8005 Practice Exam Questions with Answers Associate PRM Exam English Certification

Operational risk as defined in Basel II specifically excludes strategic and reputational risk. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Note that Basel II defines operational risk as follows:

Operational risk is defined as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. This definition includes legal risk, but excludes strategic and reputational risk.

The three pillars under Basel II are minimum capital requirements, supervisory review process and market discipline. Therefore statement I is false. The other two statements are accurate. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Since AUD 1 = USD 0.6831, and USD 1 = SEK 8.1329, AUD 1 = SEK 8.1329*0.6831 = 5.5556.

It is important to remember how exchange rates are generally quoted. Most exchange rates are quoted in terms of how many foreign currencies does USD 1 buy. Therefore, a rate of 99 for the JPY means that USD 1 is equal to JPY 99. However, there are four major world currencies where the rate quote convention is the other way round - these are EUR, GBP, AUD and NZD. For these currencies, the FX quote implies how many US dollars can one unit of these currencies buy. So a quote of "1.1023" for the Euro means EUR 1 is equal to USD 1.1023 and not the other way round.

When calculating cross rates, it is important to pay attention to how the rates are quoted. This particular question is quoted in a very straightforward way because it specifies exactly what the rate means, eg by saying USD/AUD it clarifies that the rate is the number of USDs per AUD. If the question is not clear, remember how exchange rates are quoted - all are against 1 USD, except for EUR, GBP, AUD and NZD where it is the other way round.

By assuming the assets to be independent, we are reducing the correlation from a positive number to zero. Reducing asset correlations reduces the combined standard deviation of the assets, and therefore reduces economic capital. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Note that this question could also be phrased in terms of the impact on VaR estimates, and the answer would still be the same. Both VaR and economic capital are a multiple of standard deviation, and if standard deviation goes down, both VaR and economic capital estimates will reduce.

The correct answer is Choice 'c'. The following is a brief description of the major approaches available to model credit risk, and the analysis that underlies them:

1. CreditMetrics: based on the credit migration framework. Considers the probability of migration to other credit ratings and the impact of such migrations on portfolio value.

2. CreditPortfolio View: similar to CreditMetrics, but adds the impact of the business cycle to the evaluation.

3. The contingent claims approach: uses option theory by considering a debt as a put option on the assets of the firm.

4. KMV's EDF (expected default frequency) based approach: relies on EDFs and distance to default as a measure of credit risk.

5. CreditRisk+: Also called the 'actuarial approach', considers default as a binary event that either happens or does not happen. This approach does not consider the loss of value from deterioration in credit quality (unless the deterioration implies default).

The greatest model risk when calculating operational risk capital comes from incorrect assumptions about correlations between different operational risks for which standalone risk calculations have been made. Generally, the correlation can be expected to be positive, and would therefore vary between 0 and 1. These two values determine the 'bounds' between which the total operational risk capital would lie, and these bounds are generally quite far apart. Therefore the total value of the operational risk capital is very sensitive to the value chosen for the correlation, and this is the source of the biggest model risk under the AMA.

Conditional default probabilities are modeled as a logit function under CreditPortfolio view. That ensures the resulting probabilities are 'well behaved', ie take a value between 0 and 1. The probability may be expressed as = 1/ (1 + exp(I)), where I is a country specific index taking various macro economic factors into account.

The difference between the yields on corporate bonds and the risk free rate is called the corporate bond spread. Widening of the spread means that corporate bonds yield more, and their yield curve shifts upwards, driving down bond prices. The increase in the spread is a consequence of the market risk from holding these interest rate instruments, which is a part of market risk. If the reduction in the value of the portfolio were to be caused by a change in the credit rating of the bonds held, it would have been a loss arising due to credit risk. Counterparty risk and liquidity risk are notrelevant for this question. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Economic capital in respect of credit risk is intended to absorb unexpected losses. Unexpected losses are the losses above and beyond expected losses and up to the level of confidence that economic capital is being calculated for. The capital required to cover unexpected losses in this case is E - U, and therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

This question does raise an important point - are expected losses a part of economic capital, or are they not? Different text books say different things, and sometimes they say both the things. I have tried to take an approach that uses what I read in the PRMIA handbook.

This writeup - http://www.riskprep.com/all-tutorials/37-exam-3/111-credit-var-an-intuitive-understanding - may help clarify things further.

According to Basel II, in any given year, negative capital charges (resulting from negative gross income) in any business line may offset positive capital charges in other business lines without limit. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Since $100 is convertible into two shares, the price upon conversion per share is $50, which is the same as the current share price. Therefore there is no premium, and Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The crack spread is the difference between the price of refined products and crude oil. An option on the crack spread can protect a refiner from both a fall in the price of its output and a rise in the price of its inputs. Calendar spreads are options with different maturities. Crude oil futures and swaps only protect against an adverse change in the price of crude, and not that of refined products. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The OTC market for foreign exchange is indeed much larger than the exchange traded futures market for FX. Therefore statement I is correct.

Delivery-versus-payment (DVP) arrangements make sure that title to a security passes only whenpayment has been made, and these arrangements, usually implemented through national clearing agencies such as the DTC in the US, help avoid the risk of counterparty defaults.

Electronic Clearing Networks (ECNs) offer cheaper trading costs than exchanges, in fact that is their primary attraction. Exchanges offer other advantages, but lower trading costs is not one of them.

ISDA master agreements provide templates that a large number of OTC market participants use to standardize their OTC trading activities. Therefore statement IV is correct.

Everything else remaining the same, an increase in the rate of dividends causes the value of call options to fall and the value of put options to rise. Therefore, Choice 'b' is the correct answer. (In the exam, the question could address either a call or a put option, so be aware of the answer in either case).

To understand this, consider how dividends are accounted for when valuing an option using the Black Scholes model. Future dividends are discounted to the present using the risk free rate andthis discounted value is reduced from the spot price used in the BSM valuation. Effectively, this reduces the spot price used in the BSM formula. When the spot price reduces, and the exercise price remains the same, then the value of the call option goes down. In the same way, when spot price is reduced by the present value of dividends (and the exercise price stays the same), obviously the put option becomes more valuable. Therefore an increase in the rate of dividends increases the value of the put option.

There is another intuitive way to think about this: A call option is like a long position in the stock, but the holder of the call option is not entitled to receive dividends (unlike the holder of the stock). Since the holder of the call option has to forego the dividends, he is willing to pay less for the option; or in other words, the value of the call reduces.

In the same way, a put option is like having a short position in the stock. The holder of the short position has to borrow the stock in order to get into the short position in the first place. When dividends are paid, the holder of the short stock position has to make good any dividends that might be paid to the lender of the stock. The holder of a put option does not have to make any such payments. Therefore the put option is more valuable, and the existence of dividends (or an increase in dividends) increases the value of the put option.

(Try this out using the Black Scholes Excel model given under the tutorials by varying the spot price.)

High frequency and low severity risks, for example the risks of fraud losses for a credit card issuer, may have high expected losses, but low unexpected losses. In other words, we can generally expect these losses to stay within a small expected and known range. The capital requirement will be the worst case losses at a given confidence level less expected losses, and in such cases this can be expected to be low.

On the other hand, medium severity medium frequency risks, such as the risks of unexpected legal claims, 'fat-finger' trading errors, will have low expected losses but a high level of unexpected losses. Thus the capital requirement for such risks will be high.

It is also worthwhile mentioning high severity and low frequency risks - for example a rogue trader circumventing all controls and bringing the bank down, or a terrorist strike or natural disaster creating other losses - will probably have zero expected losses & high unexpected losses but only at very high levels of confidence. In other words, operational risk capital is unlikely to provide for such events and these would lie in the part of the tail that is not covered by most levels of confidence when calculating operational risk capital.

Note that risk capital is required for only unexpected losses as expected losses are to be borne by P&L reserves. Therefore the operational risk capital requirements for a low severity high frequency risk is likely to be low when compared to other risks that are lower frequency but higher severity.

Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Given covered interest parity, the currency with a lower interest rate will trade at a forward premium. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

For an intuitive reasoning, consider a currency forward contract that matures in 3 months. The seller has agreed to sell, say JPY 1,000,000 in exchange for USD 10,000 in the future. In order to cover himself, he borrows the USD right now and converts it to JPY at spot which he puts in a JPY deposit. Assuming JPY interest rates are less than USD interest rates, he pays more on his USD borrowing than he receives on his JPY deposit. Therefore he has to price the forward contract at a premium to spot to cover the interest rate differential.

'In store' delivery is for delivery in a standardized location, and the buyer is handed a 'warrant' that allows him to pick the goods up. This is the cheapest means of physical delivery. The other prices will be higher as they involve more costs for the seller who has to get the goods on board a ship, or to the docks, or insurance and freight as well. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

For a number of processes, including many in finance, while a distribution such as the normal distribution is a good approximation of the distribution near the modal value of the variable, the same normal distribution may not be a good estimate of the tails. For this reason, the Pareto distribution is one of the distributions that is often used to model the tails of another distribution. Generally, if you have a set of observations, and you discard all observations below a threshold, you are left with what are called 'exceedances'. The threshold needs to be reasonably far out in the tail. If from each value of the exceedances you subtract the threshold value, the resulting dataset is estimated by the generalized Pareto distribution.

A mathematical equation with black text Description automatically generated

The Pareto distribution has a 'shape parameter'. The average of two Pareto distributions with tail parameters?1 and?2 (?is a Greek character, pronounced as 'sai' (saa-eee)), is the weighted average of?1 and?2 with weights proportional to the number of observations in the datasets underlying the distributions.

The distance to default is the number of standard deviations that expected asset values are away from the default point. The expression in Choice 'd' represents distance to default. Choice 'd' is the correct answer. The other choices are incorrect.

The correct answer is Choice 'd'. The following is a brief description of the major approaches available to model credit risk, and the analysis that underlies them:

1. CreditMetrics: based on the credit migration framework. Considers the probability of migration to other credit ratings and the impact of such migrations on portfolio value.

2. CreditPortfolio View: similar to CreditMetrics, but adds the impact of the business cycle to the evaluation.

3. The contingent claims approach: uses option theory by considering a debt as a put option on the assets of the firm.

4. KMV's EDF (expected default frequency) based approach: relies on EDFs and distance to default as a measure of credit risk.

5. CreditRisk+: Also called the 'actuarial approach', considers default as a binary event that either happens or does not happen. This approach does not consider the loss of value from deterioration in credit quality (unless the deterioration implies default).

The correct answer is the index value times the contract size, in this case 1500 x 50.

One way to think about index futures is this: Consider equity index trading as trading in the shares of a company whose share price is equal to a number of dollars which is the same as the index. If the 'contract multiplier' for a index futures contract is 50, that means the futures contract is for 50 shares of such a fictitious company. Therefore the notional value of the contract will be 15000 x 50, and Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Choice 'd' represents the Basel II requirement, all other choices are incorrect.

Operational risk capital estimated using the implied capital model is merely the capital that is not attributable to market or credit risk. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. All other responses are incorrect.

This is a tricky question in the sense no risk management professional can be expected to know the answer to this one unless they have read Chapter 2 of the PRMIA handbook. So this question appears purely for the sake of something you would need to know purely for the sake of the exam.

PRMIA's handbook classifies governance sructures as reactive, preventative and active. Reactive structures involve monitoring signals after the event leading to corrective actions. Preventative structures are forward looking and anticipate issues before they arise. Active structures include considerations of operational efficiency and not just governance. All other answers are made up phrases and are incorrect.

In reality, corporations employ all structures together without worrying about the boundary between the three, and these distinctions do not exist except in textbooks.

This situation represents one of the paradoxes in estimating severity that one needs to be aware of - the improvement in controls reduces the weight of the body/middle of the distribution and moves it towards the tails (as the total probability under the curve must stay at 100%) and the distribution becomes more heavy tailed. As a result, the 99.9th percentile loss actually increases. instead of decreasing, creating a counterintuitive result. Therefore the correct answer is that the capital required will increase.

If scenario analysis produces such a result, the analyst must question if the 1 in 100 year loss severity is still accurate. If the new control has reduced the severity in the body of the distribution, the question as to why the more extreme losses have not changed should be raised.

The TED spread is a bet on the spread between treasury bill futures and Eurodollar futures. T-bill rates are lower than Eurodollar rates, as the former carries no risk. Eurodollars deposits, which are interbank deposits between the highest rated banks, carry very little risk as well. Therefore both these instruments generally trade at very narrow spreads. The spread widens, ie the Eurodollar rates rise in comparison to treasury bill rates when the market has credit risk fears.

A trader is said to be 'long' the spread when he benefits from the spread increasing, and 'short' theTED spread when he gains from the spread decreasing. A trader can buy the spread by being long t-bill futures and short Eurodollar futures. Similarly he can be short the spread by being short t-bill futures and long Eurodollar futures.

The 'middle office' is a term used for the risk management function, therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answers. The other functions describe what the 'back office' does (IT, accounting). The 'front office' includes the traders.

Consider a long vanilla call at a strike of K1, and a short call with a strike price of K2 so that K2>K1. If you construct the payoff diagrams for these option positions, you will see that the combined payoff resembles very closely the payoff of a digital cash-or-nothing option. By bringing K2 and K1 closer together, we can make it very close to a digital cash-or-nothing option. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Statement I is correct. The financial system proved to be stable against small shocks and disturbances, or shocks of a particular type (eg, the dotcom crash, the wars in the Persian Gulf); but rather fragile against other types of shocks, including disturbances to key market participants caused by a worsening of mortgage defaults.Statement II is incorrect. Financial innovation, in particular the slicing and dicing of 'risk' through securitization, significantly increased interrelationships, dependence on the same risk factors, and the complexity of the system as a whole.Statement III is incorrect. A distinction is sometimes made between risk that is knowable, measureable, and quantifiable through parameters; and uncertainty, where the parameters are not known at all. The latter is called 'Knightian uncertainty' after the name of the scholar who came up with the distinction between the two.Statement IV is correct. Feedback effects had the greatest impact on liquidity which was tended to be hoarded, and on asset prices that tumbled as market participants tried to sell assets to become more liquid.Thus, choice is a the correct answer.

Ultimately, the objective of the operational risk severity estimation exercise is to calculate the 99.9th percentile loss over a one year horizon; and everything else we do with data, collecting loss information, modeling, curve fitting etc revolves around this objective. If we cannot estimate the 99.9th percentile loss accurately, then not much else matters. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Minimizing the combination of fitting and approximation errors is one of the things we do with a view to better estimating the operational loss distribution. Likewise, empirical loss data generally is range bound because corporations do not require employees to log losses less than an threshold, and high value losses are generally rare. This problem is addressed by extrapolating both large and small losses, something that impacts the performance of our model. Likewise, one of the objectives of scenario analysis is to fill data gaps by generating plausible scenarios. Yet while all these are real issues to address, the primary problem we are trying to solve is estimating the 0.999th quantile.

Internal loss data is generally the highest quality as it is relevant, and is 'real' as it has occurred to the organization. External loss data suffers from a significant limitation that the risk profiles of the banks to which the data relates is generally not known due to anonymization, and may likely may not be applicable to the bank performing the calculations. Therefore, replacing external loss data with external loss data is not a good idea. Statement IV is therefore incorrect.

All other approach described are valid approaches for the risk analyst to consider and implement. Therefore statements I, II and III are correct and IV is not.

High frequency and low severity risks, for example the risks of fraud losses for a credit card issuer, may have high expected losses, but low unexpected losses. In other words, we can generally expect these losses to stay within a small expected and known range. The capital requirement will be the worst case losses at a given confidence level less expected losses, and in such cases this can be expected to be low.

On the other hand, medium severity medium frequency risks, such as the risks of unexpected legal claims, 'fat-finger' trading errors, will have low expected losses but a high level of unexpected losses. Thus the capital requirement for such risks will be high.

It is also worthwhile mentioning high severity and low frequency risks - for example a rogue trader circumventing all controls and bringing the bank down, or a terrorist strike or natural disaster creating other losses - will probably have zero expected losses & high unexpected losses but only at very high levels of confidence. In other words, operational risk capital is unlikely to provide for such events and these would lie in the part of the tail that is not covered by most levels of confidence when calculating operational risk capital.

Note that risk capital is required for only unexpected losses as expected losses are to be borne by P&L reserves. Therefore the operational risk capital requirements for a low severity high frequency risk is likely to be low when compared to other risks that are lower frequency but higher severity.

Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The actuarial or CreditRisk+ model considers default as an 'end of game' event modeled by a Poisson distribution. The annual number of defaults is a stochastic variable with a mean of?and standard deviation equal to ??.

The probability of n defaults is given by (?^n e^-?) /n!, and therefore in this case is equal to (=2^4 * exp(-2))/FACT(4)) = 0.0902.

Note that CreditRisk+ is the same methodology as the actuarial approach, and requires using the Poisson distribution.

KMV Moody's uses a proprietary database to convert the distance to default to expected default probabilities.

The exact formula for VaR is = -(Z??+?), where Z?is the z-multiple for the desired confidence level, and?is the mean return. Now Z?is always a negative number, or at least will certainly be provided the desired confidence level is greater than 50%, and?is often assumed to be zero because generally for the short time periods for which market risk VaR is calculated, its value is very close to zero.

Therefore in practice the formula for VaR just becomes -Z??, and since Z is always negative, we normally just multiply the Z factor without the negative sign with the standard deviation to get the VaR.

For this question, there are two ways to get the answer. If we use the formula, we know that -Z??= 250,000 (as?=0), and therefore -Z??-?= 250,000 - 10,000 = $240,000.

The other, easier way to think about this is that if the mean changes, then the distribution's shape stays exactly the same, and the entire distribution shifts to the right by $10,000 as the mean moves up by $10,000. Therefore the VaR cutoff, which was previously at -250,000 on the graph also moves up by 10k to -240,000, and therefore $240,000 is the correct answer.

The other choices are intended to confuse by multiplying the z-factor for the 99% confidence level with 10,000 etc.

Choice 'd' is the correct answer, as laid down in the Basel II document. The other choices are incorrect.

A residential mortgage carries a prepayment option for the borrower, where in the event of a decrease in interest rates they are likely to repay the mortgage and refinance at the new lower rate. If rates go up, the bank does not have a similar option. If the volatility of the underlying interest rates increases, mortgage holders are more likely to be faced with new rates that are sufficiently lower to persuade them to refinance. This reduces the ability of the bank to continue to earn the higher interest rate it was earning before.

Therefore an increase in volatility of the mortgage interest rates decreases the value of the mortgage portfolio.

The same rationale applies to callable bonds, where the borrower has the option to call the bond.

Basel II proposes three approaches to compute operational risk capital - the basic indicator approach (BIA), the standardized approach (SIA) and the advanced measurement approach (AMA). There is no operational risk approach called the factor based approach.

The state of the economy, credit quality of individual borrowers and concentration risk are all factors that affect the credit risk facing a lender. Mark to market accounting does not change the credit risk, or the underlying economic reality facing the institution. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Convenience yield is the benefit from having access to the commodity - and if the convenience yield is very high, for example in a market where manufacturers must never run out of a particular raw material, then these can switch the total cost of carry (which include interest and storage costs, less convenience yields) to being negative. This causes forward prices to become lower than spot prices, a phenomenon known as backwardation.

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. If convenience yields are less than other carrying costs, then backwardation will not happen. The sign of convenience yields does not matter, what matters is their relative magnitude when compared to the other costs of carry.

To understand this in an intuitive way, consider that forward prices are nothing but spot prices, plus interest, plus storage costs, less convenience yields. If interest and storage costs are less than the convenience yield, the market will be backwarded.

The term 'data quality' has multiple elements, ie, data in order to be considered of a high quality must have multiple attributes such as completeness, timeliness, auditability etc. Because this is not an exact science, every expert or text book will have a different view of what goes into data quality. For our purposes however, we will stick to what the PRMIA study material specifies, and according to the study material the following are the elements that can be considered attributes that make for quality data:

1. Integration

2. Integrity

3. Completeness

4. Accessibility

5. Flexibility

6. Extensibility

7. Timeliness

8. Auditability

I am not going to describe each of these here as that would be repetitive of the study material, but suffice it to say that the break-down of a number into its constituents should tie to the aggregate total. If that is not true, then the data lacks integrity - and therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. The other choices address other aspects of data quality but not this, and therefore are not correct.

When the forward prices are greater than the spot prices, the market is said to be in contango. When forward prices are lower than spot prices, the market is said to be backwarded. A short squeeze may contribute to backwardation. Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

An observed fact that the KMV approach relies upon is that firms do not default when their liabilities exceed assets, but when asset values are somewhere between short term liabilities and the total liabilities. In fact, the 'default point' in the KMV methodology is defined as the short term debt plus half of the long term debt. The difference between expected value of the assets in one year and this 'default point', when expressed in terms of standard deviation of the asset values, is called the 'distance-to-default'.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. The other choices are incorrect.

The correct answer is Choice 'b'. The following is a brief description of the major approaches available to model credit risk, and the analysis that underlies them:

1. CreditMetrics: based on the credit migration framework. Considers the probability of migration to other credit ratings and the impact of such migrations on portfolio value.

2. CreditPortfolio View: similar to CreditMetrics, but adds the impact of the business cycle to the evaluation.

3. The contingent claims approach: uses option theory by considering a debt as a put option on the assets of the firm.

4. KMV's EDF (expected default frequency) based approach: relies on EDFs and distance to default as a measure of credit risk.

5. CreditRisk+: Also called the 'actuarial approach', considers default as a binary event that either happens or does not happen. This approach does not consider the loss of value from deterioration in credit quality (unless the deterioration implies default).

Callable corporate bonds need to be priced lower and therefore yield more to investors as they are likely to be called by the issuer when interest rates fall and the issuer finds it attractive to refinance the debt using new cheaper debt.

They are most unlikely to be called when their prices have fallen because falling prices indicate higher rates, which means the issuer is able to fund himself at a cheaper rate.

Because of their callable feature, they are less convex and may actually carry negative convexity.

Therefore Choice 'b' is the only correct statement and the right answer.

Statutory financial reporting is the responsibility of the Chief Financial Officer, not the Chief Risk Officer. The head of internal audit reports to the audit committee of the board, not the CRO. Therefore statements I and II are incorect.

The CRO is generally expected to drive risk and compliance with related regulatory standards. Market risk, credit risk and operational risk groups report into the CRO, so statements III and IV arecorrect.

The Basel II framework allows the use of the basic indicator approach, the standardized approach and the advanced measurement approaches for operational risk. There is no approach called the 'internal measurement approach' permitted for operational risk. Choice 'a' is therefore the correct answer.

This question is based upon a weather derivative contract traded on the CME in the US. For each day, 'Heating-Degree-Days' (HDD) is calculated as equal to 65 degrees Fahrenheit minus the daily average temperature. The daily average temperature is based upon the temperature reported by the Earth Satellite Corporation using a specified automated weather station. Based upon daily values of HDD, an aggregated number called the 'CME degree days index' is calculated for each contract month. In other words, the index for a particular month is just the aggregation of the 'HDD' value for each of the days of that month. Each contract settles at the end of the month at a value equal to $20 x Degree Days Index. (In a similar way, 'Cooling Degree Days' are also calculated and a futures contract offered, except that CDD is equal to the average daily temperature minus 65 degrees). (Source: CME's website at CMEGroup.com)

In the given question, we are interested in hedging against the possibility of the temperature being too low. This means we should buy the HDD futures contract (the lower the temperature, the higher the difference of the average temperature from 65 degrees, and the higher the settlement). Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. The lower the actual temperature turns out to be, the higher the payout to the grower. It would not be wise to wait till January to buy the contract as by then the prices of the contract would have already risen if the grower's fears of a colder January appear to be coming true. He can hedge his exposure by immediately locking in the January prices.

A 'hard call protection' means the bond cannot be called until a certain date, regardless of what the share price is. Therefore statement I is false. Also note that a 'soft call protection' means that a bond can be called only if the share price reaches a certain threshold.

It is advantageous for the issuer to call its convertible securities when the share price exceeds the conversion price - because these shares can instead be sold in the market at the higher share price than the lower conversion price. Statement II is true.

When the issuer's share price is very high, the convertible bond trades at a discount to the share price because it is almost certain to be called by the issuer and be redeemed at par. Therefore statement III is right. Statement IV is incorrect because convertible bonds need to pay less coupon than equivalent non-convertible bonds because of the value of the option embedded in them.