Abstract :

Expected Shortfall (ES) has become a pivotal risk measure in financial regulation, particularly under the Basel III Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), which replaces Value-at-Risk (VaR) due to ES’s ability to capture tail risk better. This study investigates the performance of two ES estimation methods—GARCH-t and Historical Simulation (HS)—in the context of foreign exchange (FX) against the IDR currency. Unlike VaR, ES incorporates the magnitude of extreme losses and is thus more sensitive to volatility dynamics. However, each estimation method presents trade-offs between responsiveness, robustness, and capital allocation. Using exchange rate data from 2007 to 2024, the ES values were computed under each method and validated through Acerbi–Szekely Z-tests on both tails. The backtesting results reveal that GARCH-t performs best during stress periods but demonstrates instability in calm markets. In contrast, Basic HS demonstrates more consistent backtest in the overall performance score across years. These findings offer practical insights into ES model implementation, emphasizing the importance of model selection, dual-tail backtesting, and supervisory alignment with FRTB.

---

Keywords :

Backtesting, Expected Shortfall, Foreign Exchange, FRTB, Market Risk.

---

References :

1. Acerbi, C., & Székely, B. (2014). BACKTESTING EXPECTED SHORTFALL Introducing three model-independent, non-parametric back-test methodologies for Expected Shortfall. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:56135689
2. Afuecheta, E., Okorie, I. E., Nadarajah, S., & Nzeribe, G. E. (2024). Forecasting Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall of Foreign Exchange Rate Volatility of Major African Currencies via GARCH and Dynamic Conditional Correlation Analysis. In Computational Economics (Vol. 63, Issue 1). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-022-10340-9
3. Ballotta, L., & Fusai, G. (2017). A Gentle Introduction to Value at Risk. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23435.49448
4. Basel Committee On Banking Supervision. (2019). Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Consultative Document Revisions to the minimum capital requirements for market risk #408 (Vol. 2019, Issue June). https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d436.pdf
5. Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 32(3), 407–327. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:econom:v:31:y:1986:i:3:p:307-327
6. Epaphra, M. (2017). Modeling Exchange Rate Volatility: Application of the GARCH and EGARCH Models. Journal of Mathematical Finance, 07(01), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmf.2017.71007
7. García-Risueño, P. (2025). Historical Simulation Systematically Underestimates the Expected Shortfall. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm1801003
8. Grajales, C. A., & Medina Hurtado, S. (2023). Sensitivities-based method and expected shortfall for market risk under FRTB: its impact on options risk capital. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 28(55), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEFAS-12-2021-0268
9. Johansson, E., & Ludolphy, L. E. (2020). An Empirical Study : Expected Shortfall Estimation Methods for a Bank ’ s Trading Book.
10. Lazar, E., & Zhang, N. (2019). Model Risk of Expected Shortfall. Journal of Banking and Finance, 105, 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.05.017
11. Lyócsa, Š., Plíhal, T., & Výrost, T. (2024). Forecasting day-ahead expected shortfall on the EUR/USD exchange rate: The (I)relevance of implied volatility. International Journal of Forecasting, 40(4), 1275–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2023.11.003
12. Nugroho, D. B., & Susanto, B. (2017). Volatility modeling for IDR exchange rate through APARCH model with student- t distribution. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868(November 2022). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995120
13. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2015). POJK No. 46/POJK.03/2015 tentang Penetapan Systemically Important Bank dan Capital Surcharge. Jakarta: Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
14. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2016). POJK No. 18/POJK.03/2016 tentang Penerapan Manajemen Risiko bagi Bank Umum. Jakarta: Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
15. Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. (2022). SEOJK No. 23/SEOJK.03/2022 tentang Perhitungan Aset Tertimbang Menurut Risiko Untuk Risiko Pasar Bagi Bank Umum. Jakarta: Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
16. (2016). Basel IV: Revised Standardised Approach for Market Risk. 1–48.
17. Righi, M. B., & Ceretta, P. S. (2015). A comparison of Expected Shortfall estimation models Marcelo Brutti Righi, Paulo Sergio Ceretta. Journal of Economics and Business, 78(2015), 14–47.
18. Schmutz, R. E., & Schneider, L. (2023). Into the Trading Book : Estimating Expected Shortfall. June.
19. Taylor, J. W. (2020). Forecast combinations for value at risk and expected shortfall. International Journal of Forecasting, 36(2), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.05.014
20. Wessels, C., & Vuuren, G. Van. (2023). Basel ’ s Fundamental Review of the Trading Book : Implementation Principles for the Internal Models Approach. Review of Economics and Finance, 21, 1878–1892.
21. Yamai, Y., & Yoshiba, T. (2005). Value-at-risk versus expected shortfall: A practical perspective. Journal of Banking and Finance, 29(4), 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.08.010