Can a Coherent Risk Measure Be Too Subadditive?

Abstract

We consider the problem of determining appropriate solvency capital requirements for an insurance company or a financial institution. We demonstrate that the subadditivity condition that is often imposed on solvency capital principles can lead to the undesirable situation where the shortfall risk increases by a merger. We propose to complement the subadditivity condition by a "regulator's condition". We find that for an explicitly specified confidence level, the Value-at-Risk satisfies the regulator's condition and is the "most efficient" capital requirement in the sense that it minimizes some reasonable cost function. Within the class of concave distortion risk measures, of which the elements, in contrast to the Value-at-Risk, exhibit the subadditivity property, we find that, again for an explicitly specified confidence level, the Tail-Value-at-Risk is the optimal capital requirement satisfying the regulator's condition. Copyright (c) The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2008.

Beyond Value‐at‐Risk: GlueVaR Distortion Risk Measures

“…Therefore, VaR, unlike TVaR, is not coherent. In some situations, coherence of risk measures is a requirement (see, for instance, Cox (15) ) but, nonetheless, some criticisms can be found, for example, in Dhaene et al (23) . Additional properties for distortion risk measures are provided by Jiang (41) and Balbás et al (6) .…”

Risk Measures and Capital Requirements: A Critique of the Solvency II Approach

“…Artzner et al (1999). However, Dhaene et al (2008), argue that the VaR could be a good risk measure for regulatory purposes due to the coherent risk measures that may be "too subadditive". 6 Cf.…”

The Marginal Cost of Risk, Risk Measures, and Capital Allocation

“…Dhaene et al (2008) or Kou et al (2012)), at least translation invariance is generally deemed adequate for an external risk measure and even "necessary for the risk-capital interpretation [...] to make sense" (see p. 239 in McNeil et al (2005)). …”