Statistical foundations for assessing the difference
between the classical and weighted-Gini betas
Nadezhda Gribkova

arXiv:1706.05510v3 [] 10 Sep 2017

Department of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, St. Petersburg State University,
St. Petersburg 199034, Russia

Ričardas Zitikis
School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Western University,
London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada
Abstract. The ‘beta’ is one of the key quantities in the capital asset pricing model (CAPM).
In statistical language, the beta can be viewed as the slope of the regression line fitted to
financial returns on the market against the returns on the asset under consideration. The
insurance counterpart of CAPM, called the weighted insurance pricing model (WIPM), gives
rise to the so-called weighted-Gini beta. The aforementioned two betas may or may not
coincide, depending on the form of the underlying regression function, and this has profound
implications when designing portfolios and allocating risk capital. To facilitate these tasks,
in this paper we develop large-sample statistical inference results that, in a straightforward
fashion, imply confidence intervals for, and hypothesis tests about, the equality of the two
betas.
Key words and phrases: beta, portfolio construction, capital allocation, weighted Gini, consistency, asymptotic normality.
AMS 2010 Subject Classifications: Primary: 62G05, 62G20; Secondary: 62P05, 62P20.

1

1

Introduction

The ‘beta’ is one of those classical quantities that we find in virtually every financial engineering text that discusses topics related to the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). For
the state-of-the-art appraisal of the area with extensive references, we refer to Levy (2010,
2011). Statistically speaking, the beta is the slope
β=

Cov[X, Y ]
Cov[Y, Y ]

(1.1)

of the least squares regression line, with X denoting the response or dependent variable
(such as the return on an asset) and Y is the explanatory or independent variable (such as
the return on the market). Of course, we assume that the variance Var[Y ] := Cov[Y, Y ] of
Y is finite and non-zero, and the covariance Cov[X, Y ] between X and Y is finite. (We use
‘:=’ when emphasizing that some equalities hold by definition.)
An extension of the CAPM to insurance has turned out to be a complex task due to issues
such as skewness and heavy tails of the underlying random variables. Furman and Zitikis
(2017) have put forward arguments showing that the task is feasible, and their proposed
solution hinges, in part, on the so-called weighted-Gini beta
βG =

Cov[X, w ◦ FY (Y )]
,
Cov[Y, w ◦ FY (Y )]

(1.2)

where FY is the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of Y , w : [0, 1] → [−∞, ∞] is a weight

function (to be discussed below), and w ◦ FY is the composition of w and FY . Naturally,

we assume the obvious conditions that make the beta well-defined and finite, and we also
assume throughout the paper that w is finite on the open interval (0, 1). Next are several
illustrative examples of w that we use to justify certain technical intricacies employed in this
paper.
Examples that we find in the literature usually deal with non-decreasing functions w,
chosen either based on some regulatory frameworks such as Basel Accords for Banking (e.g.,
Sawyer, 2012) and Solvency for Insurance (e.g., Sandström, 2010), or based on other considerations such as economic axioms (e.g., von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944; Quiggin,
1993; and references therein). For example, the weight function wPHT (t) = ν(1 − t)ν−1 ,
with PHT standing for the ‘proportional hazards transform,’ has arisen in Insurance when

ν ∈ (0, 1] (Wang, 1995) and Econometrics when ν ≥ 1 (Donaldson and Weymark, 1980;
Kakwani, 1980; see also Zitikis and Gastwirth, 2002; and references therein). The function
wCTE (t) = 1{t > ν} for various parameter values ν ∈ (0, 1) arises in contexts associated with
2

the conditional tail expectation (e.g., McNeil et al., 2015; and references therein). In terms
of mathematical properties, these functions are quite different: wPHT is unbounded for every
ν ∈ (0, 1), continuous on the compact interval [0, 1] for every ν ≥ 1, whereas the function

wCTE is discontinuous, though bounded, for every ν ∈ (0, 1). We shall see later in this paper

that these features place considerable constraints on the technical apparatus that we can
employ, thus occasionally requiring involved arguments in order to accommodate cases such
as the aforementioned examples of w.
We have organized the rest of the paper as follows. In Section 2 we construct empirical
estimators for the two aforementioned betas and discuss their consistency under several
complementary sets of conditions. Then we establish asymptotic normality of the difference
between the two estimators. Proofs are in Section 3, and concluding remarks make up
Section 4. Throughout the paper, we use the following two functions prominently: the
conditional-mean function
gX|Y (y) = E[X | Y = y]

and the conditional-variance function
2
vX|Y
(y) = Var[X | Y = y],
a.s.

both defined on the range of Y values. Furthermore, we use → to denote convergence almost
P

law

surely, → convergence in probability, and → convergence in law/distribution. We use c to

denote various finite constants whose values usually change from line to line.

2

Main results

Coming back to definition (1.2) of βG , we see that when the conditional-mean function
gX|Y (y) is linear on the range of Y values, that is, gX|Y (y) = α + γy for some α, γ ∈ R,
then βG = β (= γ) irrespective of the weight function w. This implies that the weighted

insurance pricing model (WIPM) collapses into the classical CAPM, and this feature has
been pointed out and utilized by Furman and Zitikis (2010, 2017). For example, in the
bivariate Gaussian case, the function gX|Y (y) is linear, with the slope equal to β given by
equation (1.1). The bivariate elliptical distribution also has a linear regression function (e.g.,
Furman and Zitikis, 2008, 2017), and so do several bivariate Pareto distributions, though
of course not all of them. For details and examples, we refer to Su (2016), Su and Furman
(2017), and references therein.

3

If the linearity of gX|Y (y) does not hold, then how far can βG be from β? This is important
to know because if the difference between βG and β is not practically significant, even when
it is not actually zero, then we can safely ignore the difference and work with the classical
beta, for which statistical inference has been well developed in various contexts. This brings
us to the main topic of the present paper, namely, the development of statistical tests for
assessing the magnitude of
∆ = βG − β.
For this task, we need an empirical estimator for ∆. Let (Xi , Yi ), i = 1, 2 . . . , be independent
copies of the random pair (X, Y ). For every integer n ≥ 1, let FbY be the empirical estimator
of the cdf FY defined by

n

FbY (y) =

1 X
1{Yk ≤ y},
n + 1 k=1

(2.1)

where 1{Yk ≤ y} is the indicator of the event {Yk ≤ y}. Note that this empirical estimator

slightly differs from the classical empirical cdf because it employs jumps of the size 1/(n+ 1),
instead of the usual 1/n. This adjustment, being not an issue from the asymptotic point of
view, is necessary to ensure that all the values of the empirical cdf are located inside the
open interval (0, 1) on which the weight function w is finite. We are now ready to introduce
an empirical estimator of ∆, which is

where

Pn

(2.2)

(Xk − X)(w ◦ FbY (Yk ) − z 0 )
βbG,n = Pk=1
n
b
k=1 (Yk − Y )(w ◦ FY (Yk ) − z 0 )

and

with X = n−1

b n = βbG,n − βbn ,
∆

Pn

k=1 Xk ,

βbn =

Y = n−1

Pn

Pn

k=1 (Xk − X)(Yk −
Pn
2
k=1 (Yk − Y )

k=1 Yk ,

and z 0 = n−1

Y)

Pn

k=1 w

◦ FbY (Yk ).

Theorem 2.1. If the expectations E[X], E[Y 2 ], and E[XY ] are finite, and the weight function w is continuous on [0, 1], then, when n → ∞,
b n a.s.
∆
→ ∆.

Though simple and elegant, Theorem 2.1 does not cover a number of important cases.
To see this, we recall the earlier noted weight functions: when ν ≥ 1, the function wPHT (t) =
ν(1 − t)ν−1 is continuous on the compact interval [0, 1] and thus Theorem 2.1 is applicable,
4

but the case ν ∈ (0, 1), which is of particular interest in Insurance, produces unbounded

wPHT on [0, 1]. Thus, we cannot apply Theorem 2.1 in the latter case, nor can we apply the
theorem in the case of wCTE (t) = 1{t > ν}, which is discontinuous for every ν ∈ (0, 1). Our
next theorem is designed to accommodate cases such as these.

We use Lq , 1 ≤ q ≤ ∞, to denote the set of all Borel-measurable functions f : [0, 1] → R
R1
such that kf kq := ( 0 |f |q dλ)1/q < ∞ when 1 ≤ q < ∞, and kf k∞ := ess supt∈[0,1] |f (t)| < ∞
when q = ∞, where λ is the Lebesgue measure. The quantile function of Y is defined by

FY−1 (t) = inf{y : FY (y) ≥ t} for all t ∈ (0, 1].

Theorem 2.2. Assume that the expectation E[Y 2 ] is finite, and the cdf FY is continuous.
If E[(E[X 2 | Y ])p ] < ∞ and w 2 ∈ Lq for some p, q ∈ [1, ∞] such that p−1 + q −1 = 1, then,
when n → ∞,

P
bn →
∆
∆.

We note at the outset that the conditions on X and Y in Theorem 2.2 are stronger
than those in Theorem 2.1, and this is so in order to weaken conditions on the weight
function w. To see how the two sets of conditions are related, we first note that since
p ≥ 1, the condition E[(E[X 2 | Y ])p ] < ∞ implies E[X 2 ] < ∞, and since we assume E[Y 2 ],
we have E[|XY |] < ∞, which is one of the moment conditions in Theorem 2.1. Hence,

the requirements on the random variables have indeed increased, but very importantly, the
requirements on the weight function w in Theorem 2.2 have decreased considerably. To see

the benefits, we next discuss two extreme cases covered by Theorem 2.2.
First, when p = 1, we have q = ∞, and thus the weight function w must be bounded.

This case covers the function wPHT (t) = ν(1 − t)ν−1 when ν ≥ 1, as well as the discontinuous

function wCTE (t) = 1{t > ν}. Second, when p = ∞, the condition E[(E[X 2 | Y ])p ] < ∞

2
must be bounded. Of course, when p = 1,
means that the conditional-variance function vX|Y

then q = 1 and thus w 2 is integrable, which is a very mild assumption on the weight function
w: the CTE weight function wCTE is always such, whereas the PHT weight function wPHT
satisfies the requirement when ν > 1/2. The latter restriction appears naturally when
considering statistical inference for the PHT risk measure (e.g., Jones and Zitikis, 2007; Necir
et al. (2007); Necir and Meraghni (2009); Brahimi et al., 2011; and references therein).
Note also that in Theorem 2.2 we assume continuity of FY which, though possibly restrictive in some applications, brings tangible benefits into the development of statistical
inference. For example, the earlier expression for estimator βbG,n turns into the following
5

easier manageable expression
βbG,n

where

Pn
(X[k:n] − X)(wk,n − z 0 )
,
= Pk=1
n
k=1 (Yk:n − Y )(wk,n − z 0 )

(2.3)

• Y1:n , . . . , Yn:n are the (ascending) order statistics of Y1 , . . . , Yn ;
• X[1:n] , . . . , X[n:n] are the induced order statistics corresponding to Y1:n , . . . , Yn:n ;
• z 0 = n−1

Pn

k=1 wk,n

with wk,n = w(k/(n + 1)).

Unlike in Theorem 2.1, where we established strong consistency, in Theorem 2.2 we
deal with (weak) consistency. This shift from strong to weak consistency puts us firmly
on the practical path and leads to attractive and highly encompassing conditions, as we
have already seen from the two extreme cases analyzed above. On the other hand, when
establishing asymptotic normality, which is of our primary interest in the current paper
and makes up the contents of the next theorem, we rely only on consistency, and thus our
particular focus on this mode of convergence. We use the notations z0 = E[w ◦ FY (Y )],
B = Cov[Y, w ◦ FY (Y )], and D = Var[Y ].

Theorem 2.3. Let the cdf FY be continuous, and let the weight function w be continuously
differentiable except possibly at a finite number of points at which FY−1 and gX|Y ◦ FY−1 must

be continuous. Furthermore, assume that there is b ∈ [0, 1) such that the following three

assumptions hold:

(i) there is c < ∞ such that, for all t ∈ (0, 1) where w ′(t) exists,
|w(t)|, t(1 − t)|w ′(t)| ≤ c t(1 − t)

−b/2

;

(ii) the moment E[|Y |r1 ] is finite for some r1 > r := max{4, 2/(1 − b)};
(iii) there are ǫ > 0 and c < ∞ such that, for all t ∈ (0, 1),
2
vX|Y
◦ FY−1 (t) ≤ c t(1 − t)

where we have 2/r = min{1/2, 1 − b}.
Then, when n → ∞,

law

−2/r+ǫ

b n − ∆) → N (0, Υ2 + Υ2 ),
n1/2 (∆
1
2
6

,

where
Υ21

=

0

and
Υ22

and

Z

1

Z

1
2
vX|Y

◦

FY−1 (t)



w(t) − z0 FY−1 (t) − E[Y ]
−
B
D

2

dt

(2.4)

1




w(s) − z0 w(t) − z0 min(s, t) − st dH1 (s) dH1 (t)
0
0
Z 1Z 1


2
w(s) − z0 min(s, t) − st dH1 (s) dH2 (t)
−
BD 0 0
Z 1Z 1

1
+ 2
min(s, t) − st dH2 (s) dH2 (t)
D 0 0

1
= 2
B

with the functions

Z

(2.5)



H1 (t) = gX|Y ◦ FY−1 (t) − E[X] − βG FY−1 (t) − E[Y ]


2
H2 (t) = gX|Y ◦ FY−1 (t) − E[X] FY−1 (t) − E[Y ] − β FY−1 (t) − E[Y ] .

The conditions of Theorem 2.3 are, naturally, stronger than those of Theorem 2.2. To
gain more intuition on them, we next show how the two sets of conditions are related to each
other. First, both theorems require continuity of FY . Furthermore, Theorem 2.3 requires
at least the fourth finite moment of Y , whereas Theorem 2.2 requires at least the second
finite moment of Y . This is natural because in the two theorems we deal with consistency
and weak convergence of an empirical estimator of the second moment E[Y 2 ], which is an
integral part of the definition of the classical beta.
To show that the conditions E[(E[X 2 | Y ])p ] < ∞ and w 2 ∈ Lq of Theorem 2.2 are

implied by conditions (ii) and (iii) of Theorem 2.3, we first note that E[(E[X 2 | Y ])p ] < ∞

2
◦ FY−1 ∈ Lp . It is now easy to check that, for every b ∈ [0, 1), if we
is equivalent to vX|Y

set p = (1 + δ)/(1 − b) with any δ > 0 such that δ < ǫ/(1 − b − ǫ) (we can always assume
ǫ < 1 − b without loss of generality), then the two conditions of Theorem 2.2 are satisfied.

Furthermore, note that the definition of Υ22 implicitly requires that the functions H1 and

H2 should be properly defined, which is the case whenever gX|Y ◦ FY−1 is in the class of

functions of bounded variation on the interval [ǫ, 1 − ǫ] for every ǫ > 0. Assumptions (i)–(iii)

imply that both Υ21 and Υ22 are finite.

As an illustrative example of Theorem 2.3, consider the bivariate Gaussian distribution, in which case gX|Y (y) = E[X] + β(y − E[Y ]) with the slope β defined by equation

2
(1.1). The corresponding conditional-variance function is vX|Y
(y) = (1 − ρ2 )Var[X], where

7

ρ = Corr[X, Y ] is the correlation coefficient. With the notation C = Cov[X, Y ], we have
2
vX|Y
(y) = (1 − ρ2 )C 2 /(Dρ2 ) and thus

Υ21

=



 2 Z 1
2
C
w(t) − z0 Φ−1 (t)
1
−1
− √
dt,
ρ2
D 0
B
D

(2.6)

where Φ is the standard normal cdf. Since gX|Y (y) is linear and βG = β, we have Υ22 = 0.
b n −∆) is N (0, Υ2 ).
Consequently, Theorem 2.3 says that the asymptotic distribution of n1/2 (∆
1

To construct an empirical estimator for Υ21 when it is given by formula (2.6) is not a

complex task, as we only need to estimate ρ, B, C, D, and z0 , which are fairly straightforward

tasks. However, Theorem 2.3 is not about the bivariate normal distribution – it is about
estimating ∆ when no specific bivariate distribution is assumed. Hence, we need to know the
critical values upon which confidence intervals and hypothesis tests would be based, and this
requires empirical estimators for Υ21 and Υ22 defined by equations (2.4) and (2.5). Though
doable with the help of L-statistics, it turns out to be a messy task. This prompts us to think
of another method for estimating the critical values, and bootstrap is an attractive option
(e.g., Chernick and LaBudde, 2011; and references therein). It is well known, however,
that bootstrap may not always work (e.g., Athreya, 1987; Bickel et al, 1997; Hall, 1992;
Mammen, 1992), but when the underlying asymptotic normality is established (e.g., Hall,
1992; Mammen, 1992), the bootstrap does work. This reveals the value of Theorem 2.3 even
when its direct use for producing statistical inference has been circumvented by bootstrap,
either naive or more advanced, like for example “m out of n” as in Bickel et al. (1997); see
also Gribkova and Helmers (2007, 2011), and references therein.
We conclude this section with the note that the function gX|Y ◦ FY−1 (t) is known in

the literature as the quantile-regression function, which also gives rise to the cumulative
Ru
quantile-regression function 0 gX|Y ◦ FY−1 (t)dt. Estimation of these functions in the context

of empirical processes was initiated by Rao and Zhao (1995), and then taken over by Tse
(2009), who in a series of papers has developed a wide-ranging statistical inference theory. We
refer to Tse (2015) for details and further references on the topic. The quantile conditional2
variance function vX|Y
◦ FY−1 (t) also plays a prominent role in the aforementioned works, as

it does in the present paper as well.

3

Proofs

In this section we prove all the three theorems formulated above.

8

3.1

Proof of Theorem 2.1

a.s.
Due to the assumed finiteness of moments, we have βbn → β when n → ∞, and so the

theorem follows provided that

a.s.

z 0 → z0 := E[w ◦ FY (Y )],

(3.1)

n

1X
a.s.
Yk w ◦ FbY (Yk ) → E[Y w ◦ FY (Y )],
n k=1

(3.2)

n

1X
a.s.
Xk w ◦ FbY (Yk ) → E[Xw ◦ FY (Y )].
n k=1

(3.3)

Note that all the expectations on the right-hand sides of the above three statements are
finite because the weight function w is bounded and the moments E[X] and E[Y ] are finite.
In order to prove statement (3.1), we write
n

n


1X
1X
z0 =
w ◦ FbY (Yk ) − w ◦ FY (Yk ) .
w ◦ FY (Yk ) +
n k=1
n k=1

(3.4)

The first average on the right-hand side of equation (3.4) converges to z0 almost surely by
the classical strong law of large numbers, and the absolute value of the second average does
not exceed supy∈R |w ◦ FbY (y) − w ◦ FY (y)|, which converges to zero almost surely because
of the uniform continuity of w (since it is continuous on the compact interval [0, 1]) and the
classical Glivenko-Cantelli Theorem. This establishes statement (3.1).
To prove statement (3.2), we write
n

n

n


1X
1X
1X
Yk w ◦ FbY (Yk ) =
Yk w ◦ FY (Yk ) +
Yk w ◦ FbY (Yk ) − w ◦ FY (Yk ) .
n k=1
n k=1
n k=1

(3.5)

By the strong law of large numbers, the first average on the right-hand side of equation (3.5)
converges to E[Y w ◦ FY (Y )] almost surely. We are left to show that the second average

converges to 0 almost surely. To this end, we estimate its absolute value from above by

 X
n
1
(3.6)
|Yk | sup w ◦ FbY (y) − w ◦ FY (y) .
n k=1
y∈R
By the classical strong law of large numbers, n−1

Pn

k=1

|Yk | converges almost surely to E[|Y |],

which is finite. As already noted above, the supremum on the right-hand side of bound (3.6)
converges to 0 almost surely. All these facts establish statement (3.2). The proof of statement
(3.3) is virtually identical and thus omitted. Theorem 2.1 follows.
9

3.2

Proof of Theorem 2.2

We reduced the proof of Theorem 2.1 to verifying statements (3.1)–(3.3). Now we do exactly
the same but instead of proving the three statements almost surely, we prove them ‘in
probability.’ Note at the outset that since FY is continuous, we can replace FbY (Yk:n ) by
k/(n + 1) and thus both βbG,n and z 0 are the same as in equation (2.3). The proof of
R1
statement (3.1) is simple: since w is integrable, z 0 converges to 0 wdλ when n → ∞, and

the latter integral is equal to E[w ◦ FY (Y )], which is z0 . Statement (3.1) follows.

To prove statement (3.2), we note that the quantity on the left-hand side is equal to
P
n−1 nk=1 Yk:nwk,n almost surely. Since E[Y 2 ] is finite, we have FY−1 ∈ L2 , and we also have

w ∈ L2 because w 2 ∈ Lq for some q ≥ 1. Hence, statement (3.2) follows from the strong law
of large numbers for L-statistics (van Zwet, 1980).

To prove the in-probability version of statement (3.3), we write
n

1
1
1X
X[k:n]wk,n = Tn,1 + Tn,2 ,
n k=1
n
n
where

n
X

Tn,1 =

gX|Y (Yk:n )wk,n

k=1

and
Tn,2 =

n
X
k=1


X[k:n] − gX|Y (Yk:n ) wk,n .

We have E[(E[X 2 | Y ])p ] < ∞ for some p ≥ 1, and thus gX|Y ◦ FY−1 ∈ L2 . This allows us to
use the strong law of large numbers for L-statistics (van Zwet, 1980; Corollary 2.1), which

implies
1
a.s.
Tn,1 →
n

Z

0

1

gX|Y ◦ FY−1 wdλ,

where the integral on the right-hand side is equal to E[Xw ◦ FY (Y )]. Hence, statement (3.3)
P

follows if n−1 Tn,2 → 0 when n → ∞, which means that, for every ε > 0,

P |Tn,2 | > nε → 0.

(3.7)

To prove this statement, we recall (Bhattacharya, 1974) that the induced order statistics
X[1:n] , . . . , X[n:n] are conditionally independent, given Y1:n , . . . , Yn:n , and follow the conditional cdf’s F (x | Y1:n ), . . . , F (x | Yn:n ), respectively, where F (x | y) = P[X ≤ x|Y = y]. An

10

application of Markov’s inequality yields
  X
n



X[k:n] − gX|Y (Yk:n ) wk,n > nε Y1 , . . . , Yn
P |Tn,2 | > nε = E P
1
≤ 2 2
nε
=

1
n2 ε2

k=1
n
X h

k=1
n
X
k=1

h

E E X[k:n] − gX|Y (Yk:n )

 2
 2
E vX|Y
(Yk:n ) wk,n
.

2

ii
2
Y1 , . . . , Yn wk,n

(3.8)

Next we apply Hölder’s inequality on the right-hand side of bound (3.8) and obtain
1/q
  n
 n
p 1/p 1 X

1 1 X  2
2q
E vX|Y (Yk:n )
|wk,n |
P |Tn,2 | > nε ≤ 2
nε n k=1
n k=1
 n
1/q
  n
 1/p 1 X
1 1 X  2p
2q
≤ 2
E vX|Y (Yk:n )
|wk,n|
nε n
n
k=1
k=1
1/q
1/p  X
 X
n
n
 2p

1
1 1
2q
−1
E vX|Y ◦ FY (Uk )
|wk,n |
,
= 2
nε n k=1
n k=1

(3.9)

where U1 , . . . , Un are independent (0, 1)-uniform random variables. By the classical law of
R 1 2p
large number, the first sum on the right-hand side of equation (3.9) convergence to 0 vX|Y
◦
R1
−1
2q
FY (t) dt, whereas the second sum converges to 0 |w(t)| dt. Both integrals are finite by
assumption, and thus statement (3.7) follows. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.2. 

3.3

Proof of Theorem 2.3

The proof of Theorem 2.3 is involved, and we thus carry it out in several steps. First we
b n − ∆) we can restrict ourselves to
show that when deriving the limit distribution of n1/2 (∆

zero-centered variables. This considerably simplifies our following considerations.
3.3.1

From general to centered rv’s

The centered versions of the random variables X and Y are ξ = X −E[X] and η = Y −E[Y ],

respectively, and the centered version of the weight function w is w0 (t) = w(t) − z0 with
z0 = E[w ◦ FY (Y )]. Note that FY (Y ) is equal to Fη (η) and hence
∆=

E[ξw0 ◦ Fη (η)] E[ξη]
−
.
E[ηw0 ◦ Fη (η)] E[η 2]

Next, let ξk = Xk − E[X] and ηk = Xk − E[Y ]. With Fbη (y) = (n + 1)−1

define

e n = βeG,n − βen ,
∆
11

Pn

k=1 1{ηk

≤ y},

where

and

Pn

ξk w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk )
βeG,n = Pnk=1
b
k=1 ηk w0 ◦ Fη (ηk )
Pn
ξk ηk
.
βen = Pk=1
n
2
k=1 ηk

b n − ∆) is the same
The following theorem implies that the asymptotic distribution of n1/2 (∆
e n − ∆), whose asymptotic normality will be established in Section 3.3.2
as that of n1/2 (∆

below.

Theorem 3.1. Suppose that either 1) the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are satisfied or 2) the
conditions of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied and the function w is Lipschitz on the interval [0, 1].
Then, when n → ∞, we have
n1/2 (βbn − βen ) = oP (1),

(3.10)

n1/2 (βbG,n − βeG,n ) = oP (1),

(3.11)

b n − ∆) = n1/2 (∆
e n − ∆) + oP (1).
and thus n1/2 (∆

Proof. To prove statement (3.10), we start with the equations
Pn
(ξk − (X − E[X]))(ηk − (Y − E[Y ]))
βbn = k=1 Pn
2
k=1 (ηk − (Y − E[Y ]))
P
n−1 nk=1 ξk ηk − (X − E[X])(Y − E[Y ])
=
P
n−1 nk=1 ηk2 − (Y − E[Y ])2
βen − Rn,1
=
,
1 − Rn,2
where

Rn,1 =
and

(3.12)

(X − E[X])(Y − E[Y ])
P
n−1 nk=1 ηk2

Rn,2 =

(Y − E[Y ])2
P
.
n−1 nk=1 ηk2

a.s.

Since E[X] is finite, the strong law of large numbers implies X → E[X] when n → ∞.
P
a.s.
Furthermore, since the second moment E[Y 2 ] is finite, we have n−1 nk=1 ηk2 → Var[Y ]. The

classical central limit theorem implies n1/2 (Y − E[Y ]) = OP (1). Hence, both Rn,1 and Rn,2
are of the order oP (n−1/2 ) when n → ∞, and so equation (3.12) implies statement (3.10).

12

We now prove statement (3.11). For this, we first note that FbY (Yk ) is equal to Fbη (ηk )
and w ◦ FbY (Yk ) − z 0 is equal to w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk ) − (z 0 − z0 ). Hence,
Pn
(ξk − (X − E[X]))(w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk )) − (z 0 − z0 ))
βbG,n = Pk=1
n
b
k=1 (ηk − (Y − E[Y ]))(w0 ◦ Fη (ηk )) − (z 0 − z0 ))
P
n−1 nk=1 ξk w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk )) − (X − E[X])(z 0 − z0 )
,
=
P
n−1 nk=1 ηk w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk )) − (Y − E[Y ])(z 0 − z0 )
and so we have the equation

βeG,n − Rn,3
βbG,n =
1 − Rn,4

where

Rn,3 =
and

(3.13)

(X − E[X])(z 0 − z0 )
P
n−1 nk=1 ηk w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk )

(Y − E[Y ])(z 0 − z0 )
.
Pn
b
k=1 ηk w0 ◦ Fη (ηk )
Equation (3.13) implies statement (3.11) provided that both Rn,3 and Rn,4 are of the order
Rn,4 =

n−1

oP (n−1/2 ), which we prove next. Statement Rn,4 = oP (n−1/2 ) follows from the following three
facts:
• Y − E[Y ] = OP (n−1/2 ), which holds by the central limit theorem;
a.s.

• z 0 − z0 → 0, which we already proved under the conditions of either Theorem 2.1 or
Theorem 2.2 (or both);

• n−1

Pn

k=1

a.s.
ηk w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk ) → Cov[Y, w ◦ FY (Y )] 6= 0, which holds due to statements (3.1)

and (3.2), which we already established under the conditions of either Theorem 2.1 or
Theorem 2.2 (or both).

The rest of the proof concerns Rn,3 . When the conditions of Theorem 2.2 are satisfied, in
which case the second moment E[X 2 ] is finite, the central limit theorem implies X − E[X] =
OP (n−1/2 ) and thus Rn,3 = oP (n−1/2 ) in an analogous way as that for Rn,4 . Suppose now

that the conditions of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied, in which case we only have the finiteness
of the first moment E[X], which does not allow us to use the central limit theorem for
a.s.

X; we can only use X − E[X] → 0 when n → ∞. However, we can now rely on the
additional assumption that the weight function w is Lipschitz on [0, 1], and so to establish

Rn,3 = oP (n−1/2 ), we need to show z 0 − z0 = OP (n−1/2 ), whose proof we start with the

equation

n

z 0 − z0 =

n

 1X

1X
w ◦ FY (Yk ) − z0 +
w ◦ FbY (Yk ) − w ◦ FY (Yk ) .
n k=1
n k=1
13

(3.14)

Since w is bounded, the first average on the right-hand side of equation (3.14) is of the order
OP (n−1/2 ) due to the classical central limit theorem. For the second average to be of the
same order, we use the assumption that w is Lipschitz on [0, 1] and write the bounds
n
n

1X b
1 X
b
w ◦ FY (Yk ) − w ◦ FY (Yk ) ≤ c
FY (Yk ) − FY (Yk )
n k=1
n k=1

≤ c sup FbY (y) − FY (y) .

(3.15)

y∈R

The supremum on the right-hand side of equation (3.14), usually called the Kolmogorov
statistic and denoted by Dn , is of the order OP (n−1/2 ). This completes the proof of statement (3.11) and thus establishes Theorem 3.1.
3.3.2

Asymptotic normality in the case of centered rv’s

Let ξ and η be two arbitrary random variables such that E[ξ] = 0 and E[η] = 0, and let w0
be a function such that E[w0 ◦ Fη (η)] = 0. (As special cases, we may think of ξ, η and w0 as

those introduced in Section 3.3.1.) The counterpart of ∆ within the current context is
δ=

a c
− ,
b d

where a = E[ξw0 ◦ Fη (η)], b = E[ηw0 ◦ Fη (η)], c = E[ξη], and d = E[η 2 ]. Hence, in the

context of the present section, the weighted-Gini beta is βG = a/b and the classical beta is

β = c/d. The empirical estimator of δ is
an
cn
− ,
bn
dn
P
P
P
where an = n−1 nk=1 ξk w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk ), bn = n−1 nk=1 ηk w0 ◦ Fbη (ηk ), cn = n−1 nk=1 ξk ηk , and
P
dn = n−1 nk=1 ηk2 . Following our earlier notation, we now work with the conditional-mean
δn =

2
function gξ|η (y) = E[ξ | η = y] and the conditional-variance function vξ|η
(y) = Var[ξ |

η = y]. Furthermore, η1:n , . . . , ηn:n denote the (ascending) order statistics of η1 , . . . , ηn , and
ξ[1:n] , . . . , ξ[n:n] are the corresponding induced order statistics. Our next theorem establishes
asymptotic normality of n1/2 (δn − δ).

Theorem 3.2. Let the cdf Fη be continuous, and let the function w0 be continuously differentiable except possibly at a finite number of points at which Fη−1 and gξ|η ◦ Fη−1 must

be continuous. Furthermore, assume that there is b ∈ [0, 1) such that the following three

assumptions hold:

14

(i) there is c < ∞ such that, for all t ∈ (0, 1) where w0′ (t) exists,
−b/2
|w0 (t)|, t(1 − t)|w0′ (t)| ≤ c t(1 − t)
;

(ii) the moment E[|η|r1 ] is finite for some r1 > r := max{4, 2/(1 − b)};
(iii) there are ǫ > 0 and c < ∞ such that, for all t ∈ (0, 1),
−2/r+ǫ
2
vξ|η
◦ Fη−1 (t) ≤ c t(1 − t)
,
where we have 2/r = min{1/2, 1 − b}.

Then, when n → ∞,

law

n1/2 (δn − δ) → N (0, σ12 + σ22 ),

where
σ12
and
σ22

1
= 2
b

Z

0

1

Z

0

1

=

Z

1
0

2
vξ|η

◦

Fη−1 (t)



w0 (t) Fη−1 (t)
−
b
d

2

dt

(3.16)


w0 (s)w0 (t) min(s, t) − st dh1 (s) dh1 (t)
Z Z

2 1 1
w0 (s) min(s, t) − st dh1 (s) dh2 (t)
−
bd 0 0
Z Z

1 1 1
+ 2
min(s, t) − st dh2 (s) dh2 (t) (3.17)
d 0 0

with the functions

h1 (t) = gξ|η ◦ Fη−1 (t) − βG Fη−1 (t)
and


h2 (t) = gξ|η ◦ Fη−1 (t) − βFη−1(t) Fη−1 (t).

Proof. We start with the representation


an a cn
c
1/2
1/2
n (δn − δ) = n
− −
+
bn
b dn d
 



1
bn
dn
1
1/2
=n
an − a −
cn − c
.
bn
b
dn
d
P

P

Consequently, since bn → b and dn → d when n → ∞, the asymptotic distribution of

n1/2 (δn − δ) is the same as that of



 
bn
dn
1
1
1/2
an − a −
cn − c
Ln :=n
b
b
d
d




1
1
1/2
=n
an − βG bn − cn − βdn .
b
d
15

(3.18)

Hence, we next prove that the asymptotic distribution of Ln is N (0, σ12 + σ22 ) and in this way
complete the proof of Theorem 3.2.

Since the cdf Fη is continuous, w0 (Fbη (ηk:n )) is equal to w0,k,n := w0 (k/(n + 1)), and so
!
n
n


1 X
1 X
law 1
2
ξ[k:n] − βG ηk:n w0,k,n −
ξ[k:n]ηk:n − β ηk:n
Ln = 1/2
n
b k=1
d k=1
= Wn + Tn ,

where

and


n
 1
1 X
1
Wn = 1/2
ξ[k:n] − gξ|η (ηk:n )
w0,k,n − ηk:n
n k=1
b
d

(3.19)



n 
1
1
1 X 1
1 2
gξ|η (ηk:n ) w0,k,n − ηk:n − 1/2
βG ηk:n w0,k,n − βηk:n
Tn = 1/2
n k=1
b
d
n k=1 b
d

n 


 1
1 X 1
= 1/2
(3.20)
w0,k,n gξ|η (ηk:n ) − βG ηk:n − gξ|η (ηk:n ) − βηk:n ηk:n .
n
b
d
n
1 X



k=1

Consequently, we need to show that, when n → ∞, the random sum Wn +Tn is asymptotically

N (0, σ12 + σ22 ), and we rely on Yang (1981) when establishing this result. Namely, we first
show (Lemma 3.2 in Section 3.3.3 below) that the distribution of Wn conditioned on η n

tends to N (0, σ12) for almost all sequences (ηm )m≥1 , and the limiting distribution does not

depend on the sequence (ηm )m≥1 . Then we prove (Lemma 3.3 in Section 3.3.3 below) that Tn

is asymptotically N (0, σ22). Given these two results, we use the following lemma to conclude
that the joint distribution of (Wn , Tn ) converges to the product of the two aforementioned

normal distributions. As a special case of this joint convergence of (Wn , Tn ), we conclude
that Wn + Tn is asymptotically N (0, σ12 + σ22 ), as claimed above. This finishes the proof of

Theorem 3.2

Lemma 3.1 (Yang, 1981). Let (ξ1 , η1 ), (ξ2 , η2 ), . . . be a sequence of random pairs and, for
every n ≥ 1, the first n pairs (ξ1 , η1 ), . . . , (ξn , ηn ) possess a joint distribution. Denote ζ n =

((ξ1 , η1 ), . . . , (ξn , ηn )) and η n = (η1 , . . . , ηn ), and let Wn (ζ n ) and Tn (η n ) be measurable

vector-valued functions of ζ n and η n , respectively. Suppose that the asymptotic distribution
of Tn is FT , and the conditional distribution of Wn given η n is FW , which is assumed not
to depend on the ηk ’s. Then the asymptotic distribution of (Wn , Tn ) is the product FW FT .
3.3.3

Two auxiliary lemmas

In this section we deal with Wn defined by equation (3.19) and also with Tn defined by
equation (3.20).
16

Lemma 3.2. The distribution of Wn conditioned on η n converges to N (0, σ12) for almost all
sequences (ηm )m≥1 , and the limiting distribution does not depend on the sequence (ηm )m≥1 .

Proof. Using Bhattacharya’s (1974) result already utilized in the proof of Theorem 2.2, we
have E[Wn | η n ] = 0 with the conditional variance Vn2 := Var[Wn | η n ] expressed by

2
n
1
1
1X 2
2
v (ηk:n ) w0,k,n − ηk:n .
Vn =
n k=1 ξ|η
b
d
Lindeberg’s normal-convergence criterion implies that, when n → ∞, the conditional distribution of Wn /Vn is asymptotically N (0, 1) if, for every ε > 0 and when n → ∞,
2
n 
1 X 1
1
w0,k,n − ηk:n hθk,n (ηk:n ) → 0
nVn2 k=1 b
d

for almost all realizations of the sequence (ηm )m≥1 , where
Z
hθk,n (y) = (x − gξ|η (y))21{|x − gξ|η (y)| ≥ θk,n }dF (x | y)
with the notation
θk,n = εn1/2 Vn /

(3.21)

(3.22)

1
1
w0,k,n − ηk:n .
b
d

Under conditions (i)–(iii), the strong law of large numbers for L-statistics (van Zwet, 1980)
implies
a.s.
Vn2 →

Z

1

0

2
vξ|η

◦

Fη−1 (t)



1
1
w0 (t) − Fη−1 (t)
b
d

2

dt.

(3.23)
a.s.

Note that the integral on the right-hand side is equal to σ12 . To verify θk,n → ∞, we write

the bounds

θk,n




1
1
≥ εn Vn /
max |w0,k,n | +
max |ηk |
b k=1,...,n
d k=1,...,n
!

−b/2
k(n − k + 1)
1
c
max
max |ηk |
+
≥ εn1/2 Vn /
2
k=1,...,n
b
(n + 1)
d k=1,...,n


c
1
1/2
b/2
= εn Vn /
(n + 1) +
max |ηk | ,
b
d k=1,...,n
1/2

where we used assumption (i). Since b < 1, we have b/2 < 1/2. Furthermore, since there are
a.s.

a.s.

at least two finite moments of η, we have maxk=1,...,n |ηk |/n1/2 → 0. Consequently, θk,n → ∞
as required. Applying the strong law of large numbers for L-statistics (van Zwet, 1980), we

have, for every K > 0 and when n → ∞,
2
2
Z 1
n 
1
1 −1
1
1X 1
a.s.
w0,k,n − ηk:n hK (ηk:n ) →
w0 (t) − Fη (t) hK ◦ Fη−1 (t) dt.
n k=1 b
d
b
d
0
17

The function hK (y) is defined by equation (3.22), but now with K instead of θk,n . The just
established statement together with statement (3.23) verify Lindeberg’s criterion for almost
all realizations of the sequence (ηm )m≥1 and hence the conditional distribution of Wn /Vn
given η n converges to N (0, 1) almost surely. This concludes the proof of Lemma 3.2.
Lemma 3.3. The distribution of Tn converges to N (0, σ22 ) when n → ∞.
Proof. We use the approach of Shorack (1972) to tackle Tn . Namely, let U1 , U2 , . . . be a
sequence of independent (0, 1)-uniformly distributed random variables, and let U1:n , . . . , Un:n ,
denote the order statistics based on the first n members of the sequence. Then we have
1
1
Tn,1 − Tn,2 ,
b
d

law

Tn =
where
Tn,1 =
and

n
1 X

n1/2

Tn,2 =

w0,k,n h1 (Uk:n )

k=1

n
1 X

n1/2

h2 (Uk:n ).

k=1

Note that E[w0 (U)h1 (U)] = 0 and E[h2 (U)] = 0 with U denoting the (0, 1)-uniformly disa.s.

tributed random variable. Hence, by the strong law of large numbers, we have n−1/2 Tn,1 → 0
a.s.

and n−1/2 Tn,2 → 0 when n → ∞. We next prove that the asymptotic distribution of
Tn − n1/2 µn /b is N (0, σ22), where

µn :=

Z

1

wn (t)h1 (t) dt

0

with wn (t) = w0,k,n for all t ∈ ((k − 1)/n, k/n] and every 1 ≤ k ≤ n, and wn (t) = w0,1,n when

t = 0.

Let B be the special Brownian bridge that appears in Shorack (1972), defined on a

special probability space; the change of probability spaces does not affect the current proof.
Imitating the form of Tn , we define S by the equation
1
1
S = S1 − S2 ,
b
d
R1
R1
where S1 = 0 w0 (t)B(t) dh1 (t) and S2 = 0 B(t) dh2 (t). Next we write the equation


 1

n1/2
1
1/2
Tn −
(Tn,1 − n µn ) − S1 − Tn,2 − S2 .
µn − S =
b
b
d

Repeating the arguments of Shorack (1972), both (Tn,1 − n1/2 µn ) − S1 and Tn,2 − S2 converge

to 0 in probability. Hence, the asymptotic distribution of Tn − n1/2 µn /b must be N (0, σ22 )
18

because the distribution of S is N (0, σ22). We conclude our considerations with the note
that, due to assumption (i) on the derivative w0′ , the quantity µn in Tn − n1/2 µn /b can (cf.
R1
Shorack, 1972, p. 416) be replaced by 0 w0 (t)h1 (t) dt, which is equal to 0.

Hence, in summary, the asymptotic distribution of Tn is N (0, σ22), and this concludes the

proof of Lemma 3.3.

4

Summary

In this paper we have developed an asymptotic theory that enables to statistically assess
the magnitude of the difference ∆ between the classical and weighted-Gini betas. The
former beta has played a pivotal role in the construction of financial portfolios for several
decades, whereas the latter beta has recently arisen in the context of insurance portfolios
and risk-capital allocations. Specifically, in this paper we have constructed an estimator for
∆ and derived its consistency and asymptotic normality, which can be used for constructing
confidence intervals for, and hypothesis tests about, the difference ∆.

Acknowledgement
Research of the second author has been supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada.

References
Athreya, K.B. (1987). Bootstrap of the mean in the infinite variance case. Annals of
Statistics, 15, 724–731.
Bhattacharya, P.K. (1974). Convergence of sample paths of normalized sum of induced order
statistics. Annals of Statistics, 2, 1034–1039.
Bickel, P.J., Götze, F. and van Zwet, W.R. (1997). Resampling fewer than n observations:
gains, losses, and remedies for losses. Statistica Sinica, 7, 1–31.
Brahimi, B., Meraghni, D., Necir, A. and Zitikis, R. (2011). Estimating the distortion parameter of the proportional-hazard premium for heavy-tailed losses. Insurance: Mathematics
and Economics, 49, 325–334.
Chernick, M.R. and LaBudde, R.A. (2011). An Introduction to Bootstrap Methods with
Applications to R. Wiley, New York.
19

Donaldson, D. and Weymark, J.A. (1980). A single-parameter generalization of the Gini
indices of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 22, 67–86.
Furman, E. and Zitikis, R. (2008). Weighted risk capital allocations. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 43, 263-269.
Furman, E. and Zitikis, R. (2009). Weighted pricing functionals with application to insurance: an overview. North American Actuarial Journal, 13, 483–496.
Furman, E. and Zitikis, R. (2010). General Stein-type covariance decompositions with applications to insurance and finance. ASTIN Bulletin, 40, 369–375.
Furman, E. and Zitikis, R. (2017). Beyond the Pearson correlation: heavy-tailed risks,
weighted Gini correlations, and a Gini-type weighted insurance pricing model. ASTIN
Bulletin, 47, 919–942.
Gribkova, N.V. and Helmers, R. (2007). On the Edgeworth expansion and the M out
of N bootstrap accuracy for a Studentized trimmed mean. Mathematical Methods of
Statistics, 16, 142–176.
Gribkova, N.V. and Helmers, R. (2011). On the consistency of the M ≪ N bootstrap
approximation for a trimmed mean. Theory of Probability and Its Applications, 55,
42–53.
Hall, P. (1992). The Bootstrap and Edgeworth Expansion. Springer, New York.
Jones, B.L. and Zitikis, R. (2007). Risk measures, distortion parameters, and their empirical
estimation. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 41, 279–297.
Kakwani, N.C. (1980). Income Inequality and Poverty: Methods of Estimation and Policy
Applications. Oxford University Press, New York.
Levy, H. (2010). The CAPM is alive and well: a review and synthesis. European Financial
Management, 16, 43–71.
Levy, H. (2011). The Capital Asset Pricing Model in the 21st Century: Analytical, Empirical, and Behavioral Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McNeil, A.J., Frey, R. and Embrechts, P. (2015). Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts,
Techniques and Tools. (Revised Edition.) Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Mammen, E. (1992). When Does Bootstrap Work? Asymptotic Results and Simulations.
Springer, New York.
Necir, A. and Meraghni, D. (2009). Empirical estimation of the proportional hazard premium
for heavy-tailed claim amounts. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 45, 49–58.
Necir, A., Meraghni, D., Meddi, F. (2007). Statistical estimate of the proportional hazard
premium of loss. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2007, 147–161.
20

Petrov, V.V. (1975). Sums of Independent Random Variables. Springer, New York.
Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized Expected Utility Theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Rao, C.R. and Zhao, L.C. (1995). Convergence theorems for empirical cumulative quantile
regression function. Mathematical Methods of Statistics, 4, 81–91.
Sandström, A. (2010). Handbook of Solvency for Actuaries and Risk Managers: Theory and
Practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Sawyer, N. (2012). Basel III: Addressing the Challenges of Regulatory Reform. Risk Books,
London.
Shorack, G.R. (1972). Functions of order statistics. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 43,
412–427.
Su, J. (2016). Multiple Risk Factors Dependence Structures with Applications to Actuarial
Risk Management. Ph.D. Thesis, York University, Ontario, Canada.
Su, J. and Furman, E. (2017). A form of multivariate Pareto distribution with applications
to financial risk measurement. ASTIN Bulletin, 47, 331–357.
Tse, S.M. (2009). On the cumulative quantile regression process. Mathematical Methods of
Statistics, 18, 270–279.
Tse, S.M. (2015). The cumulative quantile regression function with censored and truncated
response. Mathematical Methods of Statistics, 24, 147–155.
van Zwet, W.R. (1980). A strong law for linear functions of order statistics. Annals of
Probability, 8, 986–990.
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Wang, S. (1995). Insurance pricing and increased limits ratemaking by proportional hazards
transforms. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 17, 43–54.
Yang, S.S. (1981). Linear combinations of concomitants of order statistics with application to
testing and estimation. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 33, 463–470.
Zitikis, R. and Gastwirth, J.L. (2002). Asymptotic distribution of the S-Gini index. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 44, 439–446.

21

