candidates to

replace normal models and processes.

In this thesis, the aim is to compare parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric

estimators of VaR and CVaR random sampling from the Asymmetric Laplace

distribution. To do so, we calculate their mean squared error (MSE), a popular criterion

for measuring the accuracy of estimators. Broadly speaking, the best estimator should

have smallest MSE.

The plan of this thesis is as follows. Chapter 2 provides some background to the

study by introducing some definitions and propositions related to VaR, CVaR and the

Asymmetric Laplace distribution. Chapter 3 compares the parametric, semiparametric,

and nonparametric three different estimators of Asymmetric Laplace distribution.

Chapter 4 provides empirical analysis by using interest rates and currency exchange rates

data. Chapter 5 concludes the article. Additional tables are included in the Appendix A.













CHAPTER 2
DEFINITIONS, PROPERTIES AND ESTIMATIONS

Let Y be a continuous real-valued random variable defined on some probability

space (Q, A, P), with distribution function F(.) and density function f(.). Both the first

and second moments of Y are finite.

Definitions

Definition 2.1: VaR (Value at Risk)

The VaR refers to a particular amount of money, the maximum amount we are likely to

lose over a period of time, at a specific confidence level. If positive values of Y represent

losses, the VaR of Y at probability level a is defined to be the ath quantile of Y.

VaR ) (Y)- (Y)= F-'(a) (2.1)

Definition 2.2: CVaR (Conditional Value at Risk)

The CVaR of Y at probability level a,is the mean of the random variable that results by

turncasting Y at Ca and discarding its lower tail.

CVaR,(Y) 0,(Y)= E(Y Y >) (2.2)

Expanding on the definition, we obtain

E(YI(Y >; )) .1 I
a(Y) = ( ydF(y) = yf(y)dy (2.3)
P(Y> ) a1-a 1- a

or we can have an equivalent definition of CVaR in terms of the quantile function of Y:

S(Y) = F l(u)du (2.4)
b ( ) -1 -- fo













u
SVaR Maximum loss
0-
0 Probability 1- a

CVaR





Portfolio loss
Figure 2-1. VaR and CVaR for the possible losses of a portfolio

Definition 2.3: AL distribution (The Asymmetric Laplace distribution)

Random variable Y is said to follow an Asymmetric Laplace distribution if there exist

location parameter 0 e 91, scale parameter c20, and skewness parameter K>O, such that the

probability density function of Y is of the form


exp- l y- ,if y>0

( rK2) t (2.5)1



or, the distribution function of Y is of the form


:exp -Iy- ,if y>0

exp --y- if y<0
(2.6)









We denote the distribution of Y by AL(O, K, c) and write Y- AL(O, K, c). The

mean of the distribution is given by


S(2.7)

Its variance is


C2 = + 2 = +r2 (2.8)


The value of the skewness parameter K is related to [t and r as follows,

V~r 2-2 +2 -
K = (2.9)
P+ +2r- +//u2 -

and it controls the probability assigned to each side of 0. If K=1, the two probabilities are

equal and the distribution is symmetric about 0. This is the standard Laplace distribution



The Asymmetric Laplace Distribution





:r
:-






-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20


Figure 2-2. Asymmetric Laplace densities with 0=0, z=1, and K =0.5, 1, and 2.









Basic Properties

Proposition 2.1: The Coefficient of Skewness

For a distribution of an random variable Y with a finite third moment and standard

deviation greater then zero, the coefficient of skewness is a measure of symmetry that is

independent of scale. If Y- AL(O, K, c), the coefficient of skewness, 71, is defined by

1
_-3
Y = 2x K. (2.10)
( 1 2= +


The coefficient of skewness is nonzero for an AL distribution. As K increases

within the interval (0, oc), then the corresponding value of /1 decreases from 2 to -2.

Thus, the absolute value of 7/ is bounded by two.

Proposition 2.2: The Coefficient of (excess) Kurtosis

For a random variable Y with a finite fourth moment, the coefficient of (excess) kurtosis

can be defined as

S12
2/2=6
(1/2 + 2)2 (211)

It is a measure of peakness and of heaviness of the tails. If 72>0, the distribution

is said to be leptokurtic (heavy-tailed). Otherwise, it is said to be platykurtic (light-tailed).

The skewness coefficient of the AL distribution is between 3 ( the least value for

asymmetric Laplace distribution when K=1) and 6 (the largest value attained for the

limiting exponential distribution when K->).

Proposition 2.3: The Quantiles

If Y- AL(O, K, c), then the qth quantile of an AL random variable is,









SK 1+ K2 1+ K2
0+ log {--q for q 0, +-K

+ K- 2 +
T 1 log{(l+K)(lq)} for qe\K (.2
(2.12)

Proposition 2.4: VaR and CVaR for the AL distribution

If Y- AL(O, K, T), for a > 0.5, then its standardization X = (Y- 0)/r AL(0,K,1). Since

both VaR and CVaR are translation invariant and positively homogenous [7],

VaR,(Y)= 0+ rVaR,(X) (2.13)

and

CVaR(Y)= 0+ zCVaR,(X) (2.14)

Therefore, no generality is lost by focusing on the standard case X ~ AL (0, K, 1),

provided 0 and c are known. VaR and CVaR are then easily obtained.



log[( +K2)(- a)]
,;(X) = -(2.15)
KC2

and

1
^(X) = (X) + (2.16)

Estimations

We now look at some of the most popular approaches to the estimation of VaR and

CVaR.

Parametric Estimation

The parametric approach estimates the risk by fitting probability curves to the data

and then inferring the VaR from the fitted curve.








Maximum Likelihood Estimation ( MLE )
Consider now the most general case of estimating all three parameters. If Y

AL(O, K, c), the maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) are available in closed form [6].

Define first the functions,

8o)= 1
n 1 (2.17)
1 n
g2-() -0)
n 1 (2.18)

and

h(O)= 2log1 9 (+ 2(0)]+ 31(0)2(0) (2.19)

Letting the index 1 < r < n be such that

h(Y,) ) h(Y,)for i =l,.....,n,

the MLE of 0 is = Y(,). Provided 1 < r < n, the MLEs of( K, c) are:

= 2 (r) 1 (r) 4 (2.20)

^= 2[3()(32( )1/4 r) (y /2 +2() 1/2) (2.21)

(If r = 1 or r = n, the MLEs of ( K, c ) do not exist.) Defining

c,, log[1+ K2- )] (2.22)

the MLEs of VaR and CVaR are then obtained by equivariance,

0/Y) c/ (2.23)


() )(2.24)
A-V2











However, after doing some experiments, we found the MLEs of VaR and CVaR will

be degenerate most of the time when all three parameters are unknown (Appendix).

Figure 2-3. shows that the probabilities of the MLEs being degenerate rise with both the

sample size, n, and the skewness parameter, K .


a = 0.5


a = 0.625


prob. of
"; being
degenerate

S kappaU
kappa


a = 0.75


prob.of
S being
degenerate


5 kappa


a = 0.875


prob.of

degenerate


kappa
kappa


Figure 2-3. The probabilities of the MLEs of VaR and CVaR being degenerate at
different confidence levels




There is another way to estimate the parameters when all of them are unknown.

According to Ayebo and Kozubowski [8], in the case when all parameters are unknown,

one can estimate the mode (0) using one of the nonparametric methods (Bickel [9] and


prob.of
being
degenerate



kappa
kappa









Vieu [10]) for several estimation models). After getting 0, we can apply the following

formulas for K and r, assuming 0 is known, ([6], Chapter 3), to get the maximum

likelihood estimates.

2= 4 () (2.25)



',- = (0)V/20) X ( (1 8)+ 2 (0)). (2.26)

Remark:

In our analysis, we assume that the location parameter, 0, is zero. This is a

reasonable assumption when the data consists of logarithmic growth rates such as interest

rates, stock returns, and exchange rates [8].

Method of Moments Estimation ( MME )

The method of moments approach is also considered in the thesis. Assuming that

the 0 is known, which is set to be zero in the study, the method of moments estimators of

/u and r are given by ([6], Chapter 3)

1 "
n
S: 1 : Y (2.27)





^ = 1 2Y2 (2.28)


Then, we can compute k using relation (2.9).

Remark: After checking all the cases in the thesis, we found that the MLE and the

MME of each parameter are almost the same. Therefore, we only calculate the MLEs

for parametric estimation in the study.








Semi-parametric Estimation

When observing financial data, e.g. stock returns, interest rates, or exchange rates, a

much less restrictive assumption is to model the return distributions as having a Pareto

left tail, or equivalently that the loss distribution has a Pareto right tail. This allows for

the skewness and kurtosis of returns, while making no assumptions about the underlying

distribution away from the tails. We follow the development of Rupport ([11], Chapter

11. )Fory> O,

P(Y > y)= L(y)y-a, (2.29)

where L(y) is slowly varying at infinity and a is the tail index. Therefore, if

y, > 0 and yo > 0 then

P(Y > y) L(y) Y (2.30)
(2.30)
P(Y > y,) L(yo)[y

now suppose that y, = VaRy (Y) and yo = VaRo (Y), where 0 < ao < a,.

Then, (2.29 ) becomes

1- PY > VaRg (Y) L{VaR (Y)} VaR (Y) a
-ao P{Y >VaRo (Y)} L{VaRo(Y) VaR Y) (2.31)

Because L is slowly varying at infinity and VaR1 (Y) and VaRo (Y) are assumed to

be reasonably large, we make the approximation that

L{VaR (X) 1 (2.32)
L(VaR, (X))

so (2.32) simplifies to










(Y) 1 a (2.33)
VaRyo (Y) 1- aJ

Now dropping the subscript "1" of a', we have


VaR.(Y)= VaR.o (Y) 1- a (2.34)
1- a

that is,

1- a
(Y) ( -aOY (2.35)

We now extend this idea to CVaR similarly, giving


CVaR,(Y)= CVaR0(Y) ~, (2.36)


or we can write,


(,(Y)= o(Y) (2.37)


Equations (2.35) and (2.37) become semiparametric estimators of VaRY(Y) and

CVaR,(Y) when VaR, (Y) and CVaRo (Y) are replaced by nonparametric estimates

(2.41), (2.42) and the tail index a is estimated by the regression estimator.

To see this, note that by (2.29), we have

log[P(Y> y)]= log L(y)-alogy. (2.38)

If n is the sample size and 1


P(Y > y)) k (2.39)
n










log(n ) log- alog(y(,). (2.40)



One can then use the linearity of the plot of log Y(k)) for different
k=1

m to guide the choice of m.


The value of m is selecting by plotting {logl Y(k)i)) for various values
k=l

of m and choosing the largest value of m giving a roughly linear plot. If we fit a straight

line to these points by least squares then minus the slope estimates the tail index a.

For example, if a random sample Y, Y Y, ...Y,00 is drawn from the AL (0, 0.8,1)

distribution, and Y Y Y ...Y denote the corresponding order statistics of the sample.
(1)' (2)' (3)' (200)


For getting the value of m, we first need to plot log l Y(k)) where n=200.
k=1

The plotted points and the least squares line can be seen in Figure 2-4.



3


2
2 *-****




0 -

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
log((n-k)/n)


Figure 2-4. Estimating tail index by plotting log -- Y(k) where n=200 in this case.

The largest value of m, 98, gives a roughly straight line, and the slope of the line is -
1.865421. R2 =0.96









A least squares line was fit to these 98 points and R2 =0.96, indicating a good fit to

a straight line. The slope of the line is -1.865421, so a is 1.865421. After getting a, we

can obtain the semiparametric estimators by functions (2.35) and (2.37).

Nonparametric Estimation

This is the least restrictive approach to the estimation of VaR and CVaR. The

nonparametric approach seeks to estimate VaR or CVaR without making any

assumptions about the distribution of returns and losses. The essence of the approach is

that one can try to let the data speak for themselves as much as possible. (See for example

[7].)

When a random sample, ",---,Y,, from AL distribution is available, consistent

nonparametric estimators (NPEs) of VaR and CVaR taken the form of L-statistics. If

Y) <' -
VaR is the ath empirical quantile,

(Y) = Yk, (2.41)

where k, = Lnao denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to na. The

estimator of CVaR is the corresponding empirical tail mean,

(1 YY) (2.42)
n-k, +1,=ka

Theoretically, parametric approaches are more powerful than nonparametric

approach, since they make use of additional information contained in the assumed density

or distribution function.















CHAPTER 3
SIMULATION STUDY

In this chapter, we compare the three types of estimators parametricc,

semiparametric, and nonparametric) of VaR and CVaR in terms of their bias, variance,

and MSE. The data is generated via Monte Carlo from AL distribution. The MSEs are

obtained empirically.

Simulation

There are several ways to generate random values from an AL distribution. Here

is an example of using two i.i.d standard exponential random variables.

We can generate the Y ~ AL(O,K, r) by the following algorithm.

* Generate a standard exponential random variable W.
* Generate a standard exponential random variable W2, independent of W.

* Set Y--0+ ( -W KW2).
2 K
* RETURN Y.
Comparison

In this section, we would like to compare three different approaches: parametric,

semiparimetric, and nonparametric to estimate VaR and CVaR. In order to measure the

goodness of those estimation procedures, using mean square error (MSE) to check their

goodness. MSE is a common criterion for comparing estimators and it is composed of

bias and variance. A better estimator should have smaller MSE. Besides checking the

goodness of those estimators, we would also like to know how different K the skewness

parameter, would affect the MSEs. Without loss of generality, here, we focus only on the

standard case, Y AL(O,K,1) .









Before doing the following analysis, we need first to know how to estimate the

VaR and CVaR in the standard case. After some routine calculations from (2.23),(2.24),

the MLEs of VaR and CVaR in the standard case are:


44(Y) (3.1)

KJ2
a(Y)= U(Y)+ (3.2)


Remark: Note that 4,(Y) ,(Y) = which is independent of a. Thos will


form the basis of a goodness-of-fit tool in Chapter 4.

Y-AL(1, 0.8, 1)

The skewness parameter, K controls the probability assigned to each side of 0.

Therefore, while K = 0.8, the distribution would be moderately skewed to the right. The

histogram of simulated values from AL(0,0.8,1) is shown in Figure 3-1, In Table below,

we summarize the corresponding estimated parameters and coefficients of skewness and

kurtosis for a random sample of size=200, reps=500, drawn from Y AL(0,0.8,1).

Table 3-1. Summary of related parameters of Y-AL(0,0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500]
K skewness kurtosis(adjusted)

0.79954 0.99336 0.134882 3.52629



Since 90%, 95% and 99% are the most common quantiles when analyzing financial

data, we consider only those three confidence levels in this study.

As mentioned already, the VaR and CVaR are contingent on the choice of

confidence level, and will generally change when the confidence level changes. Thus,

the MSEs of VaR and CVaR of different quantiles will also change correspondingly.










This is illustrated in Table 3-2, which shows the corresponding MSEs of VaR and CVaR

at the 95%, 99%, 99.5% levels of confidence.


150


100 -



50 -


I I I I I I I I I I
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
kappa=0.8

Figure 3-1. Histogram of simulated AL (0,0.8,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]

Table 3-2. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: a=
0.99 of Y-AL(0, 0.8,1). [n=200, reps=500]


=0.9, 0.95 and


MSEs of VaR
a =0.9 a =0.95 a =0.99

Parametric 0.0044458 0.0086326 0.023385

Semiparametric 0.014017 0.012534 0.20382

Nonparametric 0.82425 1.5001 3.9623


MSEs of CVaR
a =0.9 a =0.95 a =0.99

Parametric 0.020068 0.029502 0.054907

Semiparametric 0.025519 0.054298 0.35212

Nonparametric 0.78834 1.3716 3.1509


Figure 3-2 illustrates the comparisons of three different estimation approaches.

Because MSEs are composed of bias and variance, the comparisons of biases and

variances of VaR and CVaR are also shown in this figure. From Figure 3-2, not







19


surprisingly, one can find that the parametric approach is the best way for estimating the

VaR and CVaR according to its minimum MSE among those three approaches. The

parametric approach is more powerful than the others, because it makes use of most

information contained in the assumed density or distribution function.


nnonparametric -+P Parametric --semiparametric


0.9 0.95

Alpha


2.5
2
1.5
> 1
0.5
S0
-0.5
-1






0.6
2 0.5
S0.4
8 0.3
S0.2
- 0.1
0







5
4
3
2
1
0


2.5

1.5

S0.5

-0.5

-1.5


I


0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


0.9 0.959


Alpha











0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


Figure 3-2. The comparisons of three estimators of Y-AL(0, 0.8,1) at different
confidence levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]


0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


A-ft


0.6
S0.5
> 0.4
0.3
. 0.2
0.1
0







5
4
S3
M2
1
0


k-










Y-AL(O, 1, 1)

In this case, the skewness parameter, K is assumed to be 1, which means that the

two probabilities are equal and the distribution is symmetric about 0, which is assumed

to be 0 here. This is the standard Laplace distribution. In Figure 3-3, the symmetric

distribution was shown very clearly; therefore, one can expect that the coefficient of

skewness should be close to zero. As for the MLEs of parameters and other coefficients

are demonstrated in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Summary of related parameters ofY-AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500]
Sskewness kurtosis(adjusted)

1.0018 0.99435 0 3





150



100 -
C)
C:

LL 50



0 -
I I I I I I I I I
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
kappa=1


Figure 3-3. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]

A summary of MSEs of VaR and CVaR under different estimation approaches is

given in Table 3-4.










Table 3-4. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: a=
0.99 of Y-AL(0,1,1). [n=200, reps=500]
MSEs of VaR


=0.9, 0.95 and


a =0.9 a =0.95 a =0.99

Parametric 0.0031112 0.0057482 0.01605

Semiparametric 0.0063773 0.012763 0.17371

Nonparametric 0.42144 0.79774 2.3073


MSEs of CVaR
a =0.9 a =0.95 a =0.99

Parametric 0.0031112 0.0057482 0.01605

Semiparametric 0.0063773 0.012763 0.17371

Nonparametric 0.42144 0.79774 2.3073



The comparison of different estimation approaches is shown in Figure 3-4.


nonparametric -4-Parametric --semiparamtric


2.5
2
1.5
W 1
0.5
0


2.5
2
ct
S1.5

2 0.5
0


0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


Figure 3-4. The comparisons of three estimators of Y-AL(0, 1, 1) at different confidence
levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]

Remark: Since the results are similar to the previous one, we only demonstrate the comparison of MSEs in


the following two cases.








Y-AL(1, 1.2, 1)

Now, K ,which is set to be 1.2. As the histogram of simulated AL numbers shown

in Figure 3-5, the distribution seems to be lightly skewed left. The coefficient of

skewness is therefore less than zero. Table3-5 illustrates some related parameters.

Table 3-5. Summary of related Darameters of Y-(0.1.2. 1. rn=200. ress=5001


150


100


50


kappa=1.2
Figure 3-5. Histogram of simulated AL (0,1.2,1) data. [n=200, reps=500]

The comparison result of VaR and CVaR for those three approaches is illustrated in

Table 3-6, and is the same as previous two cases: the parametric one is the best one and

the nonparametric one is the worst. The comparison is also shown in Figure 3-6.

Table 3-6. The MSEs of VaR and CVaR at different confidence levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and
0.99 of Y-AL(0,1.2,1). [n=200, reps=500]

MSEs of VaR
a =0.9 a =0.95 a =0.99
Parametric 0.0026005 0.0046065 0.013319
Semiparametric 0.0075317 0.017683 0.15612
Nonparametric 0.2238 0.46272 1.4338


d 1











MSEs of CVaR
a =0.9 a =0.95 a =0.99

Parametric 0.013104 0.016882 0.032377

Semiparametric 0.031763 0.056587 0.23916

Nonparametric 0.21668 0.42903 1.1449


nonparametric -"-Parametric ---semiparametric


2
S1.5
S1
S0.5
0


2
1.5


S0.5
0


0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha


Figure 3-6. The comparisons of three estimators of Y-AL(0, 1.2, 1) at different
confidence levels: a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]

Before moving on, it might be a good idea to pause at this point to see the


relationships among the confidence level, a, the skewness parameter, K and the MSEs.


From Figure 3-7, we could recognize that the MSEs of VaR and CvaR might fall or


remain constant as K rises.


S-nonparametric --Parametric --semiparametric

a =0.9


1
0.8
; 0.6
M 0.4
2 0.2
0


0.8 1 1.2
Kappa


L- I
0.8 1 1.2
Kappa


1
0.8
0.6
i 0.4
2 0.2
0










a =0.95


2 2
1.5 2 1.5


0.5 0.5
0 0
0.8 1 1.2 0.8 1 1.2
Kappa Kappa


a =0.99


5 5



2 2

0 0
0.8 1 1.2 0.8 1 1.2
Kappa Kappa


Figure 3-7. Relationships between K, the skewness parameter, and MSEs at different
confidence levels, a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]

To form a more complete picture, we need to see how the MSEs change as we

allow both those two parameters to change under different estimation approaches. The

results are illustrated in Figure 3-8, which enables us to read off the value of the MSEs

for any given combination of these two parameters. Those histograms show how the

MSEs change as the underlying parameters change and convey information that the

MSEs rise with a but decline with K












MSEs of VaR for parametric estimator

parametric


mse i i


0.8
1 1.2
kappa


MSEs of CVaR for parametric estimator

parametric


mse



0.8 1 1.2
kapp1.2
kappa


MSEs of VaR for semiparametric estimator MSEs of CVaR for semiparametric
estimator


Semiparametric (VaR)


Semiparametric (CVaR)


mse I


mse I
"I i^


0.8 1.2

kappa


).99
alpha


U.8 p
1.2
kappa


MSEs of VaR


for nonparametric estimator MSEs of CVaR for nonparametric
estimator


nonparametric


mse


nonparametric


mse


r 0.99
0.9


0.8 1

kappa


0.8 1
kappa
kappa


Figure 3-8. Relationships among MSEs of VaR and CVaR, the skewness parameter, K,
and confidence level, a for the three different estimators parametricc,
semiparametric, and nonparametric)















CHAPTER 4
EMPIRICAL APPLICATIONS

We present in this section the interest rates and exchange rates data sets along with

the quantitative analysis to determine if the AL distribution is an adequate model for the

data by using goodness-of-fit techniques. If the data sets do fit the AL distribution, we

would like to compare the MSEs of VaR and CVaR for the three estimation approaches

and to see which one is the best estimator.

Data

Interest Rates

Table 4-1 reports summary statistics, including estimates of the coefficients of

skewness and kurtosis. The data are the interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds on the

last working days of the month. The database was downloaded from:

http://finance.yahoo.com. The variable of interest is the logarithm of the interest rate

ratio for two consecutive days. The data were transformed accordingly. This sample is

the same as that previously consider by Kozubowski and Podgorski [12], and it goes from

February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size = 202.

Table 4-1. Summary statistics for the interest rates, after taking logarithm conversion.
Interest rate Mean S.D. Min Max Q1 Q3 Skewness Kurtosis

-0.00046 0.01492 -0.04994 0.05855 -0.00933 0.00761 -0.05706 1.9603
Remark: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202


Figure 4-1 contains a histogram and a normal quantile plot. The normal quantile

plot is one of the most useful tools for assessing normality. The plot is to compare the









data values with the values one would predict for a standard normal distribution. The

comparison is based on the idea of quantiles. If the data came perfectly from a standard

normal distribution, the theoretical and empirical quantiles would be expected to be

similar. Thus, all the points would fall along a straight line. However, if the plot is

markedly nonlinear, then it is doubtful those data are normally distributed.

From the histogram, we can find that the data have a higher peak in the center and

heavier tails than normal distribution. Since it is quite symmetric, we could expect a

skewness near zero. Due to the heavier tails, we might expect the kurtosis to be larger

than for a normal distribution. In fact, from the summary statistics in Table 4-1, the

skewness is around zero and the kurtosis is near two, which indicate moderate kurtosis.

Furthermore, by looking at the normal quantile plot, it is quite clear that the data do not

follow normal distribution, since the dots do not quite fit to a straight line and have some

outliers.

Now, we have observed that the data set do not follow the normal distribution.

However, there is no agreement regarding the best theoretical model for fitting the

interest rates data. In a recent study, Kotz et al., [6], try to fit the skew Laplace

distribution to both interest rates and currency exchange rates data because of its fat-tail

and sharp peaks at the origin. In their experiment, they found except for a slight

discrepancy in skewness, the match between empirical and theoretical values is close.

Thus, in the study, we consider fitting the AL models to both interest rates and currency

exchange rates.












40



30



20-


LL
U-


10-



0 m

-0.05 0.00 0.05

Interest rate





99 ---------------------------------------------------------------

95 --



o 50
go _- ------------------------------------------ -^,^ ------------ i-- --------




40 -
S30 -
0 50 _- -------------------------- --------------------------- - -

20









Data
5 --------^---------------------------------------------------









Figure 4-1. Histogram and normal quantile plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury
bonds.

Remark: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202



To determine if the AL distribution functions describe the data well, we employ here


the most popularly used Quantile-Quantile plot or Q-Q plot graphical technique to


examine the data set. The idea of the Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot is similar to the










normal quantile plot. It is a graphical technique for determining if two data sets come

from populations with a common distribution. A Q-Q plot is a plot of the quantiles of the

first data set against the quantiles of the second data set. By a quantile, it means the

fraction (or percent) of points below the given value. If the two datasets come from a

population with the same distribution, the points should fall approximately along this

reference line. The greater the departure from this reference line, the greater the evidence

for the conclusion that the two data sets have come from populations with different

distributions. The plot in Figure 4-2 is the Q-Q plot of interest rates data set and AL

distributions. To obtain the Q-Q plot, we need to fit an AL distribution to the interest

rates data. Estimate the K and by formula (2.25), and (2.26), and then plot the

empirical quantiles, from the 1 st to the 99th, against the corresponding quantiles

calculated from (2.12) with the MLEs for K and Z substituted in.

From this plot, we can see that most of the data points fall on a straight line. It is

evident even to the naked eyes that AL distributions model these data more appropriately

than normal distributions.

0.5

E*



0.0*



*


-0.5
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Quantiles of AL











Figure 4-2 The Q-Q plot of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds vs. fitted AL
distributions

Remarkl: We compute 99 quantiles for the Q-Q plot.
Remark2: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202



Now, we apply another goodness-of-fit test. The idea is similar to the Q_Q plot. If


the distance between the nonparametric estimators of CVaR and VaR for each quantile


from the interest rates data set is similar to that of AL distributions, then we can conclude


that the data might fit an AL distribution.


In Figure 4-3, we can observe that the difference between CVaR and VaR for each


quantile of interest rates on 30-year Treasury bond is similar to that of an AL


distribution. This provides additional evidence that the interest rates data set can be


plausibly explained by AL distributions.



0.05

0.04

0.03

> 0.02

0.01

0
0 I--I--I--I--I-----------

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Quantiles


0.05
0.04
S0.03
0.02
0.01
0


0.05
0.04
> 0.03
0.02
0.01
0


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Quantiles


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Quantiles


I


~I.


D


D










Figure 4-3. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of interest rates on
30-year Treasury bonds (top) and that of simulated AL distribution (with
different simulation seeds) (bottom).

Remarkl: We compute 99 quantiles for the dataset.
Remark2: The sample goes from February 1977 through December 1993, yielding a sample size =202


Exchange Rates

The data below consist of Taiwan dollar daily exchange rates (interbank rates)

against the U.S. dollar. The historical sample covers the period June 1, 2000, to June 7,

2005 (1833 days) downloaded from: http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory. The

variable of interest is the logarithm of the price ratio for two consecutive days. The data

were transformed accordingly, yielding n=1832 values for each currency. The summary

statistics for the transformed data are showed in Table 4-2, including the coefficient of

skewness and kurtosis.

Table 4-2. Summary statistics for the exchange rates, after taking logarithm conversion.
Currency Mean S.D. Max Q1 Q3 Skewness Kurtosis
Min
TWD 0.00000 0.00197 -0.0222 0.02204 -0.0002 0.00015 0.0012129 50.365
Remark: The sample goes from June 1, 2000 through June 7, 2005, yielding a sample size =1833


The histogram and normal quantile plot of the data are presented in Figure 4-4.
From the histogram, it is quite obvious that the data have a high peak, which is close to 0.
Due to the high peak, we might expect the kurtosis to be larger than for a normal
distribution. In fact, the kurtosis is 50.63, which is extremely high. Besides, the normal
quantile plot confirms our findings that the data are not normally distributed. The data do
not fit a straight line, not even the 95% confidence interval.
















1000


C
C:
o
a)

0) 500
L0




0-


-0.02 -0.01 0.00

TWD


0.02


0 02 0 01 0 00 0 01 0 02
Data

Figure 4-4. Histogram and normal quantile plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates,
6/1/00 to 6/7/05, sample size=1833.


The remaining challenge is to confirm if AL distributions fit the data well, and we


will use the same strategy as that used for the interest rates data.


.i











0.2 -



0.1 o*



0.0 -



-0.1 o*
*-


-0.2

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Quantiles of AL

Figure 4-5. The Q-Q plot of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates, 6/1/00 to 6/7/05 vs.
fitted AL distribution

Remark: We compute 99 quantiles for the Q-Q plot




The quantile plots of the data set with theoretical AL distributions are presented in


Figure 4-5. We see only a slight departure from the straight line. Comparing to the


normal quantile plot in Figure 4-4, it is quite obvious that the AL distributions fit the data


much better than the normal distributions.


In Figure 4-6, the distance between the nonparametric estimators of VaR and CVaR


for each quantile (99 quantiles) of the exchange rates dataset is similar to that of AL


distributions.


0.006 -

0.005 -

0.004 -

0.003

0.002 -*

0.001
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Quantiles











0.006 0.06
0.005 0.005


> 0.002
0.001 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Quantiles Qantiles


Figure 4-6. The difference between CVaR and VaR for 99 quantiles of Taiwan Dollar
daily exchange rates (top), and that of simulated AL distributions (with
different simulation seeds)(bottom).

Comparison

In the previous section, we have confirmed that both the data sets: interest rates on

30-year Treasury bonds and Taiwan Dollar daily exchange rates can be plausibly

modeled by AL distributions. Therefore, in the following section, a comparison of three

estimation approaches: parametric, nonparametric, and semiparametric will be made to

check if the results are consistent with those of Chapter 3: the parametric approach is the

best estimation method, and the nonparametric is the worst.


[ nonparametric --Parametric -*- semiparametric



0.0006 0.0006
0.0005 0.0005
0.0004 0.0004
0.0003 0.0003
S0.0002 0.0002
0.0001 0.0001

0.9 0.95 0.99 0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha Alpha


Figure 4-7. The comparison of three estimators of interest rates on 30-year Treasury
bonds, from February 1977 to December 1993, at different confidence
levels:a=0.9, 0.95 and 0.99. [n=200, reps=500]












0.00001 0.00001
0.000008 0.000008
0.000006 > 0.000006
W 0.000004 w 0.000004
S0.000002 0.000002
0 0
0.9 0.95 0.99 0.9 0.95 0.99
Alpha Alpha


Figure 4-8.The comparison of three estimators of Taiwan Dollar daily exchange
rates,from 6/1/00 to 6/7/05, at different confidence levels: a =0.9, 0.95 and
0.99. [n=200, reps=500]

From Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8, we can find that the results are quite consistent

with those of Chapter 3. The parametric estimation approach is the best method to

estimate the VaR and CVaR of the AL distribution because of the lower MSEs. Besides,

we can also notice that the MSEs are getting bigger while the confidence level is rising,

especially for the nonparametric approach. That is because the nonparametric approach

is more sensitive for extreme values, and it may overestimate the VaR and CVaR for

large a The higher confidence level means a smaller tail, a cut-off point further to the

extreme and, therefore, a higher VaR and CVaR. As a result, the corresponding MSEs

would become higher.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

In this thesis, we compare three different estimates for the risk measures: VaR and

CVaR when sampling from an AL distribution: parametric, semiparametric ,and

nonparametric.

The standard AL case is investigated in chapter 3, and we found that in general, the

parametric approach is the best estimator since it has the smallest MSEs for both VaR

and CVaR. We then applied the AL distribution to interest rates and exchange rates data

and find it to be a plausible fit. This is because AL distributions can account for

leptokurtosis and skewness typically present in financial data sets. Finally, we compared

those three approaches again based on the empirical data sets and the results are

consistent with those obtained earlier.









APPENDIX


THE PROBABILITIES OF THE MLES OF VAR AND CVAR BEING DEGENERATE

a =0.5

Sn 5 10 15 20 25

0.25 1 1 1 1 1

0.50 1 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.92

0.75 1 0.93 0.89 0.73 0.71

1 0.99 0.96 0.84 0.69 0.58

a =0.625

k -n 5 10 15 20 25

0.25 1 1 1 1 1

0.50 1 0.99 0.98 0.93 0.9

0.75 1 0.94 0.87 0.72 0.59

1 0.99 0.98 0.87 0.71 0.51

a =0.75

k-n 5 10 15 20 25

0.25 1 1 1 1 1

0.50 1 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.92

0.75 1 0.93 0.94 0.72 0.65

1 1 0.93 0.79 0.66 0.58

a =0.625

k-n 5 10 15 20 25

0.25 1 1 1 1 1

0.50 1 0.99 0.94 0.96 0.95

0.75 1 0.94 0.89 0.8 0.66

1 1 0.95 0.85 0.73 0.63
















LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Markowitz, H. 1952. Portfolio Selection, Journal of Finance, Vol. 7, page 78.

2. J.P. Morgan. 1997. RiskMetrics Technical Documents, 4th edition. New York.

3. Artzuer, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J., and Heath, D. 1999. Coherent Measures of Risk.
Mathematical Finance, Vol. 9, pages 203-228.

4. Rockefeller R. T. and Uryasev S. 2000. Optimization of Conditional Value-At-Risk.
The Journal of Risk, Vol. 2, No. 3, pages 21-41.

5. Mandelbrot, B. 1963. The Variation of Certain Speculative Prices. Journal of
Business, Vol. 36, pages 394-419.

6. Kotz, S., Kozubowski, T., and Podgorski, K. 2001. The Laplace Distribution and
Generalizations, A Revisit with Applications to Communications, Economics,
Engineering, and Finance. Birkhauser. Boston.

7. Gaivoronski, A.A. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.
Pflug, G. University of Vienna, Austria. 2000. Value at Risk in Portfolio
Optimization: Properties and Computational Approach, working paper.

8. Ayebo, A. and Kozubowski, T. 2003. An Asymmetric Generalization of Gaussian
and Laplace Laws. Journal of Probability and Statistical Science, Vol. 1(2), pages
187-210.

9. Bickel, D.R. 2002. Robust Estimators of the Mode and Skewness of Continuous
data. Comput. Statist. Data Anal, Vol. 39, pages 153-163.

10. Vieu, P. 1996. A Note on Density Mode Estimation, Statist. Probab. Lett, Vol. 26,
pages 297-307.

11. Ruppert, D. 2004. Statistics and Finance: An Introduction, pages 348-352. Spring
Verlag. Berlin, Germany.

12. Kozubowski, T. and Podgorski, K. 1999. A Class of Asymmetric Distributions.
Actuarial Research Clearing House, Vol. 1, pages 113-134.

13. Dowd, K. 2002. Measuring Market Risk. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. West Success,
England.






39


14. Linden, M. 2001. A Model for Stock Return Distribution. International Journal of
Finance and Economics, Vol. 6, pages 159-169.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Hsiao-Hsiang Hsu was born in Taipei, Taiwan. She received her Bachelor of

Business Administration (B.B.A.) degree in international trade and finance from Fu-Jen

Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan. In Fall 2003, she enrolled for graduate studies in

the Department of Statistics at the University of Florida and will receive her Master of

Science in Statistics degree in December 2005.