Estimate potential future losses using VaR, Expected Shortfall, Monte Carlo simulation, and stress testing. Use when the user asks about Value-at-Risk, CVaR, Expected Shortfall, scenario analysis, stress testing, or factor-based risk decomposition. Also trigger when users mention 'how much could I lose', 'worst-case scenario', 'tail risk', 'risk budget', 'component VaR', 'marginal VaR', '99% confidence loss', 'Monte Carlo simulation', or ask how to project portfolio risk forward.
npx skills add https://github.com/JoelLewis/finance_skills --skill forward-risk
Assumes returns are normally distributed. For a single asset or portfolio in dollar terms (assuming zero expected return over short horizons):
VaR = W * z_alpha * sigma_p
where:
More generally, including expected return:
VaR_alpha = mu - z_alpha * sigma
To convert from 1-day VaR to h-day VaR (assuming i.i.d. returns):
VaR_h = VaR_1 * sqrt(h)
For a portfolio with weight vector w and covariance matrix Sigma:
sigma_p = sqrt(w' * Sigma * w)
VaR_p = W * z_alpha * sqrt(w' * Sigma * w)
The covariance matrix captures both individual volatilities and correlations between assets.
Simulate a large number of portfolio return scenarios (e.g., 10,000+), then take the alpha-percentile of the simulated loss distribution.
Steps:
Monte Carlo VaR can accommodate non-normal distributions, fat tails, path-dependent instruments, and nonlinear payoffs (e.g., options).
CVaR answers: "Given that losses exceed VaR, what is the expected loss?"
ES_alpha = E[Loss | Loss > VaR_alpha]
For a normal distribution:
ES_alpha = mu + sigma * phi(z_alpha) / (1 - alpha)
where phi is the standard normal PDF.
CVaR is a coherent risk measure (unlike VaR) because it satisfies subadditivity: CVaR(A+B) <= CVaR(A) + CVaR(B). This means diversification always reduces or maintains CVaR, which is not guaranteed for VaR.
Decomposes total portfolio VaR into contributions from each position. Component VaRs sum to total VaR.
CVaR_i = w_i * beta_i * VaR_p
where beta_i = Cov(R_i, R_p) / Var(R_p) is the asset's beta to the portfolio.
Equivalently:
CVaR_i = w_i * (partial VaR / partial w_i)
sum(CVaR_i) = VaR_p
This decomposition identifies which positions are the largest contributors to portfolio risk.
Measures the rate of change of portfolio VaR with respect to a small increase in a position's weight.
MVaR_i = partial(VaR_p) / partial(w_i) = z_alpha * (Sigma * w)_i / sigma_p
Marginal VaR is used for position sizing: adding to a position with low marginal VaR reduces portfolio risk more efficiently.
Apply specific historical or hypothetical market moves to the current portfolio to estimate P&L impact.
Scenario P&L is computed by applying the scenario returns to current position exposures and revaluing.
A structured framework for assessing portfolio resilience under extreme but plausible conditions.
Common stress scenarios:
Stress tests should include second-order effects: margin calls, liquidity demands, correlation spikes, counterparty risk.
Separate total portfolio risk into systematic factor risk and idiosyncratic (security-specific) risk.
sigma^2_p = b' * Sigma_f * b + sum(w_i^2 * sigma^2_epsilon_i)
where:
Common factor models: Fama-French (market, size, value, momentum), Barra risk models, PCA-based statistical factors.
| Formula | Expression | Use Case |
|---------|-----------|----------|
| Parametric VaR (single) | W * z_alpha * sigma | Simple position VaR |
| Portfolio VaR | W * z_alpha * sqrt(w' * Sigma * w) | Multi-asset VaR |
| Multi-day VaR | VaR_1 * sqrt(h) | Scale to h-day horizon |
| CVaR (normal) | mu + sigma * phi(z_alpha) / (1 - alpha) | Expected tail loss |
| Component VaR | w_i * beta_i * VaR_p | Risk contribution per position |
| Marginal VaR | z_alpha * (Sigma * w)_i / sigma_p | Sensitivity to weight change |
| Factor Risk | b' * Sigma_f * b | Systematic risk component |
| Idiosyncratic Risk | sum(w_i^2 * sigma^2_epsilon_i) | Security-specific risk |
Given: A $1,000,000 equity portfolio with an annualized volatility of 15%.
Calculate: 1-day 95% parametric VaR (assuming 252 trading days and zero expected daily return).
Solution:
Daily volatility:
sigma_daily = 0.15 / sqrt(252) = 0.15 / 15.875 = 0.00945
1-day 95% VaR:
VaR = $1,000,000 * 1.645 * 0.00945 = $15,545
Alternatively, computing directly from annual figures:
VaR_annual = $1,000,000 * 1.645 * 0.15 = $246,750
VaR_1day = $246,750 / sqrt(252) = $15,545
Interpretation: There is a 5% chance of losing more than $15,545 in a single day under normal market conditions.
Given: A two-asset portfolio (60% equities, 40% bonds). Equities: mu = 10%, sigma = 18%. Bonds: mu = 4%, sigma = 5%. Correlation rho = -0.2. Portfolio value = $1,000,000.
Calculate: 95% annual VaR via Monte Carlo simulation (conceptual steps).
Solution:
Sigma = | 0.0324 -0.0018 |
| -0.0018 0.0025 |
For this portfolio, the analytical answer provides a benchmark:
sigma_p = sqrt(0.6^2 * 0.0324 + 0.4^2 * 0.0025 + 2 * 0.6 * 0.4 * (-0.0018))
= sqrt(0.011664 + 0.0004 - 0.000864)
= sqrt(0.0112)
= 10.58%
VaR_95% = $1,000,000 * 1.645 * 0.1058 = $174,090
The Monte Carlo result should converge to approximately this value for a multivariate normal assumption.
Given: From the Monte Carlo simulation above, the losses exceeding VaR (the worst 500 out of 10,000 scenarios) have an average loss of $225,000.
Calculate: 95% CVaR.
Solution:
CVaR_95% = $225,000
Interpretation: When losses exceed the 95% VaR threshold, the average loss is $225,000. This is roughly 29% worse than the $174,090 VaR figure, highlighting the severity of tail events.
uv run scripts/forward_risk.py # run the demo (uses PEP 723 inline deps)
uv run scripts/forward_risk.py --verify # check demo outputs against the worked examples (exit 1 on mismatch)
python3 scripts/forward_risk.py # alternative (requires: pip install numpy scipy)
The demo prints the calculations covered above; its values match the worked examples in this skill. Run --help for a list of the classes and functions. For programmatic use, import the module rather than running it — the demo only executes under python forward_risk.py.
Expert guidance for systematic backtesting of trading strategies. Use when developing, testing, stress-testing, or validating quantitative trading strategies. Covers "beating ideas to death" methodology, parameter robustness testing, slippage modeling, bias prevention, and interpreting backtest results. Applicable when user asks about backtesting, strategy validation, robustness testing, avoiding overfitting, or systematic trading development.
> Wycheproof provides test vectors for validating cryptographic implementations. Use when testing crypto code for known attacks and edge cases.
Review fixed income portfolios by pricing multiple bonds, retrieving reference data, analyzing cashflows, and running scenario analysis. Use when reviewing bond portfolios, computing portfolio duration and DV01, analyzing cashflow waterfalls, stress testing rate scenarios, or assessing portfolio composition.
Use when creating a fake test implementation in stripe-android — covers FakeClassName pattern, Turbine call tracking, ViewActionRecorder, and ensureAllEventsConsumed validation
> based billing, idempotent webhooks, customer portal, dunning, and SCA. Use when building billing, handling webhooks, or testing with Stripe CLI.
Expert guidance for systematic backtesting of trading strategies. Use when developing, testing, stress-testing, or validating quantitative trading strategies. Covers "beating ideas to death" methodology, parameter robustness testing, slippage modeling, bias prevention, and interpreting backtest results. Applicable when user asks about backtesting, strategy validation, robustness testing, avoiding overfitting, or systematic trading development.
Cointegration testing for pairs trading using Engle-Granger, Johansen, and rolling stability analysis
Apply systems thinking — causal loop diagrams, stock-and-flow models, system archetypes, and leverage-point analysis — to organizational, economic, or social problems where feedback loops, delays, or emergent behavior drive recurring failure across multiple interacting actors. Use this skill when the user describes a multi-actor situation that resists linear fixes: policy interventions that backfire, org-level fixes that break other teams, market symptoms that return after being solved, or time-lagged second-order consequences, even if they say 'why does fixing X make Y worse' or 'identify the leverage points in this system'. Do NOT use for single-cause software bugs, flaky tests, or regressions — those are debugging problems, not systems-thinking problems, even when phrased as 'this keeps coming back'.
Take joellewis/forward-risk from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.
The instructions reference pip.
Without those the skill loads but fails at the first command.