Estimating Portfolio’s Value-at-Risk and Conditional Value-at-Risk: Evidence of Laos Securities Exchange

Main Article Content

HER Pheng


        This paper, researcher used daily closed price from Lao Securities Exchange during October 11, 2019 to May 27, 2021 (exclude public holidays), equal to 402 days and estimating of portfolio’s risk researcher by Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) models in the aspects of Historical Simulation and Gaussian methods with the confidence interval of 95%, 97.5% and 99% respectively. 
       Result in historical simulation method expressed that VaR of Phousy Construction and Development Public Company (PCD) has highest value and Lao Cement Public Company (LCC) has lowest value. For CVaR function found that PCD remain the company that has highest value and Mahathuen Leasing Public Company (MHTL) has lowest value (95% confidence). For Gaussian Distribution method found that VaR of PCD remain the company that has highest risk and MHTL has lowest and in aspects of CVaR found that PCD and MHTL remains the companies that has highest and lowest value and researcher concluded that CVaR is better than VaR because CVaR gives us an average expected loss while VaR gives us a range of potential losses or it less accurate lower approximation of risk. For comparison of the portfolio of 11 traded stocks in LSX indicated that portfolio’s VaR and CVaR in Gaussian Distribution method is lower than Historical Simulation method and specified Gaussian Distribution analysis is a better risk indicator because it is closer to the actual value
Article history: Received 8 August 2023              
                            Revised 10 October 2023
                            Accepted 14 October 2023      
                            SIMILARITY INDEX = 9.00%

Article Details

How to Cite
Pheng, H. (2024). Estimating Portfolio’s Value-at-Risk and Conditional Value-at-Risk: Evidence of Laos Securities Exchange. Journal of Management Science Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University, 10(2), 118–128. (Original work published December 30, 2023)
Research Articles


Allen, D. E., Powell, R.J. and Singh, A. K. (2012). Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Multiple Tail Risk Measures Applied to European Industries. Applied Economics Letters, 19:671-676.

Bank of Lao PDR. (2019). Annual report of bank of Lao PDR in 2019. [Online]. Retrieved June 17, 2021, from:

Bouraoui, T. (2015). On the determinants of the THB/USD exchange rate. Procedia Economics and Finance, 30: 137-145.

Laos Securities Exchange. (2020). Annual report of the Laos Securities Exchange in 2020. [Online]. Retrieved June 17, 2021, from:

Prapinmongkolkarn, W. (2008). Portfolio optimization via conditional value-at-risk. Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy Thammasat University.

Rajarshi, G (2015). What is value at risk? How it is calculated? And what does the diagram illustrate? [Online]. Retrieved June 11,2021 from htts://

Robert J. Powel., Duc H. Vo., and Thach N. Pham (2018). Do Nonparametric Measures of Extreme Equity Risk Change the Parametric Ordinal Ranking? Evidence from Asia. Risks 2018, 6(4), 1-22.

Rockafellar, T. and Uryasev, S. (2000). Optimization of Conditional Value-at-Risk. Journal of Risk, 2:21-41.

Sarykalin, S., Serraino, G., and Uryasev, S. (2008). Value-at-Risk Vs. Conditional Value-at-Risk in risk management and optimization. Tutorials in operations research informs 2008, 270-294 .Doi:10.1287/educ.1080.0052

Webby, R. B., Adamson, P. T., Boland, J., Howlett, P. G., Metcalfe, A. V., and Piantadosi, J. (2007). The mekong—applications of value at risk (var) and conditional value at risk (cvar) simulation to the benefits, costs and consequences of water resources development in a large river basin. Ecological Modelling, 201(1):89-96.

Williams, R., Van Heerden, J.D., and Conradie, W.J., (2020). Value at Risk and Extreme Value Theory: Application to the Johannesburg Securities Exchange. Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 42(1):87-114.

Yamai, Y and Yoshiba, T. (2005). Value-at-Risk versus Expected Shortfall: A Practical Perspective. Journal of Banking and Finance, 29(4): 997-1015.