  Expected Shortfall (ES) has been widely accepted as a risk measure that is
conceptually superior to Value-at-Risk (VaR). At the same time, however, it has
been criticised for issues relating to backtesting. In particular, ES has been
found not to be elicitable which means that backtesting for ES is less
straightforward than, e.g., backtesting for VaR. Expectiles have been suggested
as potentially better alternatives to both ES and VaR. In this paper, we
revisit commonly accepted desirable properties of risk measures like coherence,
comonotonic additivity, robustness and elicitability. We check VaR, ES and
Expectiles with regard to whether or not they enjoy these properties, with
particular emphasis on Expectiles. We also consider their impact on capital
allocation, an important issue in risk management. We find that, despite the
caveats that apply to the estimation and backtesting of ES, it can be
considered a good risk measure. As a consequence, there is no sufficient
evidence to justify an all-inclusive replacement of ES by Expectiles in
applications. For backtesting ES, we propose an empirical approach that
consists in replacing ES by a set of four quantiles, which should allow to make
use of backtesting methods for VaR.
  Keywords: Backtesting; capital allocation; coherence; diversification;
elicitability; expected shortfall; expectile; forecasts; probability integral
transform (PIT); risk measure; risk management; robustness; value-at-risk
