A note on estimating market–based minimum capital risk requirements: a multivariate GARCH approach

Internal risk management models of the kind popularized by J. P. Morgan are now used widely by the world’s most sophisticated financial institutions as a means of measuring risk. Using the returns on three of the most popular futures contracts on the London International Financial Futures Exchange, in this paper we investigate the possibility of using multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) models for the calculation of minimum capital risk requirements (MCRRs). We propose a method for the estimation of the value at risk of a portfolio based on a multivariate GARCH model. We find that the consideration of the correlation between the contracts can lead to more accurate, and therefore more appropriate, MCRRs compared with the values obtained from a univariate approach to the problem.

An extreme value theory approach to calculating minimum capital risk requirements

This paper investigates the frequency of extreme events for three LIFFE futures contracts for the calculation of minimum capital risk requirements (MCRRs). We propose a semiparametric approach where the tails are modelled by the Generalized Pareto Distribution and smaller risks are captured by the empirical distribution function. We compare the capital requirements form this approach with those calculated from the unconditional density and from a conditional density - a GARCH(1,1) model. Our primary finding is that both in-sample and for a hold-out sample, our extreme value approach yields superior results than either of the other two models which do not explicitly model the tails of the return distribution. Since the use of these internal models will be permitted under the EC-CAD II, they could be widely adopted in the near future for determining capital adequacies. Hence, close scrutiny of competing models is required to avoid a potentially costly misallocation capital resources while at the same time ensuring the safety of the financial system.

‘Pre-plan mapping’, networks, capital resources and community strategies in England

In this working paper we discuss current attempts to engage communities in planning policy formulation in the UK. In particular we focus on the preparation of Community Strategies (CS) in England to inform local public policy and the wider proposals recently published by the UK government to move towards enhanced community engagement in planning (DTLR, 2001). We discuss how such strategies could be operationalised with a conceptual framework developed following ideas derived from ANT (cf. Murdoch, 1997, 1998; Selman, 2000; Parker & Wragg, 1999; Callon, 1986, 1998) and the ‘capitals’ literature (Lin, 2002; Fine, 2001; Selman, 2000; Putnam, 1993). We see this as an expression of neo-pragmatic planning theory, (Hoch, 1996; Stein & Harper, 2000) to develop a form of ‘pre-plan mapping’.

The Finance Acts 1998 and 2000: can the owners of agricultural land continue to gain from their capital disposals?

This paper seeks to analyse and discuss, from the perspective of the owners of agricultural land, the main changes to the Capital Gains Tax regime introduced in the Finance Act 1998 and subsequently amended in the Finance Act 2000. The replacement of indexation with a new Taper relief is examined, along with the phasing out of Retirement relief, and the interaction of Taper relief with Rollover relief. The opportunity for tax mitigation by the owners of agricultural land is critically examined.

Technological change and the challenges for regional development: building social capital in less-favoured regions

The relevance of regional policy for less favoured regions (LFRs) reveals itself when policy-makers must reconcile competitiveness with social cohesion through the adaptation of competition or innovation policies. The vast literature in this area generally builds on an overarching concept of ‘social capital’ as the necessary relational infrastructure for collective action diversification and policy integration, in a context much influenced by a dynamic of industrial change and a necessary balance between the creation and diffusion of ‘knowledge’ through learning. This relational infrastructure or ‘social capital’ is centred on people’s willingness to cooperate and ‘envision’ futures as a result of “social organization, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993: 35). Advocates of this interpretation of ‘social capital’ have adopted the ‘new growth’ thinking behind ‘systems of innovation’ and ‘competence building’, arguing that networks have the potential to make both public administration and markets more effective as well as ‘learning’ trajectories more inclusive of the development of society as a whole. This essay aims to better understand the role of ‘social capital’ in the production and reproduction of uneven regional development patterns, and to critically assess the limits of a ‘systems concept’ and an institution-centred approach to comparative studies of regional innovation. These aims are discussed in light of the following two assertions: i) learning behaviour, from an economic point of view, has its determinants, and ii) the positive economic outcomes of ‘social capital’ cannot be taken as a given. It is suggested that an agent-centred approach to comparative research best addresses the ‘learning’ determinants and the consequences of social networks on regional development patterns. A brief discussion of the current debate on innovation surveys has been provided to illustrate this point.