numvana

Value at Risk (VaR) Calculator

Find the parametric (variance-covariance) Value at Risk for a portfolio: the loss a given confidence level says won't be exceeded over a chosen horizon.

Value at Risk
$3,289.71
Value at Risk (% of portfolio)
3.29%
Critical z-value
1.6449

How it works

This is the parametric (also called "delta-normal" or variance-covariance) method for Value at Risk — the standard closed-form VaR calculation, as opposed to historical-simulation or Monte Carlo VaR, which both need an actual return series this site's inputs can't take. It assumes periodic returns are normally distributed around a mean of zero (the conventional simplifying assumption for short horizons), so the loss that won't be exceeded with the chosen confidence is VaR = PortfolioValue × z × σ × √T: z is the one-tailed standard-normal quantile at the confidence level (≈1.645 at 95%, ≈2.326 at 99%), σ is the periodic volatility you enter, and √T scales that single-period volatility up to a T-period horizon under the "square-root-of-time" rule.

Every input — portfolio value, volatility, confidence level, and horizon — is a figure you supply for your own portfolio and period; nothing about a real market's actual volatility is invented or fetched. VaR answers "how much could this lose" at the stated confidence, not "how much could it possibly lose" — by construction, the actual loss exceeds this figure (1 − confidence) of the time, which is exactly the tail risk this method, like all VaR methods, is known to understate when real returns have fatter tails than a true normal distribution.

FAQ

Why does a 99% confidence level produce a bigger VaR than 95%?

A higher confidence level means you want the loss figure to hold more of the time, which pushes further out into the normal distribution's tail — the critical z-value grows (1.645 at 95% versus 2.326 at 99%), and VaR scales directly with it. The tradeoff is a 99% VaR covers more days but by construction is a larger number than a 95% VaR for the exact same portfolio and period.

Why does VaR scale with the square root of the time horizon instead of linearly?

Because volatility — a standard deviation — doesn't add across independent periods the way variance does; variance scales linearly with time (T periods of i.i.d. returns have T times the single-period variance), and standard deviation is variance's square root, so it scales with √T. This "square-root-of-time" rule is standard for VaR but assumes returns in each period are independent and identically distributed, which can break down over longer horizons where volatility itself tends to cluster.

Related calculators