2

I want to calculate the skewness and the excess kurtosis (third and fourth moment) of a (trading rule) return distribution. To calculate the skewness coefficient I'm using the quantile-based skewness measure of Hinkley (1975):

Skewness measure

Now I'm trying to find a robust quantile-based kurtosis measure (for asymmetric distributions, like the trading rule return distribution). I found one introduced by Ruppert (1987):

Kurtosis measure

However I'm not sure how to apply this (/write this as the same way of the skewness measure) on my return distribution? (What does the greek letter "eta" precisely mean in this situation?).

References:

Hinkley, D. V. (1975). On power transformations to symmetry. Biometrika, 62(1), 101-111.

Ruppert, D. (1987). What is kurtosis? An influence function approach. The American Statistician, 41(1), 1-5.

EDIT:

Background information of the Adjusted Sharpe Ratio (ASR) method: The ASR (Pézier 2004): ASR

The skewness measure by Pézier (2004): Skewness

The kurtosis measure by Pézier (2004): Kurtosis

Reference: Pezier, J., Alexander, C., & Sheedy, E. (2004). Risk and risk aversion. Alexander C. & Sheedy E. The Professional Risk Managers’ Handbook, 1. Direct link: Handbook

Page 65: Adjusted Sharpe Ratio

Pages 708-711: Skewness and Kurtosis measure

Wildman
  • 23

1 Answers1

1

The denominator is essentially just some kind of "middle" part of the distribution for the tail to be large or not so large relative to; you need something to scale the $p$-distance by. For my illustrations here I chose the middle half (interquartile range) as a reasonable default; it's the most obvious one to try.

So let's take say $p=0.01$ and $\eta=0.25$ (I don't claim that's a n ideal choice, but $\eta=0.25$ seems a reasonable default).

Then $k = R_{0.25,0.01}= \frac{q_{0.99}-q_{0.01}}{q_{0.75}-q_{0.25}}$.

This then will be larger when the tail is heavy (since the small $p$ with a heavy tail will make the numerator large) and large when the distribution is peaked (since the larger $\eta$ with a peaked distribution will make the denominator small).

Here's an illustration for the normal:

enter image description here

For that particular pair $\eta,p$ we have:

 distribution     k
   uniform       1.96
   normal        3.45
   Cauchy        31.8
   exponential   4.18

You can of course choose different values for $\eta$ and $p$.

Glen_b
  • 282,281
  • Indeed (I take $p=0.01$ as well). However the struggle is in the denominator part of the formula for me. How do you define/interpret $\eta$? And what number do you assign to it (how to determine it)? I couldn't find a clear explanation. – Wildman Oct 28 '15 at 09:03
  • @Sander See my edit that posted right after your comment. It is essentially just some kind of "middle" part of the distribution for the tail-range to be large or small relative to; you need something to scale the p-distance by. I chose the middle half as a reasonable default; it's the most obvious one to try. – Glen_b Oct 28 '15 at 09:05
  • I understand now, thanks! Is there some "official" definition/literature for $\eta$ in this case (or is it just some scaling number)? Indeed the middle half sounds like a reasonable default. – Wildman Oct 28 '15 at 09:17
  • This statistic isn't common enough for there to be a standard default. Ruppert might well suggest one (I've not seen the paper to my knowledge). $\eta=0.25$ (giving the IQR on the denominator) is so obvious I'd be surprised if it wasn't the most used, though. – Glen_b Oct 28 '15 at 09:20
  • Another possibility might be to choose $p=0.0215$ with $\eta=0.25$ or to choose $\eta=0.219$ with $p=0.01$ if you particularly want to have kurtosis of the normal to come out to be 3, but frankly I think the 0.01/0.25 version is better ... it seems fairly natural. I'd consider other values of $p$ except that your skewness definition seems to suggest that $p$ should also be 0.01 for the kurtosis. – Glen_b Oct 28 '15 at 09:25
  • Okay! The idea is I want to calculate the Adjusted Sharpe Ratio (from Pézier and White, 2006), which accounts for skewness and kurtosis. I need to plug in the excess kurtosis, hence $k-3$ (normal distribution has indeed a kurtosis of 3). So maybe I should use $\eta=0.219$? Indeed I want to keep $p=0.01$. – Wildman Oct 28 '15 at 09:31
  • I don't know to what extent any of this will make sense plugged into some other thing I don't know about, so I hesitate to suggest it. – Glen_b Oct 28 '15 at 09:33
  • In fact if what I just found is what it is, I'd be quite hesitant to just plug some other measures in for skewness and kurtosis. As far as I can understand, the scaling factors in the formula are based on the moment measures; you might be able to use other measures but those constants in the formula would undoubtedly change if you did. – Glen_b Oct 28 '15 at 09:40
  • 1
    To echo the suggestion of @kjetil b halvorsen (see comment on question), an $L$-moment measure of kurtosis is a weighted combination of all quantiles and avoids all arbitrariness of which inner and which outer pair you use. It's not going to be robust/resistant to really fat or long tails, but $L$-moments people regard this as fair enough: it's going to measure what it is supposed to. (It be much, much more robust/resistant than moment-based kurtosis.) – Nick Cox Oct 28 '15 at 12:27
  • @Glen_b you are completely right! I didn't thought about the (constant) scaling factors in the formula which are indeed based on the moment measures... I collected some background information of the Adjusted Sharpe Ratio and posted it above.

    Hence it seems it isn't possible to change the measure of kurtosis and skewness without changing the scaling factors. Unfortunately the derivation of the ASR formula isn't given, so I have no idea how to change the formula to work with different skewness and kurtosis measures....

    Nick Cox, that seems indeed more robust!

    – Wildman Oct 28 '15 at 13:44
  • 1
    Nassim Taleb's free book Silent Risk (available from his website) has some deep meditations on risk as a function of extreme values in returns that includes developing a number of quite practical metrics for tail risk. – user78229 Oct 28 '15 at 13:59
  • @Sander The constants actually come from a Cornish-Fisher expansion. You can see them pop up here, which would be why the moment measures matter. There might be ways to adapt such a formula, but it's not simply a matter of plugging new measures in. – Glen_b Oct 28 '15 at 22:13
  • @Glen_b thanks for the information! Indeed it should be possible, however rewriting the formula to use with the different moment measures is at the moment, without a solid statistics background, to difficult for me to understand. – Wildman Oct 29 '15 at 08:02