Copulas offer financial risk managers a powerful tool to model the dependence between the different elements of a portfolio and are preferable to the traditional, correlation-based approach. In this paper, we show the importance of selecting an accurate copula for risk management. We extend standard goodness-of-fit tests to copulas. Contrary to existing, indirect tests, these tests can be applied to any copula of any dimension and are based on a direct comparison of a given copula with observed data. For a portfolio consisting of stocks, bonds and real estate, these tests provide clear evidence in favor of the Student’s t copula, and reject both the correlation-based Gaussian copula and the extreme value-based Gumbel copula. In comparison with the Student’s t copula, we find that the Gaussian copula underestimates the probability of joint extreme downward movements, while the Gumbel copula overestimates this risk. Similarly we establish that the Gaussian copula is too optimistic on diversification benefits, while the Gumbel copula is too pessimistic. Moreover, these differences are significant.

Systemic crises can have grave consequences for investors in international equity markets, because they cause the risk-return trade-off to deteriorate severely for a longer period. We propose a novel approach to include the possibility of systemic crises in asset allocation decisions. By combining regime switching models with Merton [Merton, R.C., 1969. Lifetime portfolio selection under uncertainty: The continuous time case. Review of Economics and Statistics 51, 247–257]-style portfolio construction, our approach captures persistence of crises much better than existing models. Our analysis shows that incorporating systemic crises greatly affects asset allocation decisions, while the costs of ignoring them is substantial. For an expected utility maximizing US investor, who can invest globally these costs range from 1.13% per year of his initial wealth when he has no prior information on the likelihood of a crisis, to over 3% per month if a crisis occurs with almost certainty. If a crisis is taken into account, the investor allocates less to risky assets, and particularly less to the crisis prone emerging markets.