On dependence consistency of CoVaR and some other systemic risk measures
Georg Mainik, Eric Schaanning

TL;DR
This paper examines the dependence consistency of CoVaR and other systemic risk measures, showing that conditioning on X>=VaR_eta(X) provides better dependence response than conditioning on X=VaR_eta(X).
Contribution
It compares two definitions of CoVaR, establishes their dependence properties via copulas, and demonstrates the superiority of the X>=VaR condition for dependence consistency.
Findings
Conditioning on X>=VaR_eta(X) yields better dependence response than X=VaR_eta(X).
CoVaR based on X=VaR_eta(X) is not dependence consistent in normal and t models.
Results relate dependence consistency to concordance ordering of copulas.
Abstract
This paper is dedicated to the consistency of systemic risk measures with respect to stochastic dependence. It compares two alternative notions of Conditional Value-at-Risk (CoVaR) available in the current literature. These notions are both based on the conditional distribution of a random variable Y given a stress event for a random variable X, but they use different types of stress events. We derive representations of these alternative CoVaR notions in terms of copulas, study their general dependence consistency and compare their performance in several stochastic models. Our central finding is that conditioning on X>=VaR_\alpha(X) gives a much better response to dependence between X and Y than conditioning on X=VaR_\alpha(X). We prove general results that relate the dependence consistency of CoVaR using conditioning on X>=VaR_\alpha(X) to well established results on concordance…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
