Modeling coherent trading risk parameters under illiquid market perspective

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to originate a proactive approach for the quantification and analysis of liquidity risk for trading portfolios that consist of multiple equity assets.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents a coherent modeling method whereby the holding periods are adjusted according to the specific needs of each trading portfolio. This adjustment can be attained for the entire portfolio or for any specific asset within the equity trading portfolio. This paper extends previous approaches by explicitly modeling the liquidation of trading portfolios, over the holding period, with the aid of an appropriate scaling of the multiple‐assets' liquidity‐adjusted value‐at‐risk matrix. The key methodological contribution is a different and less conservative liquidity scaling factor than the conventional root‐t multiplier.FindingsThe proposed coherent liquidity multiplier is a function of a predetermined liquidity threshold, defined as the maximum position which can be unwound without disturbing market prices during one trading day, and is quite straightforward to put into practice even by very large financial institutions and institutional portfolio managers. Furthermore, it is designed to accommodate all types of trading assets held and its simplicity stems from the fact that it focuses on the time‐volatility dimension of liquidity risk instead of the cost spread (bid‐ask margin) as most researchers have done heretofore.Practical implicationsUsing more than six years of daily return data, for the period 2004‐2009, of emerging Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) stock markets, the paper analyzes different structured and optimum trading portfolios and determine coherent risk exposure and liquidity risk premium under different illiquid and adverse market conditions and under the notion of different correlation factors.Originality/valueThis paper fills a main gap in market and liquidity risk management literatures by putting forward a thorough modeling of liquidity risk under the supposition of illiquid and adverse market settings. The empirical results are interesting in terms of theory as well as practical applications to trading units, asset management service entities and other financial institutions. This coherent modeling technique and empirical tests can aid the GCC financial markets and other emerging economies in devising contemporary internal risk models, particularly in light of the aftermaths of the recent sub‐prime financial crisis.