Many performance measurement algorithms can only evaluate measure active managers' performance after a period of operating time. However, most investors are interested in monitoring the active managers' performances at any time, especially, when the performance is going down. So that the investors can adjust the targets and contents of their portfolios to reduce their risks. Yashchin,Thomas and David (1997) proposed to use a statistical quality control (SQC) procedure to monitor active managers' performances. In particular, they established the IR (Information Ratio) control charts under normality assumption to monitor the dynamic performances of active managers. However, the distributions of IR statistic usually possess fat tail property. Since the underlying distribution of IR is an important hypothesis in building up the control chart, we consider the heavy tail distributions, such as mixture normal and generalized error distribution to fit the IR data. Based on the fitted distribution, the IR control charts are rebuilt. By simulations and empirical studies, the remedial control charts are found to detect the shifts of active managers' performances more sensitively.

風險值大多是在假設資產報酬為常態分配下計算而得的，但是這個假設與實際的資產報酬分配不一致，因為很多研究者都發現實際的資產報酬分配都有厚尾的現象，也就是極端事件的發生機率遠比常態假設要來的高，因此利用常態假設來計算風險值對於真實損失的衡量不是很恰當。 針對這個問題，本論文以歷史模擬法、變異數-共變異數法、混合常態模型來模擬報酬率的分配，並依給定的信賴水準估算出風險值，其中混合常態模型的參數是利用準貝式最大概似估計法及EM演算法來估計；然後利用三種風險值的評量方法：回溯測試、前向測試與二項檢定，來評判三種估算風險值方法的優劣。 經由實證結果發現： 1.報酬率分配在左尾臨界機率1％有較明顯厚尾的現象。 2.利用混合常態分配來模擬報酬率分配會比另外兩種方法更能準確的捕捉到左尾臨界機率1％的厚尾。 3.混合常態模型的峰態係數值接近於真實報酬率分配的峰態係數值，因此我們可以確認混合常態模型可以捕捉高峰的現象。 關鍵字：風險值、厚尾、歷史模擬法、變異數-共變異教法、混合常態模型、準貝式最大概似估計法、EM演算法、回溯測試、前向測試、高峰 / Initially, Value at Risk (VaR) is calculated by assuming that the underline asset return is normal distribution, but this assumption sometimes does not consist with the actual distribution of asset return. Many researchers have found that the actual distribution of the underline asset return have Fat-Tail, extreme value events, character. So under normal distribution assumption, the VaR value is improper compared with the actual losses. The paper discuss three methods. Historical Simulated method - Variance-Covariance method and Mixture Normal .simulating those asset, return and VaR by given proper confidence level. About the Mixture Normal Distribution, we use both EM algorithm and Quasi-Bayesian MLE calculating its parameters. Finally, we use tree VaR testing methods, Back test、Forward tes and Binomial test -----comparing its VaR loss probability We find the following results: 1.Under 1% left-tail critical probability, asset return distribution has significant Fat-tail character. 2.Using Mixture Normal distribution we can catch more Fat-tail character precisely than the other two methods. 3.The kurtosis of Mixture Normal is close to the actual kurtosis, this means that the Mixture Normal distribution can catch the Leptokurtosis phenomenon. Key words: Value at Risk、VaR、Fat tail、Historical simulation method、 Variance-Covariance method、Mixture Normal distribution、Quasi-Bayesian MLE、EM algorithm、Back test、 Forward test、 Leptokurtosis