FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Parametric Approaches (II): Extreme Value
An analyst applies the Hill estimator to estimate the tail parameter from the k = 3 largest losses of a sample: 8, 6 and 5 (in $ millions). The fourth-largest loss, used as the threshold, is 4. What is the Hill estimate of the shape parameter ξ, to two decimals?
The Hill estimate of ξ is about 0.44. It is the average log ratio of the three largest losses to the 4 threshold: (0.6931 + 0.4055 + 0.2231) divided by 3. The reciprocal, about 2.27, would be the tail index rather than the shape parameter.
- A0.44Correct
- B0.58
- C0.33
- D2.27
Explanation
The Hill estimator is the average of ln(Xi/threshold) over the k exceedances: (ln2 + ln1.5 + ln1.25)/3 = (0.6931 + 0.4055 + 0.2231)/3 = 1.3217/3 = 0.44. Averaging simple ratios minus one gives 0.58. Dividing by 4 instead of 3 gives 0.33. The reciprocal, 2.27, is the tail index 1/ξ rather than ξ.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Parametric Approaches (II): Extreme Value shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Parametric Approaches (II): Extreme Value questions
- When choosing the threshold u in a POT analysis, which statement best describes the central trade-off?
- A risk manager fits a GEV to monthly block maxima of losses (block size n = 21 trading days). Which choice describes the main trade-off in c…
- An analyst fits a generalized Pareto distribution to the tail of operational-style trading losses and obtains a shape parameter ξ = 0.55. Wh…
- A risk team uses POT with threshold u. They raise u substantially to ensure the generalised Pareto approximation is more accurate. Which con…
- A risk manager fits a generalized Pareto distribution to losses above a threshold and is deciding how to set the threshold. Which statement …
- Which of the following best explains why the GEV approach is useful for estimating extreme risk compared with fitting a normal distribution …