PurposeThe specific criteria to the microstructure of emerging markets such as low liquidity, very pronounced asymmetric information, and high volatility affect the risk market. Previous researchers have concluded that the calculation methods of the Value‐at‐Risk (VaR) adopted in developed markets are poorly adapted to the specific structure of emerging markets. The purpose of this paper is to see what these specific criteria of emerging markets are and whether these criteria have any impact on market risk and hedging capital. A second purpose it to see if practitioners should adjust the tools of risk measurement to the specifications of emerging markets and how the Value‐at‐Risk (VaR) should be adjusted.Design/methodology/approachThe paper asks what are the specific criteria to the microstructure of emerging markets? Should we adjust the tools of risk measurement to these specifications? How do we adjust the Value‐at‐Risk (VaR)?FindingsThe paper demonstrated a market improvement in the performance of adjusted VaR. Indeed, models for measuring the VaR adjusted to liquidity and to asymmetry of information are accepted by the tests of backtesting. The term of average error has decreased.Practical implicationsThis improvement of adjusted VaR in the performance of measuring risk implies a better estimation of the capital allocated to cover market risk.Originality/valueThe results from this empirical study offer an alternative approach adapted to the specific structure of emerging markets and a better estimation of the capital allocated to cover market risk.

No abstract

No abstract

In the current energy shortage and transition context, gas represents an alternative to provide an affordable, reliable and less GHG emissions issuing energy than other available fossil energies. Flow Assurance studies have been launched for a series of gas fields to identify optimal subsea processing functional requirements for a subsea to shore export. The objective is to confirm the robustness of subsea processing architectures identified in previous studies and to evaluate their sensibility towards water depth, step-out, fluid composition and bathymetry. First, real gas fields were selected, the portfolio was completed with notional cases constructed on analogs to reach a good mapping in depth and distance to shore. For each case, bathymetries and PVT models were established. Ledaflow® was used to construct flow models and define the necessary pipeline size based on early and late life flowrates (based upon Erosion Velocity Ratio, Turn down and hydrate risk). When the multiphase export required several pipelines in parallel, an alternative architecture was studied consisting of multiphase pipeline at early life and then gas/liquid separation plus single phases export (separated gas pipeline and liquid pipeline) for late life. Compression and boosting requirement were evaluated. More than one configuration is technically possible. The solution of "multiple multiphase export pipelines" is usually in competition with a "single multiphase pipeline at early life coupled with a subsea separation at late life". The first configuration favors operational flexibility, while the second one favors reduced installation time and cost and allows decreasing the well head back pressure to increase reserves. However, this last solution still requires the installation of a liquid line at late life. Regarding boosting requirements, each configuration has compression needs at late life. The first architecture allows to optimize the compression requirements and increase the process efficiency, while the second one present the drawback of high boosting requirements for the liquid line for great depth and longer step out. For the multiphase export, and a field with very low CGR, the governing parameter for the pressure loss and the compression requirements is the step-out, not the water depth, while, for the subsea separation scheme, the water depth becomes detrimental for the boosting requirements of the liquid line for the great water depths. This large study confirms the feasibility of subsea to shore architectures for gas fields and allows identifying the limitations of the existing technologies and anticipating future technological developments.

In this chapter we are interested in the impact of specific microstructure criteria of emerging markets in the financing of SMEs especially in risk measures. The main risk measurement tool is the Value-at-Risk (VaR) which is recommanded by the Basel II Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The recommendations of the Basel II committee give financial institutions the freedom to develop their own Value-at-Risk model of risk measurement in order to calculate their capital requirements for financial risk. The Basel II committee recommends the use of back testing in order to validate the choice of the best method. In order to finance SMEs enterprises in emerging market we must consider the specific microstructure criteria of these emerging markets such as low liquidity, very pronounced asymmetric information, over predictability and high volatility how affects the risk estimation.