, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 693–715 | Cite as

Bounds on total economic capital: the DNB case study

  • Kjersti Aas
  • Giovanni PuccettiEmail author


Most banks use the top-down approach to aggregate their risk types when computing total economic capital. Following this approach, marginal distributions for each risk type are first independently estimated and then merged into a joint model using a copula function. Due to lack of reliable data, banks tend to manually select the copula as well as its parameters. In this paper we assess the model risk related to the choice of a specific copula function. The aim is to compute upper and lower bounds on the total economic capital for the aggregate loss distribution of DNB, the largest Norwegian bank, and the key tool for computing these bounds is the Rearrangement Algorithm introduced in Embrechts et al. (J. Bank. Financ. 37(8):2750–2764 2013). The application of this algorithm to a real situation poses a series of numerical challenges and raises a number of warnings which we illustrate and discuss.


Model risk Risk aggregation Total economic capital Value-at-Risk Diversification benefit rearrangement algorithm. 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010):

60E05 91B30 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aas, K., Dimakos, X.K., Øksendal, A.: Risk capital aggregation. Risk Manag. 9, 82–107 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards. Basel: Bank for International Settlements (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision: Developments in modelling risk aggregation Basel: Bank for International Settlements (2010)Google Scholar
  4. Bernard, C., Jiang, X., Wang, R.: Risk aggregation with dependence uncertainty. Insur. Math. Econom. 54, 93–108 (2014)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, C., Liu, Y., MacGillivray, N., Zhang, J.: Bounds on capital requirements for bivariate risk with given marginals and partial information on the dependence. Depend. Model. 1, 37–53 (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard, C., Rüschendorf, L., Vanduffel, S.: Value-at-risk bounds with variance constraints. Preprint, available at SSRN: (2014b).
  7. Bollerslev, T.: Modelling the coherence in short-run nominal exchange rates: A multivariate generalized ARCH model. Rev. Econ. Stat. 72, 498–505 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brockmann, M., Kalkbrener, M.: On the aggregation of risk. J. Risk 12, 45–68 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. Cont, R.: Model uncertainty and its impact on the pricing of derivative instruments. Math. Financ. 16(3), 519–547 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Cope, E., Mignola, G., Antonini, G., Ugoccioni, R.: Challenges and pitfalls in measuring operational risk from loss data. J. Oper. Risk 4(4), 3–27 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. Dimakos, X.K., Aas, K.: Integrated risk modelling. Stat. Model. 4, 265–277 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Durante, F., Fernández-Sánchez, J., Sempi, C.: Multivariate patchwork copulas: a unified approach with applications to partial comonotonicity. Insur. Math. Econom. 53(3), 897–905 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Embrechts, P., Höing, A.: Extreme VaR scenarios in higher dimensions. Extremes 9, 177–192 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Embrechts, P., McNeil, A.J., Straumann, D.: Correlation and dependence in risk management: properties and pitfalls. , In: Risk management: Value at Risk and Beyond, pp 176–223. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  15. Embrechts, P., Puccetti, G., Rüschendorf, L.: Model uncertainty and VaR aggregation. J. Bank. Financ. 37(8), 2750–2764 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Embrechts, P., Wang, B., Wang, R.: Aggregation-robustness and model uncertainty of regulatory risk measures. Preprint, ETH Zurich (2014)Google Scholar
  17. Gupton, G.M., Finger, C.C., Bhatia, M.: Creditmetrics. Technical document. (1997)Google Scholar
  18. Grundke, P.: On the reliability of integrated risk measurement in practice. J. Risk 15(3), 87–110 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. Hull, J.: Risk Management and Financial Institutions, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey (2012)Google Scholar
  20. Ibragimov, R., Walden, J.: Portfolio diversification under local and moderate deviations from power laws. Insur. Math. Econom. 42(2), 594–599 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. IFRI Foundation and CRO Forum: Insights from the joint IFRI/CRO forum survey on economic capital practice and applications. KPMG Business Advisory Services. (2007)Google Scholar
  22. Kretzschmar, G., McNeil, A.J., Kirchner, A.: Integrated models of capital adequacy – why banks are undercapitalised. J. Bank. Financ. 34(12), 2838–2850 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mainik, G., Rüschendorf, L.: On optimal portfolio diversification with respect to extreme risks. Finance Stoch 14(4), 593–623 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. McNeil, A.J., Frey, R., Embrechts, P.: Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques, Tools. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  25. Puccetti, G.: Sharp bounds on the expected shortfall for a sum of dependent random variables. Stat. Probabil. Lett. 83(4), 1227–1232 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Puccetti, G., Rüschendorf, L.: Computation of sharp bounds on the distribution of a function of dependent risks. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 236(7), 1833–1840 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Puccetti, G., Rüschendorf, L.: Sharp bounds for sums of dependent risks. J. Appl. Probab. 50(1), 42–53 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Puccetti, G., Wang, B., Wang, R.: Advances in complete mixability. J. Appl. Probab. 49(2), 430–440 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Puccetti, G., Wang, R.: General extremal dependence concepts. Preprint, available at SSRN: (2014).
  30. Reitan, T., Aas, K.: A new robust importance-sampling method for measuring value-at-risk and expected shortfall allocation for credit portfolios. J. Credit Risk 6(4), 1–37 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. Rosenberg, J.V., Schuermann, T.: A general approach to integrated risk management with skewed, fat-tailed risks. J. Financ. Econ. 79(3), 569–614 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang, B., Wang, R.: The complete mixability and convex minimization problems with monotone marginal densities. J. Multivar. Anal. 102(10), 1344–1360 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, R., Peng, L., Yang, J.: Bounds for the sum of dependent risks and worst value-at-risk with monotone marginal densities. Financ. Stoch 17(2), 395–417 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistical Analysis, Image Analysis and Pattern Recognition, Norwegian Computing CenterOsloNorway
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementUniversity of FirenzeFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations