Dvara Research BlogDvara Research Blog
Dvara Research Blog
Doorway to Financial Access
  • Home
  • Our Work
  • Themes
  • Subscribe
    • Email Subscription
    • Feed
  • Contact Us
Menu back  

Estimating the Diversity Score of a Portfolio across Multiple Correlated Sectors: Generalized Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

February 4, 20153 CommentsHousehold Research, Risk Aggregation Viewed : 6983

By Vaibhav Anand and Ramasubramanian S V, IFMR Capital

Diversification is an effective risk mitigation strategy for portfolio risk management. It helps to mitigate risk arising from various factors, including extreme events, except factors which are systemic in nature. Often diversification across counterparties, sectors or geographies is the only risk mitigation tool available to a credit portfolio manager. It is important to measure and monitor the degree of diversification periodically to ensure that concentration risk remains low. However, quantifying the diversification may not be straightforward. Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is one such measure but has limitations as it does not take into account correlation among underlying assets. In this post, we discuss a more general and effective measure of diversity score, Generalized-HHI (GHHI), to quantify diversification of a portfolio across multiple correlated sectors and sub-sectors.

In this post we first give a brief overview of how diversification helps to mitigate risk. We also discuss briefly the effect of correlation on portfolio risk. Next, we give a quick introduction to the classical HHI measure. In the last sections we present the GHHI formulation and illustrate its usage to identify a best diversified portfolio. In this blog post, we do not discuss in detail the derivation of GHHI and request interested readers to refer to the Working Paper for a detailed discussion.

How Diversification Helps

We discuss the benefit of diversification using a hypothetical credit portfolio of INR 1000 which can be lent to a single or multiple borrowers. Let us assume that all borrowers have an annual default probability (PD) of 5%. The portfolio manager has three options to lend the entire amount to:

(a) Scenario 1- A single borrower – No diversification
(b) Scenario 2- Equally to ten borrowers with no default correlation among them
(c) Scenario 3- Equally to ten borrowers with a pairwise default correlation of 0.33 among them

Assume no recovery.

Assuming 5% PD for each borrower, the expected loss of the portfolio in all scenarios is same and is equal to INR 50. However, the unexpected risk, measured as the standard deviation of loss here, for the three portfolios will be different.

The loss distributions of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are shown in the Figure 1. Scenario 1 has higher standard deviation because it has probabilities bunched only towards the ‘INR 0 loss’ and ‘INR 1000 Loss’ events which is intuitive for a one borrower portfolio- either all good or all bad, whereas a diversified portfolio, under scenario 2, has a better distribution with a very thin tail. For example, under Scenario 2 the probability of INR 1000 loss is nearly 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 as opposed to 1 in 20 in Scenario 1. Remember that Scenario 2 assumes no correlation among borrowers.

GGHI_Img1
Figure 1: Loss Distribution: Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

Let’s see how correlation impacts the loss distribution. The loss distribution of Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 are compared in Figure 2. It can be seen that the latter’s loss distribution has fatter tails. The probability under Scenario 3 of INR 1000 loss is nearly 1 in 240, much higher than that under Scenario 2 but lower than that under no diversification Scenario 1. This tells us that greater than zero default correlation among borrowers increase risk in the portfolio and should be taken into account while quantifying the degree of diversification.

GGHI_Img5
Figure 2: Loss Distribution: Scenario 2 and Scenario 3

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)

One commonly used method of measuring the degree of diversification is HHI. HHI is defined as sum of the squares of the portfolio proportions. Consider a loan portfolio P with exposure across 3 counterparties, $latex C_i&s=1$, with corresponding proportions, $latex c_i&s=1$, where $latex i$ = 1 to 3. Then the degree of diversification for P across counterparties can be measured using HHI, where HHI is:

$latex HHI =\sum\limits_{i=1}^3 c_i^2&s=3$

However, the HHI assumes the sectors are independent and does not take into account the correlation among them. We propose a more general metric, the Generalized Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (GHHI), which incorporates correlation among underlying assets.

Generalized Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (GHHI)

The GHHI formulation for a portfolio P with across n assets having pair wise correlation of $latex \rho_{ij}&s=1$ can be written as:

$latex GHHI= {\sum\limits_{i=1}^n} c_i^2 + \sum\limits_{i}^n \sum\limits_{j\neq i}^n 2c_ic_j\rho_{ij}&s=3$

The derivation of the above formulation is not discussed here for the sake of brevity. We request the reader to refer to the Working Paper for a detailed account.

GHHI Vs HHI – Illustration

As an illustration the HHI and GHHI are estimated for four hypothetical credit portfolios, A, B, C, and D, with exposure in 12 counterparties across three sectors S1, S2 and S3. The counterparties are pairwise correlated within a sector with correlations of 0.05, 0.25 and 0.5 respectively. It is assumed that sectors are pairwise uncorrelated. Column 4 to 6 of Table 1 shows the exposure of the four portfolios in different counterparties.

GGHI_Img4

Portfolio A is a seemingly perfectly diversified portfolio with equal exposure to all the available counterparties. In fact, a comparison based on the classic HHI yields a similar conclusion. However, it is shown using GHHI that a more diversified portfolio can be created taking into account the correlation among the counterparties in a sector. The last two rows of Table 1 show the calculated value of diversity scores of each portfolio as well as the effective number of counterparties in each portfolio. Based on HHI, the degree of diversification of the portfolios follows the order: A > B = C = D. Whereas GHHI takes into account the correlation and provides a more accurate order: D > A > C > B, i.e. a portfolio with exposures skewed towards a highly correlated sector, such as S3, will have lower risk mitigation.

Finally, we minimize the GHHI to identify the optimum proportions across assets for the best diversification. The optimal proportions across different sector are indicated in the last column of Table 1.

For a more detailed perspective on this subject please do refer our working paper which you can access here.

Share Via :Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email
CapitalWorking papers
3 Comments
  1. Reply
    February 13, 2015 at 5:20 pm
    Rahul Raj

    The explanation is quite cogent, one can clearly reach on the denouement that a GHHI index mitigates one of the short comings of the HHI Index i.e. the correlation of portfolios which are being analyzed. My quandary still puts me in a spot where I’m not able to come in terms with the generalization that one has to make within a portfolio i.e. the correlation of the assets in a portfolio which can’t be stated as same for all the underlying assets in any given portfolio. For instance one may assume Hedge Funds, Mutual Funds, & other such investment portfolios and impute similar correlation to them but that’ll thwart an apropos contemplation of the whole portfolio itself as we all understand that the Hedge Funds are managed quite differently than Mutual Funds. So how can we just go ahead and generalize the deviation factor and start calculating the Risk factor of portfolios? I think this formula should be even more generalized to be connoted as a Generalized HHI. Please address my question. Thanks a lot!

    • Reply
      March 2, 2015 at 5:24 pm
      S V Ram

      Thanks for your comment. GHHI measures the degree of
      diversification of the portfolio and is agnostic to the riskiness of individual
      assets. For example, a portfolio with equal allocation to two hypothetical
      assets, less risky asset A with very low probability of default (PD) and the
      more risky asset B with very high PD, will have same degree of diversification
      even if we were to replace asset A with a third asset C with a different PD,
      assuming the correlation between A&B and B&C are same. The assumption
      of equality of asset riskiness in the paper is certainly a special case but
      since we are agnostic to risk, the GHHI definition will hold even when the
      underlying assets have different riskiness. However one should take into
      account that the different riskiness of assets (for example PDs) will put
      constraints on the values the pairwise correlations among assets can take!

  2. Reply
    October 16, 2015 at 2:32 pm
    Ninety9

    Hi

    I am stuck in the first half of the article wherein you said probability of loss of 1000 in scenario 3 is 1/240. How to deal with probabilities with correlations involved? I would appreciate if you could help me on this.

    Thanks in advance!

Leave Comment

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

10 + 7 =

clear formSubmit

Related posts
Blog Competition on Suitable Finance for Agricultural Households
October 4, 2019
Bridging Gaps in Household Finance Through Research Evidence and Data
July 15, 2019
The Dvara Open Online Repository for Household Finance
March 30, 2019
A 100 Papers, 200 + Points of Evidence, 1 Financial Well-being Evidence Gap Map
March 18, 2019
Process innovations in Microfinance aimed at avoiding over-indebtedness
January 8, 2019
Household Over-indebtedness in Europe: Definitions, Indicators and Influencing factors
January 2, 2019
Search
Recent Comments
  • Prasanna Srinivasan on Care through competition: The case of the Netherlands: “This made interesting and informative reading. Thank you. Inevitably, the mind ran a comparison with the Indian context even while…”
  • Misha Sharma on Direct Benefit Transfers in Assam, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh: Introducing the Dvara-Haqdarshak Study on Exclusion in Government to Person Payments: “Great post, Aarushi. It will also be interesting to document the challenges faced in accessing these transfers and experiences with…”
  • Misha Sharma on What is Social Protection?: “Thanks for writing this, Anupama. A much needed piece and looking forward to the second post in this series. It…”
Subscribe and Follow Us

Popular Post

Popular Post
  • Approaches to Assessing Household Income for Microfinance Clients
    June 24, 2022
  • Incremental Adoption of Managed Competition in Germany
    June 20, 2022
  • Note on RBI’s Prompt Corrective Action Framework for Non-Banking Financial Companies
    June 17, 2022

Categories

Categories
  • Channels(88)
  • Consumer Protection(33)
  • Events(30)
  • Featured(42)
  • Field Reports(6)
  • From the field(9)
  • General(22)
  • Guest(30)
  • Household Research(75)
  • Long Term Debt Markets(9)
  • News(45)
  • Origination(30)
  • Products(42)
  • Regulation(112)
  • Research(253)
  • Risk Aggregation(26)
  • Risk transmission(63)
  • Small Cities(21)
  • Technology(25)
  • Uncategorized(105)
  • Unemployment Support(5)

Archives

Archives
  • June 2022 (5)
  • May 2022 (2)
  • April 2022 (4)
  • March 2022 (2)
  • February 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (3)
  • December 2021 (4)
  • November 2021 (6)
  • October 2021 (4)
  • September 2021 (4)
  • August 2021 (6)
  • July 2021 (6)
  • June 2021 (10)
  • May 2021 (7)
  • April 2021 (9)
  • March 2021 (9)
  • February 2021 (7)
  • January 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (7)
  • November 2020 (6)
  • October 2020 (10)
  • September 2020 (9)
  • August 2020 (12)
  • July 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (5)
  • May 2020 (8)
  • April 2020 (4)
  • March 2020 (8)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (9)
  • December 2019 (4)
  • November 2019 (3)
  • October 2019 (7)
  • September 2019 (3)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (4)
  • June 2019 (4)
  • May 2019 (4)
  • April 2019 (7)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (3)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (5)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (5)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (2)
  • June 2018 (2)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (1)
  • March 2018 (5)
  • February 2018 (2)
  • January 2018 (2)
  • December 2017 (5)
  • November 2017 (4)
  • October 2017 (3)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (3)
  • May 2017 (4)
  • April 2017 (3)
  • March 2017 (4)
  • February 2017 (3)
  • January 2017 (6)
  • December 2016 (5)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (3)
  • September 2016 (5)
  • August 2016 (4)
  • July 2016 (4)
  • June 2016 (8)
  • May 2016 (4)
  • April 2016 (5)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (3)
  • January 2016 (3)
  • December 2015 (3)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (2)
  • September 2015 (3)
  • August 2015 (5)
  • July 2015 (3)
  • June 2015 (3)
  • May 2015 (3)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (3)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (5)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • October 2014 (3)
  • September 2014 (4)
  • August 2014 (4)
  • July 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (8)
  • May 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (4)
  • March 2014 (5)
  • February 2014 (6)
  • January 2014 (8)
  • December 2013 (7)
  • November 2013 (8)
  • October 2013 (7)
  • September 2013 (7)
  • August 2013 (5)
  • July 2013 (6)
  • June 2013 (7)
  • May 2013 (6)
  • April 2013 (8)
  • March 2013 (9)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (9)
  • December 2012 (8)
  • November 2012 (7)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (5)
  • August 2012 (5)
  • July 2012 (7)
  • June 2012 (4)
  • May 2012 (6)
  • April 2012 (4)
  • March 2012 (7)
  • February 2012 (6)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • December 2011 (8)
  • November 2011 (7)
  • October 2011 (8)
  • September 2011 (7)
  • August 2011 (3)
  • July 2011 (6)
  • June 2011 (11)
  • May 2011 (8)
  • April 2011 (9)
  • March 2011 (13)
  • February 2011 (10)
  • January 2011 (8)
  • December 2010 (10)
  • November 2010 (10)
  • October 2010 (10)
  • September 2010 (7)
  • August 2010 (13)
  • July 2010 (10)
  • June 2010 (6)
  • May 2010 (13)
  • April 2010 (7)
  • March 2010 (10)
  • February 2010 (5)
  • January 2010 (4)
  • December 2009 (3)
  • November 2009 (1)
  • October 2009 (6)
  • August 2009 (1)
  • July 2009 (2)
  • June 2009 (1)
  • May 2009 (1)
  • April 2009 (1)
  • March 2009 (1)
Share Via :Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email
Site Map

www.dvara.com