4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Correlation stress testing for value-at-risk: an unconstrained convex optimization approach

期刊

COMPUTATIONAL OPTIMIZATION AND APPLICATIONS
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 427-462

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10589-008-9231-4

关键词

Stress testing; Convex optimization; Newton's method; Augmented Lagrangian functions

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D502535/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. EPSRC [EP/D502535/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Correlation stress testing is employed in several financial models for determining the value-at-risk (VaR) of a financial institution's portfolio. The possible lack of mathematical consistence in the target correlation matrix, which must be positive semidefinite, often causes breakdown of these models. The target matrix is obtained by fixing some of the correlations (often contained in blocks of submatrices) in the current correlation matrix while stressing the remaining to a certain level to reflect various stressing scenarios. The combination of fixing and stressing effects often leads to mathematical inconsistence of the target matrix. It is then naturally to find the nearest correlation matrix to the target matrix with the fixed correlations unaltered. However, the number of fixed correlations could be potentially very large, posing a computational challenge to existing methods. In this paper, we propose an unconstrained convex optimization approach by solving one or a sequence of continuously differentiable (but not twice continuously differentiable) convex optimization problems, depending on different stress patterns. This research fully takes advantage of the recently developed theory of strongly semismooth matrix valued functions, which makes fast convergent numerical methods applicable to the underlying unconstrained optimization problem. Promising numerical results on practical data (RiskMetrics database) and randomly generated problems of larger sizes are reported.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据