Portfolio Stress: how Neo measures book-level tail risk
When you ask Neo to stress your whole book, it answers one question: in a stressed regime, how large is the book's downside, and which position drives it? It returns a single stressed Expected Shortfall for the book, and a breakdown of that number into per-position contributions that sum to 100%.
This page is the model card. It explains the model and, just as importantly, why it is built the way it is.
Why not a Gaussian copula
The obvious way to couple several positions is a Gaussian copula. Neo does not use it, on purpose.
A Gaussian copula has zero tail dependence for any correlation below one: it treats joint extremes as effectively independent — precisely when they are not. This is the property behind the Gaussian copula's role in the 2008 crisis ("The Formula That Killed Wall Street", Salmon, Wired, 2009): it priced correlated defaults as if catastrophes did not cluster.
DeFi collateral returns do the opposite of independent in a crisis. Depegs, liquid-staking-token slashing, and liquidation cascades are fat-tailed and they co-occur. A portfolio tail-risk model has to carry tail dependence, or it understates exactly the scenario the report exists to describe.
The model, in plain terms
Neo builds the book's stressed loss from two pieces, kept honest separately:
Heavy-tailed marginals
Each position gets a heavy-tailed loss distribution anchored to the risk engine's precomputed Expected Shortfall for that pool. The engine's figure sets the level of the loss; a heavy-tailed (Generalized-Pareto) shape restores the tail beyond that anchor, so the model stays fat-tailed where a thin bell would understate the extreme.
A Student-t copula for dependence
The positions are coupled with a Student-t copula, which has positive tail dependence — it models positions co-crashing together. As its degrees of freedom rise it collapses to the Gaussian case, so nothing is lost by choosing it: the thin-tailed model is just the limit of the family Neo uses. Neo reports the average pairwise tail-dependence as a headline number: how strongly your positions co-crash.
Dependence estimated robustly
The dependence structure is estimated from Kendall's tau — a rank-based concordance measure — rather than Pearson correlation. Pearson assumes a finite variance and a characteristic scale, both unreliable for power-law collateral returns, where a zero correlation is not independence. Kendall's tau depends only on the dependence structure and needs no finite second moment.
What you get back
- A single stressed Expected Shortfall for the book — the average loss in the tail set of simulated outcomes.
- Per-position contributions that sum to 100% — each position's share of the book's tail loss, computed as an Euler allocation (the unique additive attribution of a coherent risk measure). This tells you which position drives the tail, not just how big the tail is.
The simulation is seeded and reproducible: the same book and snapshot produce the same numbers.
How to read it
- The headline ES is a modeled stress index, not a probability or a forecast.
- The contribution breakdown is the actionable part: it ranks your positions by how much they drive the book's downside, which is often not the same ranking as position size.
- Real extremes can exceed the modeled tail. The model is built to be honest about fat tails, not to promise a ceiling.
For single-pool reviews, see Risk Review Methodology (D1–D8).