Expectiles as Tail-Weighted Balance Points and Their Link to Expected Shortfall
Summary
The note gives a visual and mathematical interpretation of an expectile for a random variable. At a candidate threshold, outcomes above it contribute the expected positive excess, while outcomes below it contribute the expected shortfall from that threshold. The threshold is the q-expectile when these two expected deviations have the ratio specified by q. This characterizes expectiles as balance points whose weighting of the two sides changes with q.
It also relates the upper-side excess area to expected shortfall: when the threshold is the value-at-risk at level alpha, that area equals one minus alpha times the corresponding expected shortfall. A second explanation derives both areas from integrals of the cumulative distribution function. The material clarifies the geometry and relationship between measures, but does not give a numerical conversion between an expectile and a particular VaR or expected-shortfall level. The original question’s point about elicitation is not resolved here.
Key ideas
- An expectile is a threshold defined by a ratio between expected deviations above and below it.
- The upper deviation is the expected positive part of the variable minus the threshold.
- The lower deviation can be represented as the positive part of the threshold minus the variable.
- The upper deviation area connects to expected shortfall when the threshold is the corresponding value-at-risk quantile.
- Both deviation expectations can be expressed as areas under or above the cumulative distribution function.
Tags
Full text
# Intuitive explanation for expectiles
# Intuitive explanation for expectiles
> I am looking for an intuitive explanation for expectiles.
Here is a link to a paper about expectiles:
Bellini and Di Bernardino: Risk Management with Expectiles, European Journal of Finance, May 2015
Definition of expectiles by paper above
Since ES lacks elicitability it seems that some researchers are moving on to expectiles.
Can anybody give an intuitve explanation for expectiles and what they represent.
This isn't 100% true but maybe one could argue that $ES_{97.5}$ is the equivalent to $VaR_{99}$. What would be the equivalent expectile?
## Answer by Raskolnikov (score 10, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/38097
No reply has been given so I wanted to at least give a visualisation of the expectiles.
Suppose the curvy dashed line in my picture represents a cumulative distribution function of some random variable X. Then blue part corresponds exactly to $\mathbb{E}[(X-x)_+]$, while the orange surface corresponds to $\mathbb{E}[(X-x)_-]$. In the picture $x=1$. Now if the proportion of the blue and orange surface is equal to $(1-q)/q$, then we can say that $x$ is the $q$-expectile for this distribution.
How does this connect to the expected shortfall? Well, the ES as you defined it is exactly the blue surface divided by $1-\alpha$ for the value of $\alpha$ such that $\text{VaR}_{\alpha}[X]=x$, i.e.
$$\mathbb{E}[(X-x)_+]=(1-\alpha)\text{ES}_{\alpha}[X] \; .$$
## Answer by Taylor (score 4)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71518
That picture in the other answer is pretty slick (+1), so I will just add a note on why one can interpret the colors of those areas like that:
- Blue:
Define $Y = (X-x)_+$. This is nonnegative r.v., so you can take advantage of the formula
$$ \mathbb{E}[Y] = \int_0^\infty [1-F_Y(y)] dy \tag{1}. $$
where $F_Y$ is the cdf of $Y$. The image plots $F_X(x)$, the cdf of $X$, though. For any $y \ge 0$
\begin{align*} F_Y(y) &= \mathbb{P}[Y \le y] \\ &= \mathbb{P}[(X-x)_+ \le y] \\ &= \mathbb{P}[(X-x)_+ \le y, \{X > x \}] + \mathbb{P}[(X-x)_+ \le y, \{X \le x \}] \\ &= F_X(y+x) \end{align*} Using a change of variables $t = y + x$, we get $$ \mathbb{E}[(X-x)_+] = \int_0^\infty [1-F_X(y+x)] dy = \int_x^\infty [1-F_X(t)] dt. $$ The last expression $\int_x^\infty [1-F_X(t)] dt$ is exactly the area of the blue region.
- Orange:
Define $W = (X-x)_-$. This is also nonnegative, and we can take advantage of (1) again. The only additional bit is the identity mentioned by @raskolnikov: $(X-x)_-=(x-X)_+$.
Let $w \ge 0$; then
\begin{align*} F_W(w) &= \mathbb{P}[W \le w] \\ &= \mathbb{P}[(X-x)_- \le w] \\ &= \mathbb{P}[(x-X)_+ \le w, \{X > x \}] + \mathbb{P}[(x-X)_+ \le w, \{X \le x \}] \\ &= \mathbb{P}[X > x ] + \mathbb{P}[x - w \le X \le x] \\ &= 1- F_X(x-w) \end{align*}
After a change of variables you get the formula for the orange region:
$$ \mathbb{E}[(X-x)_-] = \int_{-\infty}^x F_X(t)dt. $$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.