Determining Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) for Food Industry Companies’ Stocks Portfolios in the Tehran Stock Market

  • Sahar Abedi
  • Esmaeil PishbaharEmail author
Part of the Perspectives on Development in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region book series (PDMENA)


The main objective of this study is determining the value at risk (VaR) and conditional value at risk (CVaR) of food industry companies’ stock portfolios on the Tehran stock market. The application of traditional tools in VaR and CVaR estimations is limited, especially when the returns show extreme and time-varying behavior. Therefore, we applied the DCC-GHARCH-EVT model to capture the tail distribution of portfolio risks and time-varying behavior. In addition, we used the Vine copula to describe the dependence structure between dairy and sugar portfolios’ returns. Based on the simulation method, we measured VaR and CVaR to determine the two portfolios’ risks. Our results show that the returns are dependent and that the two markets experienced extreme events. The sugar portfolio’s returns were more volatile, and extreme losses were more likely than extreme rewards in this portfolio. In addition, the VaR and CVaR results also indicate that the dairy portfolio is less risky as compared to the sugar portfolio.


DCC-GARCH EVT Value at risk Food industry 


  1. Aas K, Berg D (2009) Models for construction of multivariate dependence: a comparison study. Eur J Finance 15:639–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aas K, Czado C, Frigessi A, Bakken H (2009) Pair-copula constructions of multiple dependence. Insur Math Econ 44:182–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artzner P, Delbaen F, Eber J, Heath D (1999) Coherent measures of risk. Math Finance 9:203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayusuk A, Sriboonchitta S (2014) Risk analysis in Asian emerging markets using canonical vine copula and extreme value theory. Thai J Math 59–72Google Scholar
  5. Bali TG (2003) An extreme value approach to estimating volatility and value at risk. J Bus 76:83–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bali TG, Neftci SN (2003) Disturbing external behavior of spot price dynamics. J Empir Finance 10:455–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balkema AA, de Haan L (1974) Residual life time at great age. Ann Probab 2(5):792–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bedford T, Cooke RM (2001) Probability density decomposition for conditionally dependent random variables modeled by vines. Ann Math Artif Intell 32:245–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bedford T, Cooke RM (2002) Vines: a new graphical model for dependent random variables. Ann Stat 30:1031–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benterud JL, Haukaas MS, Huse PI (2013) Risk modeling using vine copulas. Modelling an energy company portfolio. Master thesis, Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhattacharyya M, Ritolia G (2008) Conditional VaR using EVT-towards a planned margin scheme. Int Rev Financ Anal 17:382–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bollerslev T (1990) Modeling the coherence in short-run nominal exchange rates: a multivariate generalized ARCH model. Rev Econ Stat 72:498–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brechmann EC, Czado C (2011) Risk management with high-dimensional vine copulas: an analysis of the euro Stock 50. Working paper. Technische Universität MünchenGoogle Scholar
  14. Brechmann EC, Schepsmeier U (2012) Modeling dependence with C- and D-vine copulas: the R-package CDVine. J Stat Softw (To appear)Google Scholar
  15. Bystrom H (2005) Extreme value theory and extremely large electricity price changes. Int Rev Econ Finance 14:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chan KF, Gray P (2006) Using extreme value theory to measure value-at-risk for daily electricity spot prices. Int J Forecast 22:283–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chollete L, Heinen A, Valdesogo A (2009) Modeling international financial returns with a multivariate regime-switching copula. J Financ Econometrics 7:437–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Czado C, Schepsmeier U, Min A (2011) Maximum likelihood estimation of mixed C-vines with application to exchange rates. Stat Model (To appear)Google Scholar
  19. Czado C, Brechmann EC, Gruber L (2014) Selection of vine copulas. Technische Universitat MunchenGoogle Scholar
  20. Dißmann J, Brechmann EC, Czado C, Kurowicka D (2013) Selecting and estimating regular vine copula and application to financial returns. Comput Stat Data Anal 59:52–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Emmanouil KN, Nikos N (2012) Extreme value theory and mixed canonical vine copulas on modeling energy price risks. Cass Business School, City University LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Engle R (2002) Dynamic conditional correlation: a simple class of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models. J Bus Econ Stat 20:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fernandez V (2005) Risk management under extreme events. Int Rev Financ Anal 14:113–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher RA, Tippett LHC (1928) Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample. Proc Camb Philos Soc 24:180–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gong X, Sriboonchitta S, Rahman S (2015) Modeling value at risk of agricultural commodity while accounting for seasonality and weather using extreme value theory. In: The international conference on Economics and Business Administration (EBA), Barcelona, Spain, 7–9 Apr 2015Google Scholar
  26. Haugom E, Westgaard S, Solibakke P, Lien G (2010) Modeling day ahead Nord pool forward price volatility: realized volatility versus GARCH models. In 7th international conference on the European Energy Market (EEM), pp 1–9Google Scholar
  27. Heinen A, Valdesogo A (2009) Asymmetric CAPM dependence for large dimensions: the canonical vine autoregressive copula model. Core discussion paper 2009069. Universite Catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE)Google Scholar
  28. Joe H (1996) Families of m-variate distributions with given margins and m(m-1)/2 bivariate dependence parameters. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, HaywardGoogle Scholar
  29. Kurowicka D, Cooke RM (2006) Uncertainty analysis with high dimensional dependence modelling. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu J (2011) Extreme value theory and copula theory: a risk management application with energy futures. Ph.D. thesis, University of VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  31. Marimoutou V, Raggad B, Trabesi A (2009) Extreme value theory and value at risk: application to oil market. Energy Econ 31:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McNeil A, Frey R (2000) Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: an extreme value approach. J Empir Finance 7:271–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pickands J (1975) Statistical inference using extreme order statistics. Ann Stat 3:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sklar A (1959) Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges. Publications de l’Institut de Statistique de l’Université de Paris 8:229–231Google Scholar
  35. Sriboonchitta S, Liu J, Wiboonpongse A (2014) Vine copula-cross entropy evaluation of dependence structure and financial risk in agricultural commodity index returns. Modeling dependence in econometrics. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–287Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations