J. Akahori, Some Formulae for a New Type of Path-Dependent Option, The Annals of Applied Probability, vol.5, issue.2, pp.383-388, 1995.
DOI : 10.1214/aoap/1177004769

P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J. Eber, and D. Heath, Coherent Measures of Risk, Coherent measures of risks, pp.203-228, 1999.
DOI : 10.1111/1467-9965.00068

P. P. Athanasoglou, I. Daniilidis, and M. D. Delis, Bank procyclicality and output: Issues and policies, Journal of Economics and Business, vol.72, pp.58-83, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jeconbus.2013.10.003

URL : https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50830/1/MPRA_paper_50830.pdf

F. Bec and C. Gollier, Term Structure and Cyclicity of Value-at-Risk: Consequences for the Solvency Capital Requirement, Insurance Mathematics and Economics, vol.49, pp.487-495, 2009.

P. F. Christoffersen, Evaluating Interval Forecasts, International Economic Review, vol.39, issue.4, pp.841-862, 1998.
DOI : 10.2307/2527341

URL : http://www.management.mcgill.ca/homepage/profs/christop/research/Pac1.pdf

P. F. Christoffersen and D. Pelletier, Backtesting Value-at-Risk: A Duration-Based Approach, Journal of Financial Econometrics, vol.2, issue.1, pp.84-108, 2004.
DOI : 10.1093/jjfinec/nbh004

URL : http://www4.ncsu.edu/~dpellet/papers/Christoffersen-Pelletier-Backtesting.pdf

M. Dacorogna, R. Gençay, U. A. Muller, O. Pictet, and R. Olsen, An Introduction to High-Frequency Finance, 2001.

J. Danielsson, The emperor has no clothes: Limits to risk modelling, Journal of Banking & Finance, vol.26, issue.7, pp.1273-1296, 2002.
DOI : 10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00263-7

P. Embrechts and G. Samorodnitsky, Sample Quantiles of heavy tailed stochastic processes, Stoch, Proc. Applic, pp.217-233, 1995.

S. Emmer, M. Kratz, and D. Tasche, What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measures, The Journal of Risk, vol.18, issue.2, pp.31-60, 2015.
DOI : 10.21314/JOR.2015.318

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00921283

M. B. Gordy and B. Howells, Procyclicality in Basel II: Can we treat the disease without killing the patient?, Journal of Financial Intermediation, vol.15, issue.3, pp.395-417, 2006.
DOI : 10.1016/j.jfi.2005.12.002

R. Muria, A note on look-back options based on order statistics, Hitotsubashi J. Commerce Management, vol.27, pp.15-28, 1992.

N. Norling and D. Selling, An empirical evaluation of Value-at-Risk during the financial crisis, pp.277-288, 2014.

R. Repullo and J. Saurina, The countercyclical capital buffer of Basel III: A critical assessment The crisis aftermath: New regulatory paradigms, 2012.

R. Repullo and J. Suarez, The Procyclical Effects of Basel II, CEPR Discussion Paper 6862, 2008.

G. P. Samanta, How Good is the Transformation-Based Approach to Estimate Value at Risk? Simulation and Empirical Results, NSE (National Stock Exchange of India) Working Papers, 2015.

P. Zangari, RiskMetrics Technical Document, Available on: https://www.msci.com, 1996.

G. Zumbach, The pitfalls in fitting GARCH (1,1) processes Advances in Quantitative Asset Management Berlin B.6 SQP Ratio vs Annualized Volatility B.6.1 On real data Figure A.9: SQP Ratios as a function of annualized volatility for p = 0 for ? = 95%, 99%. In each row we consider the SQP Ratios and then the logarithm of the SQP Ratios: From left to right, SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%, then logarithm of SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%. From top to bottom, pp.179-200, 2000.

A. Figure, SQP Ratios as a function of annualized volatility for p = 0 for ? = 95%, 99%. In each row we consider the SQP Ratios and then the logarithm of the SQP Ratios: From left to right, SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%, then logarithm of SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%. From top to bottom

A. ?. Figure, =. 95%, and 9. , In each row we consider the SQP Ratios and then the logarithm of the SQP Ratios: From left to right, SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%, then logarithm of SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%. From top to bottom: SGP, SWE, USA B.6.2 On a simulated GARCH realization Figure A.12: SQP Ratios as a function of annualized volatility for one simulated sample path of the GARCH(1,1) -which is fitted to each index separetely -for p = 0 for ? = 95%, 99%, each row we consider the SQP Ratios and then the logarithm of the SQP Ratios: From left to right, SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%, then logarithm of SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%. From top to bottom

A. Figure, SQP Ratios as a function of annualized volatility for one simulated sample path of the GARCH(1,1) -which is fitted to each index separetely -for p = 0 for ? = 95%, 99%. In each row we consider the SQP Ratios and then the logarithm of the SQP Ratios: From left to right, SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%, then logarithm of SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%. From top to bottom: GBR

A. Figure, SQP Ratios as a function of annualized volatility for one simulated sample path of the GARCH(1,1) -which is fitted to each index separetely -for p = 0 for ? = 95%, 99%. In each row we consider the SQP Ratios and then the logarithm of the SQP Ratios: From left to right, SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%, then logarithm of SQP ratio for ? = 95%, 99%. From top to bottom