Allocating Historical and Monte Carlo VaR to Portfolio Positions
Summary
The document explains how portfolio VaR can be attributed to individual positions without assuming normally distributed returns. For a homogeneous risk measure such as VaR, Euler allocation relates each position’s contribution to its conditional expected loss at the portfolio VaR threshold. Under parametric assumptions, this general principle leads to familiar Component VaR formulas.
With sampled historical or Monte Carlo losses, estimating that conditional expectation is difficult because observations exactly at the threshold are unlikely. For Monte Carlo data, the answer suggests using a band around VaR with interpolation, or estimating the conditional probability with a kernel method. A separate historical-simulation approach allocates each asset’s loss on the date selected as the portfolio’s VaR observation. That contribution is not the asset’s standalone VaR, and relating the two requires distributional assumptions. The source cautions that historical data may be too sparse near the relevant quantile for reliable allocation.
Key ideas
- Euler allocation can decompose portfolio VaR into marginal contributions without a normality assumption.
- A component contribution is tied to the position’s conditional expected loss at the portfolio VaR threshold.
- For Monte Carlo samples, a neighborhood around the threshold or kernel estimation can address sparse exact-threshold observations.
- Historical simulation can allocate each asset’s loss on the portfolio’s selected VaR date.
- A portfolio-date loss contribution is not the asset’s standalone VaR, and sparse tail data can limit reliability.
Tags
Full text
# It is possible to carry out the Component VaR decomposition through non parametric methodologies?
# It is possible to carry out the Component VaR decomposition through non parametric methodologies?
I would like to know if it is possible to break down the VaR risk (using historical and Monte Carlo methodology) among the portfolio assets just like the Component VaR concept in the parametric methodology.
For example lets say we have a parametric VaR of 1000 dollars with 95% confidence interval. From those 1000, 250 correspond to asset A, 500 to asset B and 250 to asset C.
What I am looking forward to know is whether this same breakdown into Component VaRs can be obtain through non-parametric methodologies such as historical VaR or Monte Carlo VaR.
## Answer by g g (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/34976
Yes, it is possible in general to allocate portfolio VaR to single positions in a portfolio. This is based on a general result on homogeneous risk measures called the Euler allocation. This allocation provides the marginal change in your risk measure when the size of one position changes (for an infinitesimally) small amount. For VaR this gradient can be expressed as follows: Let $L=\sum L_i$ denote your portfolio's P&L then the marginal increase of VaR in direction $L_i$ will be $$ \frac{d \text{VaR}(L + h L_i)}{dh} = E[L_i | L=VaR].$$ This equality is non-trivial for more details see the papers by Tasche, start here.
No assumptions (except mild technical ones) on the distribution of $L$ or the $L_i$ are necessary to derive this result. But if you make normal ("parametric") assumptions for your P&L the conditional expectation on the RHS can be readily calculated and leads to the well known formulas for parametric Component VaR.
In case of historical or Monte Carlo estimates, i.e. estimates based on samples, the conditional expectation poses a challenge since $L=VaR$ will generally be a set of measure zero.
In the Monte Carlo case this can be solved by broadening the condition or interpolation (i.e. you condition on $VaR-\epsilon<L<VaR + \epsilon$ and interpolate between quantiles). Another possibility is to use kernel estimates to estimate the conditional probability. Again the paper cited above provides more details.
Theoretically the same applies for historical observations, but of course the data/sample situation is even worse. Unless you have plenty of observations at the relevant quantiles this is probably fruitless.
## Answer by Ami44 (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/34191
For historical simulation you need a vector of losses $L_{i,t}$ for each asset $i$ in the portfolio and each day $t$ in the look back period. The portfolio loss is the sum of the asset losses: $$L_{t} = \sum_{i} L_{i,t}$$
In order to calculate the $VaR$ we determine the date $t^{\star}$ with the n'th highest portfolio loss, where n is determined by your number of days and your significance level (e.g. 95%)
$$VaR = L_{t^{\star}} = \sum_{i}{L_{i,t^{\star}}}$$
From here it seems natural to define the $component$ $VaR$ of asset $i$ as the contribution of that asset to the above sum: $$VaR_{i}^{comp}=L_{i,t^{\star}}$$
Be aware, that $L_{i,t^{\star}}$ is not the standalone $VaR_{i}$ for asset $i$, since the $t^{\star}$ has been chosen considering the whole portfolio. Also to derive the exact relationship between stand alone $VaR_{i}$ and $VaR^{comp}_{i}$ you need to assume something about the involved distributions.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.