Answers / Risk & Compliance

Why did Basel move from Value-at-Risk to Expected Shortfall for market risk under FRTB, and what does ES capture that VaR misses?

An advanced Risk & Compliance question — expect it in final rounds and case-heavy interviews (IB, PE, Big-4 Transaction Services).

THE SHORT ANSWER

VaR gives a threshold loss at a confidence level but says nothing about the severity beyond it — two portfolios with the same VaR can have very different tail risk, and VaR isn't sub-additive, so it can penalize diversification incorrectly. Expected Shortfall is the average loss conditional on breaching the VaR threshold, so it captures tail magnitude and is coherent (sub-additive). FRTB adopts ES (calibrated at 97.5%) plus liquidity-horizon scaling for less-liquid risk factors and a stressed calibration period. The trade-off is that ES is harder to backtest directly, so FRTB keeps VaR-based backtesting and P&L attribution tests as model-approval gates alongside the ES capital measure.

WHAT INTERVIEWERS LISTEN FOR

  • VaR ignores severity beyond the threshold; not sub-additive
  • ES = average loss in the tail, coherent
  • FRTB: ES at 97.5% + liquidity horizons + stressed calibration
  • Backtesting still uses VaR due to ES backtest difficulty

COMMON MISTAKES

  • Saying ES and VaR are equivalent
  • Not knowing ES is the conditional tail average
  • Unaware of FRTB context

Reading isn't the same as answering under pressure.

Interviewers don't hand you the model answer — you deliver yours on a clock. Practice this and 1,000+ questions with AI feedback on every answer.

TRY QUICKFIRE →Or train full Risk & Compliance case simulations →

RELATED QUESTIONS