Skip to content
All library documents

When Value at Risk Is and Is Not Subadditive

Article Quant Q&A · Author: codeedoc

Summary

The document explains why an example of portfolio diversification does not contradict the general result that Value at Risk (VaR) can fail subadditivity. In the cited stock example, the combined portfolio’s VaR is below the sum of the individual VaRs, showing subadditivity for that particular case. The response notes that VaR is subadditive under some distributional assumptions, including when risk factors follow elliptical distributions such as the normal distribution.

A discrete four-outcome example demonstrates failure: each of two positions has a 75% VaR of zero, while their combined position has a VaR of one. This illustrates that diversification benefits in one portfolio do not establish a universal property. The example depends on its stated payoff distribution and VaR definition; the document does not assess other confidence levels or compare VaR with alternative risk measures.

Key ideas

  • VaR can be subadditive in particular portfolios without being subadditive in general.
  • Under elliptical risk-factor distributions, including the normal distribution, VaR can satisfy subadditivity.
  • A four-outcome payoff example shows combined VaR exceeding the sum of the component VaRs.
  • A diversification benefit in one example does not prove a general mathematical property.

Tags

Full text
# non-subadditivity of VaR


# non-subadditivity of VaR












I have been reading up on VaR and get very confused by the subadditivity concept.

On wikipedia, it says "VaR is not subadditive: VaR of a combined portfolio can be larger than the sum of the VaRs of its components."

However, as I am reading through John Hull's Options, Futures and other Derivatives, it has the following example talking about the benefit of diversification with VaR:

The 10-day 99% VaR for the portfolio of Microsoft shares is $1,473,621.

The 10-day 99% VaR for the portfolio of AT&T shares is $368,405.

The 10-day 99% VaR for the portfolio of both Microsoft and AT&T shares is $1,622,657.

The amount (1,473,621+368,405) - 1,622,657 = $219,369

So my confusion is that, in this case, isn't the portfolio VaR less than the sum of individual VaR? It looks like it is subadditive here. So where does the conflict come from? Thanks in advance.

## Answer by JejeBelfort (score 6, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/34124

VaR is not sub-additive in general.

Relying on Mark Joshi comment, there are particular cases where it can be. Such cases occur for portfolios containing elliptically distributed risk factors. Of course the normal distribution is among the elliptical distributions family.

The latter can be helpful for analytical VaR modelling as an elliptical model is usually a reasonable approximation for instruments such as equity or FX returns. Then the sub-additive property can be applied.

## Answer by Matthew Gunn (score 9)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/34127

#### Simple example where sub-additivity fails

Let there be four possible outcomes $i=1,2,3,4$ that occur with equal probability $\frac{1}{4}$. Payoffs for $X$, $Y$, and $X + Y$ are given by:

$$ X = \begin{bmatrix}-1\\0\\1\\2 \end{bmatrix} \quad Y = \begin{bmatrix}0\\-1\\1\\2 \end{bmatrix} \quad X + Y = \begin{bmatrix}-1\\-1\\2\\4 \end{bmatrix}$$

What's the 75% value at risk (VAR) for each?

- $\operatorname{VAR}(X, .75) = 0$

- $\operatorname{VAR}(Y, .75) = 0$

- $\operatorname{VAR}(X+Y, .75) = 1$

#### Making it explicit:

Value at risk (VAR) can be mathematically defined as:

$$\operatorname{VAR}\left(X, \alpha \right) = -\sup_x \left\{ x \in \mathbb{R} : P(X < x ) \leq 1 -\alpha \right\}$$

- The set of $x \in \mathbb{R}$ where $P(X<x) \leq .25$ is the open set $(-\infty, 0)$.

- The least upper bound of this set is 0, hence the supremum is 0, and the 75% VAR of $X$ is 0.

- The set of $x \in \mathbb{R}$ where $P(X + Y < x) \leq .25$ is the open set $(-\infty, -1)$.

- The least upper bound of this set is -1, hence the supremum is -1, and the 75% VAR of $X+Y$ is 1.

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.