Skip to main content
Log in

How Banks' Value-at-Risk Disclosures Predict their Total and Priced Risk: Effects of Bank Technical Sophistication and Learning over Time

  • Published:
Review of Accounting Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a sample of eight large commercial banks from 1994 to 2000, Jorion (2002) finds that banks' VaR disclosures for their trading portfolios predict trading income variability. We extend Jorion's findings using a larger sample of 17 banks from 1997 to 2002 reporting trading VaRs under FRR No. 48 (1997). We find that banks' trading VaRs have predictive power for trading income variability that increases with bank technical sophistication and over time. We find that banks' trading VaRs have predictive power for a bank-wide measure of total risk, return variability, and for two bank-wide measures of priced risk, beta and realized returns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed, A., A. Beatty and B. Bettinghaus. (1999). “Evidence on the Efficacy of Market Risk Disclosures by Commercial Banks.” Working paper, Pennsylvania State University.

  • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (1995). An Internal Model-Based Approach to Market Risk Capital Requirements. Basel, Switzerland: BIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (1996). Amendment to the Basel Capital Accord to Incorporate Market Risk. Basel, Switzerland: BIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2002). Public Disclosures by Banks: Results of the 2000 Disclosure Survey. Basel, Switzerland: BIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beder, T. (1995). “VAR: Seductive but Dangerous.” Financial Analysts Journal 51, 12–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, J. and J. O'Brien. (2002). “How Accurate Are the Value-at-Risk Models at Commercial Banks?” Journal of Finance 57, 1093–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brav, A., R. Lehavy and R. Michaely. (2002). “Expected Return and Asset Pricing.” Working paper, Duke University.

  • Chamberlain, S., J. Howe and H. Popper. (1997). “The Exchange Rate Exposure of U.S. and Japanese Banking Institutions.” Journal of Banking and Finance 21, 871–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, N., R. Roll and S. Ross. (1986). “Economic Forces and the Stock Market.” Journal of Business 59, 383–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., E. Elyasiani and K. Kopecky. (1992). “The Sensitivity of Bank Stock Returns to Market, Interest, and Exchange Rates.” Journal of Banking and Finance 16, 983–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, D. and M. Venkatachalam. (1996). “Derivatives Disclosures and the Interest Rate Sensitivity of Commercial Banks.” Working paper, University of Iowa.

  • Fama, E. and K. French. (1992). “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance 47, 427–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Group of Thirty. (1993). Derivatives: Practices and Principles. New York: Group of Thirty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodder, L. (2002). “Relevance of Market Risk Disclosures by Commercial Banks.” Working paper, Stanford University.

  • Hull, J. (1997). Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorion, P. (2002). “How Informative Are Value-at-Risk Disclosures?” The Accounting Review 77, 911–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsmeier, T. and N. Pearson. (1997). “Quantitative Disclosures of Market Risk in the SEC Release.” Accounting Horizons 11, 107–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsmeier, T. and N. Pearson. (2000). “Value at Risk.” Financial Analysts Journal 56, 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsmeier, T., D. Thornton, M. Venkatachalam and M. Welker. (2002). “The Effect of Mandated Market Risk Disclosures on Trading Volume Sensitivity to Interest Rate, Exchange Rate, and Commodity Price Movements.” The Accounting Review 77, 343–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAnally, M. (1996). “Banks, Risk, and FAS 105 Disclosures.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance 11, 453–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naik, N. and P. Yadav. (2000). “Do Market Intermediaries Hedge their Risk Exposures with Derivatives? Evidence from the U.K. Government Bond Dealers' Spot &; Derivatives Positions.” Working paper, London Business School.

  • Rajgopal, S. (1999). “Early Evidence on the Informativeness of the SEC's Market Risk Disclosures: The Case of Commodity Price Risk Exposure of Oil and Gas Producers.” The Accounting Review 74, 251–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrand, C. (1997). “The Association Between Stock-Price Interest Rate Sensitivity and Disclosures about Derivatives Instruments.” The Accounting Review 72, 87–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Securities and Exchange Commission. (1997). Disclosure of Accounting Policies for Derivative Financial Instruments and Derivative Commodity Instruments and Disclosure of Quantitative and Qualitative Information about Market Risk Inherent in Derivative Financial Instruments, Other Financial Instruments, and Derivative Commodity Instruments. Release 33-7386, FFR-48, Washington, DC: SEC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sribunnak, V. and M. Wong. (2002). “The Predictive Usefulness of the SEC Market Risk Disclosure for Stock Return Volatility.” Working paper, University of Chicago.

  • Venkatachalam, M. (1996). “Value-Relevance of Banks' Derivatives Disclosures.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 22, 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1980). “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48, 817–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, M. (2000). “The Association Between SFAS No. 119 Derivatives Disclosures and the Foreign Exchange Risk Exposure of Manufacturing Firms.” Journal of Accounting Research 38, 387–417.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen G. Ryan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, Cc., Ryan, S.G. & Tan, H. How Banks' Value-at-Risk Disclosures Predict their Total and Priced Risk: Effects of Bank Technical Sophistication and Learning over Time. Review of Accounting Studies 9, 265–294 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RAST.0000028190.48665.d0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RAST.0000028190.48665.d0

Navigation