How does risk budgeting work using marginal VaR and component VaR?
I'm studying risk budgeting for FRM Part II and I'm confused about the relationship between marginal VaR, component VaR, and incremental VaR. How do portfolio managers use these decompositions to allocate risk capital across desks or asset classes?
Risk budgeting decomposes total portfolio risk into contributions from each position, enabling managers to allocate risk capital efficiently. The key tools are marginal VaR, component VaR, and incremental VaR.
Definitions:
| Measure | Definition | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal VaR | Sensitivity of portfolio VaR to a small increase in position i: dVaR/dw_i | Optimizing position sizing |
| Component VaR | Position i's contribution to total VaR: w_i x Marginal_VaR_i | Decomposing portfolio risk |
| Incremental VaR | Change in VaR from adding/removing position i entirely | Add/drop decisions |
Critical Property:
Sum of all Component VaRs = Total Portfolio VaR
This is Euler's theorem in action — the components perfectly decompose total risk.
Marginal VaR Formula:
MVaR_i = z_alpha x (Sigma x w)_i / sigma_p
This is the contribution of asset i to portfolio volatility, scaled by the confidence z-score.
Worked Example — Silveridge Asset Management:
Silveridge has a $50M portfolio:
- US Equities: 50% ($25M), vol = 18%
- Intl Equities: 30% ($15M), vol = 22%
- Fixed Income: 20% ($10M), vol = 5%
Correlations: US/Intl = 0.65, US/FI = -0.15, Intl/FI = 0.05
Step 1: Portfolio Volatility
After the matrix calculation: sigma_p = 12.84%
Step 2: Marginal VaR (per unit)
MVaR_US = z x [w_US x sigma_US^2 + w_Intl x rho_{US,Intl} x sigma_US x sigma_Intl + w_FI x rho_{US,FI} x sigma_US x sigma_FI] / sigma_p
For 99% confidence (z = 2.326):
- MVaR_US = 2.326 x 0.1578 = 0.367
- MVaR_Intl = 2.326 x 0.1712 = 0.398
- MVaR_FI = 2.326 x (-0.0006) = -0.001
Step 3: Component VaR ($)
- CVaR_US = 0.50 x 0.367 x $50M = $9.175M
- CVaR_Intl = 0.30 x 0.398 x $50M = $5.970M
- CVaR_FI = 0.20 x (-0.001) x $50M = -$0.010M
Total VaR = $9.175M + $5.970M - $0.010M = $15.135M
Insight: Fixed income has negative component VaR — it's actually reducing total portfolio risk. This means adding more fixed income would decrease VaR.
Risk Budgeting in Practice:
Silveridge allocates risk budgets to each desk:
- US Equity desk: budget = $10M VaR
- Intl Equity desk: budget = $6M VaR
- Fixed Income desk: budget = $1M VaR (hedging benefit counted separately)
If the US desk's component VaR exceeds $10M, they must reduce positions. If below, they have capacity to take more risk.
Optimal Portfolio: In a risk-budgeting framework, the optimal portfolio equalizes marginal VaR per unit of expected return across all positions. If MVaR_i / E(R_i) is higher for one asset, you're taking too much risk per unit of return there.
For more risk management frameworks, explore our FRM Part II course.
Master Part II with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
How exactly do futures margin calls work, and what happens if I can't meet one?
How do you calculate the settlement amount on a Forward Rate Agreement (FRA)?
When should I use Monte Carlo simulation instead of parametric VaR, and how does it actually work?
Parametric VaR vs. Historical Simulation VaR — when does each method fail?
What are the core components of an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework, and how does it differ from siloed risk management?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.