Value at risk (VaR) is a market risk measure widely used by risk managers and market regulatory authorities, and various methods are proposed in the literature for its estimation. However, limited studies discuss its distribution or its confidence intervals. The purpose of this paper is to compare different techniques for computing such intervals to identify the scenarios under which such confidence interval techniques perform properly. Design/methodology/approach - The methods that are included in the comparison are based on asymptotic normality, extreme value theory and subsample bootstrap. The evaluation is done by computing the coverage rates for each method through Monte Carlo simulations under certain scenarios. The scenarios consider different persistence degrees in mean and variance, sample sizes, VaR probabiliTY levels, confidence levels of the intervals and distributions of the standardized errors. Additionally, an empirical application for the stock market index returns of G7 countries is presented. Findings - The simulation exercises show that the methods that were considered in the study are only valid for high quantiles. In particular, in terms of coverage rates, there is a good performance for VaR(99 per cent) and bad performance for VaR(95 per cent) and VaR(90 per cent). The results are confirmed by an empirical application for the stock market index returns of G7 countries. Practical implications - The findings of the study suggest that the methods that were considered to estimate VaR confidence interval are appropriated when considering high quantiles such as VaR(99 per cent). However, using these methods for smaller quantiles, such as VaR(95 per cent) and VaR(90 per cent), is not recommended. Originality/value - This study is the first one, as far as it is known, to identify the scenarios under which the methods for estimating the VaR confidence intervals perform properly. The findings are supported by simulation and empirical exercises.
