8008 Practice Exam Questions with Answers PRM Certification - Exam III: Risk Management Frameworks, Operational Risk, Credit Risk, Counterparty Risk, Market Risk, ALM, FTP - 2015 Edition Certification

Statement I is true. According to the statement CP08/24: Stress and scenario testing (December 2008) issued by the FSA in the UK, an underlying objective of reverse stress tests is to ensure that a firm can survive long enough after risks have crystallized for one of the following to occur:

- the market decides that its lack of confidence is unfounded and recommences transacting with the firm;

- the firm down-sizes and re-structures its business;

- the firm is taken over, or its business is transferred in an orderly manner; or

- public authorities take the firm over, or wind down its business in an orderly manner.

Statement II and III are true. The same statement clarifies the intention of the reverse stress testing requirement, which is to encourage firms to: explore more fully the vulnerabilities of theirbusiness model (including ‘tail risks’); make decisions that better integrate business and capital planning; and improve their contingency planning.

Statement IV is incorrect. Since the question is asking for the statement which is NOT an objective for reverse stress tests, Choice 'b' is the correct answer. The same statement clarifies that the introduction of a reverse-stress test requirement should not be interpreted as indicating that the FSA is pursuing a ‘zero-failure’ policy. In the FSA's view, such a policy is neither possible, nor desirable.

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

increasing the timing differences between the two legs of the transaction will increase settlement risk and not reduce it. Using escrow arrangements, such as central clearing houses to settle transactions (eg the DTCC in the United States) reduces settlement risk. Cash settlements based on netting arrangements reduce settlement risk, while physical delivery combined with gross cash payments increase it.

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

The commercial paper has greater credit risk as the entire notional is outstanding. On the forward contract, only the replacement value of the contract, which normally would be a mere fraction of the notional, would be at risk.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Steady state variance under the GARCH model is given by the formula ?/(1 - ? – ?). In this case, steady state variance therefore works out to 0.00025/(1 - 0.1 - 0.8) = 0.0025. Since this is the variance, volatility is the square root of 0.0025, which works out to 0.05.

Thus, 5% (=0.05) is the correct answer, and the others are incorrect.

Also recall the following in respect of GARCH:

Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Exposures such as those to a line of credit of which only a part (or none) may be drawn at the time of assessment present a difficulty when attempting to quantify credit risk. It is not correct to take the entire amount of the line as the exposure at default, and likewise the current exposure is likely to be too aggressively low a number to consider.

While the borrower has an information advantage in that he would be aware of the deterioration in credit standing before the bank and would probably draw cash prior to default, it is unlikely that the entire amount of the line of credit would be drawn in all cases. In some cases, none may be drawn. In other cases, the bank would become aware of the situation and curtail or cancel access to the credit line in a timely fashion.

Therefore a fixed proportion of existing credit lines is considered a reasonable approximation of the exposure at default against credit lines.

Choice 'c' relates to operational risk and process capabilities, generally not a concern when evaluating market risk of a portfolio. Choice 'a', Choice 'b' and Choice 'd' represent real concerns for the risk manager when building stress tests for the value of a portfolio.

Choice 'a' is relevant because certain shocks may be inconsistent with each other, and therefore implausible. For example, an increase in futures prices may be inconsistent with without spot prices and/or interest rates increasing according to the no-arbitrage condition. Choice 'b' is relevant when modeling a covariance matrix in a stressed situation with higher correlations, as a hypothetical covariance matrix which is not positive semi-definite may give absurd results (negative variance). Choice 'd' is relevant as liquidity risks may affect the price that can be realized for positions held.

Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Refer to the detailed loss event type classification under Basel II (see Annex 9 of the accord). You should know the exact names of all loss event types, and examples of each.

Choice 'd' represents a risk that does not arise from its holdings of mortgages. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

All the other risks identified are correct - the bank faces interest rate, default and prepayment risks on its mortgages.

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.

When modeling for operational risk, we are generally concerned with tail losses - this is because the horizon for operational risk is 1 year at the 99.9th percentile. Since the 99.9th percentile is in the tail region, we would like to ensure that the tails are modeled as accurately as possible. Operational risk distributions are modeled using heavy tailed distributions.

Heavy tailed parametric distributions such as log-normal, pareto and others are therefore a good choice for modeling risk severity, therefore statement I is correct.

Body-tail distributions are combinations of parametric distributions, with different types of distributions being used to model the body and the tail - this provides flexibility because small and medium losses upto a threshold can be modeled using one distribution, and losses beyond the threshold can be modeled using a different distribution that is a better estimate of the tail. Statement II is therefore correct.

A log-likelihood function simplifies the optimization of a regular likelihood function. We generally maximize (or minimize the risk functional) a likelihood function with a view to estimating the parameters of the underlying distribution. If the likelihood function is complex, it may sometimes make it mathematically easier to optimize the log of the function - as that changes exponents and multiplications to additions, while behaving in the same way as the underlying function. Therefore statement III is correct, log-likelihood is a means to estimate parameters for a distribution.

Statement IV is correct as body-tail distributions allow modeling different parts of the distribution differently from each other.

Model risk is the risk that a model built for estimating a variable will produce erroneous estimates. Model risk is caused by a number of factors, including:

a) Misspecifying the model: For example, using a normal distribution when it is not justified.

b) Model misuse: For example, using a model built to estimate bond prices to estimate equity prices

c) Parameter estimation errors: In particular, parameters that are subjectively determined can be subject to significant parameter estimation errors

d) Programming errors: Errors in coding the model as part of computer implementation may not be detected by end users

e) Data errors: Errors in data used for building the model may also introduce model risk

Therefore the correct answer is d, as all the choices are a source of model risk.

Loss provisioning is intended to cover expected losses. Economic capital is expected to cover unexpected losses. No capital or provisions are set aside for losses in excess of unexpected losses, which will ultimately be borne by equity.

Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The number of futures contracts to sell are equal to $10m x 1.1/$50,000 = 220. Liquidating his portfolio would reduce the beta to zero, but would also get rid of the bets he wants to play on. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

(Note that futures and spot prices generally move together allowing futures positions to be used for hedging the risk against movement in spot prices. However there is a basis risk between spot and futures, therefore the a perfect hedge is never possible with futures. If interest rates move a great deal, spot and futures prices may diverge. Of course, this risk is generally quite low but may become amplified with large leveraged portfolios. Just something to be aware of.)

Incremental VaR is the change in portfolio VaR resulting from a change in a single position. This is accurately described by VaR_(p+a) - VaR_p. The other answers are incorrect, and describe other concepts.

It is important to know and understand the ideas behind MVaR (marginal VaR), CVaR (component VaR) and iVaR (incremental VaR), and the differences between them.

VaR is specified by just two parameters - the holding period, and the confidence level. We speak of, for example, a 10-day VaR at the 95% confidence level. No other parameters are required. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer and the others are incorrect.

Since the business units are uncorrelated, we can get the combined EC as equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual EC estimates. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. [=SQRT(100^2+200^2+150^2)]

This is a trick question, no great science to it. Remember that the 'present value of a basis point' refers to PV01, which is the same as BPV (basis point value) referred to in the PRMIA handbook. In other textbooks, the same term is also variously called 'DV01' (dollar value of a basis point). Remember these other terms too.

PV01, or the present value of a basis point, is the change in the value of a bond (or other fixed income security) from a 1 basis point change in the yield. PV01 is calculated as (Price * Modified Duration/10,000).

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Pre-settlement risk is the risk that one of the counterparties defaults prior to the date for the maturity of the transaction in question. This may be an unrelated default, in fact there may have been no default on that particular contract, but the party may have defaulted on its other obligations, or filed for bankruptcy. To deal with such cases and to protect the interests of both the parties, it is common to provide for immediate termination of positions and settlement based on the current replacement value of the contracts. Therefore statements I and II are correct.

Statement III is correct as well - the exposure from an OTC derivative contract derives from its current replacement value, and not the notional. If the current replacement value is negative, then the credit exposure is considered equal to zero.

Statement IV is correct as it is quite common to restate all exposures - those from credit lines, OTC derivatives etc - in loan equivalent terms prior to estimating credit risk.

Credit reserves are created in respect of expected losses, which are considered the cost of doing business. Unexpected losses are borne by economic credit capital, which is a part of economic capital. This question is a bit nuanced - and 'economic capital' would generally be a good answer as well. However, taking a rather beady eyed view of the terminology and distinguishing between 'economic credit capital' which is a subset of 'economic capital', we can say that 'economic credit capital' is a more appropriate Choice 'a's the question relates to credit losses.

Governance structures specify the policies, principles and procedures for making decisions about corporate direction. They distribute rights and responsibiliies among stakeholders that typically include executive management, employees, the board etc. Statement I is therefore correct.

"Cybernetics is a transdisciplinary approach for exploring regulatory systems, their structures, constraints, and possibilities. In the 21st century, the term is often used in a rather loose way to imply "control of any system using technology" (Wikipedia). Governance literature has been affected by cybernetics, which is not the same thing as information security or cyber security. Statement II is incorrect.

Corporate governance includes risk governance, and not the other way round. Therefore statement III is incorrect.

The Cadbury Report, titled Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance, was a report issued in the UK in December 1992 by "The Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance". The report is eponymous with the chair of the committee, and set out recommendations on the arrangement of company boards and accounting systems to mitigate corporate governance risks and failures. Statement IV is therefore correct.

If the daily standard deviation is 2%, the 10-day standard deviation will be 2%* ?10 = 0.063245. The value of Z at the 95% confidence level is 1.64485. Therefore the VaR value is 1.64485 * 0.063245 = 10.4%. The other choices are incorrect.

Statement I is correct as credit VaR calculations often use a one year time horizon. This is primarily because the cycle in respect of credit related activities, such as loan loss reviews, accounting cycles for borrowers etc last a year.

Statement II is false. There are two ways in which loss assessments in respect of credit risk can be made: default mode, where losses are considered only in respect of default, and no losses are recognized in respect of the deterioration of the creditworthiness of the borrower (which is often expressed through a credit rating transition matrix); and the mark-to-market mode, where losses due to both defaults and credit quality are considered. The default mode is used for the loan book where the institution has lent moneys and generally intends to hold the loan on its books till maturity. The mark to market mode is used for traded securities which are not held to maturity, or are held only for trading.

Statement III is correct. The confidence interval, or the quintile of losses used for maintaining credit ratings tends to be very high as the possibility of the institution's default needs to be remote.

Statement IV is correct too, for the reasons explained earlier.

A default hazard rate is the rate of default in a continuous time setting. This question is asking for probability of survival at the end of 5 years. The formula to calculate the probability of survival at the end of t years where the default hazard rate is ? is e^(-? *t) (or in Excel, =exp(-?*t). Therefore the correct answer is Choice 'd'.

(It may be tempting to infer that if the probability of survival at the end of 1 year is 90% (1 - 10%), then the probability of survival in 5 years would be 90%^5. However this reasoning is not correct for the reason that the given rate is not the discrete rate of default, but the hazard rate which is nothing but the continuously compounded rate of default.)

The default correlation between two obligors goes up if the joint probability of default between them increases. This is intuitive. Also consider the formula for the default correlation between two obligors

Default correlation = [P(1,2) - P1 * P2] / ?P1*(1-P1)*P2*(1-P2); where P(1,2) is the joint probability of default between the two and P1 and P2 are their individual probabilities of default. Obviously, an increase in P(1,2) will cause the default correlation to increase.

A computation of Altman's Z-score considers the following ratios:

- Working capital to total assets

- Retained earnings to total assets

- EBIT to total assets

- Market cap to debt

- Sales to total assets

It does not consider Net Income to total assets, therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer. This makes sense as net income is after interest and taxes, both of which are not relevant for considering the cash flows for debt servicing.

According to the option pricing approach developed by Merton, the shareholders of a firm have a put on the assets of the firm where the strike price is equal to the face value of the firm's debt. This is just a more complicated way of saying that the debt holders are entitled to all the assets of the firm if these assets are insufficient to pay off the debts, and because of limited liability of the shareholders of a corporation this part payment will fully extinguish the debt.

A firm will default on its debt if the value of the assets falls below the face value of the debt. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. All other choices are incorrect.

(There are two ways to consider this sort of optionality, and I have mentioned only one for this question:

1. The equity holders can sell the assets of the firm to the debt holders at a price equal to the face value of the debt, ie a put. (ie they can extinguish their liability to the debt holders in full by handing them the assets of the firm, effectively selling them the assets at the value of the debt)

2. The equity holders have a long position in a call option where they can keep the assets of the firm by paying a price equal to the face value of the debt (ie, they can pay off the debt holders and keep the assets)

For this question, perspective 1 applies but you should be aware of the second one too as a question may reference that view point.)

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.

All four data sources are expected to be utilized as inputs as appropriate for operational risk calculations under the advanced measurement approach. Of these, the last one, BEICF, is slightly different from the rest as it does not yield data points that become the basis of curve fitting or other statistical computions underlying capital calculations. It includes items such as KRIs, risk assessments etc and allow the risk manager to assess the qualitative aspects of loss data.

Odds are the ratio between the probability of the occurence of an event to the probability that the event does not occur.

If odds are H, then p = H/(1 + H) and H = p/(1-p). In this case the odds are 1:5, or 1/5, therefore the correct answer is Choice 'a', equal to (1/5)/(1 + 1/5) = 1/6 = 16.67%. All other choices are incorrect.

This is an example of pipeline and warehousing risk. Generally there is a lag between acquiring assets and securitizing them due to the legal work to be done, the work to be done by the ratings agencies and in finding investors. During this period, the bank is exposed to the underlying assets purchased, and this is the 'pipeline and warehousing' risk as these assets are in the pipeline and warehoused for intended subsequent sale. Generally this period tends to be short. However, during the credit crisis this became a significant source of risk as many banks were left exposed to risk they had intended to get rid of, but could not do so as the market dried up. The other choices are all incorrect.

Note that pipeline and warehousing risk is also known as 'securitzation risk'. It means that funding from securitization cannot be relied upon as a matter of fact.

Marginal probabilities of default are the probabilities for default for a given period, conditional on survival till the end of the previous period. Cumulative probabilities of default are probabilities of default by a point in time, regardless of when the default occurs. If the marginal probabilities of default for periods 1, 2... n are p1, p2...pn, then cumulative probability of default can be calculated as Cn = 1 - (1 - p1)(1-p2)...(1-pn). For this question, we can calculate the probability of default for year 3 as =1 - (1-2%)*(1-3%)*(1-4%) = 8.74%

Statement I is true. If a Monte Carlo simulation is based upon the same parameters as used for analytical VaR, and enough number of simulations are carried out, we would get the same results as with analytical VaR.

Statement II is false. We cannot use Monte Carlo simulations using parameters based upon a normal assumption when the underlying distribution is not normal. For example, if a return stream is based upon say a uniform distribution, we cannot use a simulation based upon drawings from a normal distribution even though we use the same mean and standard deviation.

Statement III is true. This is the advantage of historical simulations - no assumptions are necessary. (Historical simulations however often suffer from the great disadvantage of the paucity of data that would cover all possibilities.)

Statement IV is true. The results of historical simulations are limited to the data they are based upon.

The correct answer is choice 'a'

The correct order of steps to addressing data quality problems in an organization would include:

1. Assesing the current state

2. Designing the future state, and

3. Planning and implementation which would include identifying the gaps between the current and the desired future state, and implementation to address the gaps.

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Choice 'c' is incorrect because a gap analysis cannot be performed without understanding the 'as-is' (which results from understanding the current state).

Choice 'b' is non-sensical, and Choice 'd' is a flippant option (though often used in real life situations by management as an easy (and ineffective) way to escape accountability for difficult problems)

If the confidence levels for a VaR estimate are set too high, there may never be any exceedences, ie actual losses will never exceed VaR estimates. For limit setting, we want actual losses to exceed the VaR estimates enough number of times as during the year so that the limits are considered seriously. If the VaR estimate is exceeded too many times, or never, then it is unlikely to be considered seriously. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The other answers are incorrect as they either require the VaR to be too high (ie zero or rare excess loss situations) or too low (ie there will be too many cases of excess loss situations to be taken seriously).

Gross income is defined by Basel II (see para 650 of the Basel standard) as net interest income plus net non-interest income. It is intended that this measure should: (i) be gross of any provisions (e.g. for unpaid interest); (ii) be gross of operating expenses, including fees paid to outsourcing service providers; (iii) exclude realised profits/losses from the sale of securities in the banking book; and (iv) exclude extraordinary or irregular items as well as income derived from insurance.

What this means is that gross income is calculated without deducting any provisions or operating expenses from net interest plus non-interest income; and does not include any realised profits or losses from the sale of securities in the banking book, and also does not include any extraordinary or irregular item or insurance income.

Therefore operating expenses are to be not to be deducted for the purposes of calculating gross income, and neither are any provisions. Profits and losses from the sale of banking book securities are not considered part of gross income, and so isn't any income from insurance or extraordinary items.

Of the listed choices, only net non-interest income needs to be included for gross income calculations, and the others are to be excluded. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. Try to remember the components of gross income from the definition above because in the exam the question may be phrased differently.

Units of Measure for operational risk are homogenous groupings of risks to allow sensible modeling decisions to be made. For example, some risks may be fat-tailed, for example the risk of regulatory fines. Other risks may have finite tails - for example damage to physical assets risk (DPA) may be limited to the value of the asset in the question.

Additionally, risk reporting may need to be done at the line of business, legal entity or regional basis, and in order to be able to do, so the right level of granularity needs to be captured in the risk modeling exercise. The level of granularity applied is called the 'unit of measurement' (UoM), and it is okay to adopt all of the choices listed above as the dimensions that describe the unit of measure.

Note that it is entirely possible, even likely, to use legal entity, risk type, region, business and other dimensions simultaneously, though doing so is likely to result in an extremely large number of UoM combinations. That can be addressed by then subsequently grouping the more granular UoMs into larger UoMs, which may ultimately be used for frequency and severity estimation.

p = k/N. If there are N observations of which K are upto T, then p = k/N allows us to have a continuous unbroken curve which gets increasingly weighted towards the distribution selected for the tail as we move towards the 'right', ie the higher values of losses.

The other choices are incorrect and mostly nonsensical.

Marginal liquidity gap measures the expected net change in liquidity over, say, a day. It is just equal to the liquidity inflow minus liquidity outflow. The cumulative liquidity gap measures the aggregate change in liquidity from a point in time, in other words it is just the summation of the marginal liquidity gap for each of the days included in the period under consideration. The residual liquidity gap goes one step further and adds available 'opening balance' of liquidity to the cumulative liquidity gap to reveal the days or times when the net liquidity is most at risk.

Liquidity at Risk measures the expected time to survival at a certain confidence level applied to the firm's cash flows - and is not a measure of the liquidity gap.

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

All of the distributions referred to in the question can be used to model the loss severity distribution for op risk. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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.

Therefore any losses from poor strategic planning will not be a part of operational risk. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Note that floods, earthquakes and the like are covered under the definition of operational risk as losses arising from loss or damage to physical assets from natural disaster or other events.

Under the contingent claims approach, credit risk is modeled as the value of a put option on the value of the firm's assets with a strike equal to the face value of the debt and maturity equal to the maturity of the obligation. The cost of credit risk is determined by the leverage ratio, the volatility of the firm's assets and the maturity of the debt. Cash flows are not a part of the equation. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Choice 'd' is the correct answer. Settlement risk, as the name suggests, arises upon settlement when one of the parties delivers its obligation under the transaction and the other does not. Consider a EUR/USD FX forward contract maturing in a month. At maturity, one of the parties will deliver EURs and the other USDs. If one party fails to deliver, then it constitutes a very large risk to the other party. This risk is much larger than pre-settlement risk, because the amount at risk is the entire notional and not just the replacement value. Of course, settlement risk exists for a very short period of time, no more than a number or hours or a day.

There is no such thing as 'replacement risk', and credit risk is a larger category of which settlement risks is one component. Settlement risk is the most appropriate answer.

The ISDA MA provides a template that can be used by market participants to document derivative transactions. It has a core section that applies always, and various schedules that can be agreed to by the parties. The ISDA MA considerably facilitates closing transactions once the ISDA MA has been has been negotiated, without requiring a renegotiation each time.

A key feature of the ISDA MA is that it binds all transactions into a single net obligation. The ISDA Master 2002 states that "All transactions are entered into in reliance on the fact that this Master Agreement and all Confirmations form a single agreement between the parties ... and the parties would not otherwise enter into any Transactions." Therefore transactions under the ISDA MA are not considered separate obligations.

The ISDA MA does indeed define close out processes, default and termination events, and the CSA is one of the parts of the MA that describes the collateral related agreement.

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.

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).

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.

In December 2009 the BIS came out with a new consultative document on liquidity risk. Given the events of 2007 - 2009, it has been clear that a key characteristic of the financial crisis was the inaccurate and ineffective

management of liquidity risk

The paper two separate but complementary objectives in respect of liquidity risk management: The first objective relates to the short-term liquidity risk profile of institution, and the second objective is to promote resiliency over longer-term time horizons. The paper identifies the following two ratios - you should be aware of these - though I am not sure if these will show up in the PRMIA exam:

1. Liquidity Coverage Ratio addresses the ability of an institution to survive an acute liquidity risk stress scenario lasting one month. It is calculated as follows:

Liquidity Coverage Ratio = Stock of high quality liquid assets/Net cash outflows over a 30-day time period

2. Net Stable Funding Ratio has been developed to capture structural issues related to funding choices.

Net Stable Funding Ratio = Available amount of stable funding/Required amount of stable funding

Both ratios should be equal to or greater than 1. The statement contains detailed definitions of what is included or excluded from each of the terms used in the calculations for each of the ratios. In addition, the standard also describes the what the 'acute' scenario should include (things such as a 3 notch credit downgrade, reduction in retail deposits etc)

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Book Value to Share Price and Earnings Per Share are accounting measures unrelated to liquidity.

Each of these represent valid techniques for performing stress testing and building stress scenarios. Therefore d is the correct answer. In practice, elements of each of these techniques is used depending upon the portfolio and the exact situation.

The correct answer is choice 'a'

Recall the following summary of the GARCH model. The long term variance in a GARCH model is given by ?/(1 - ? - ?). In this case, this works out to =SQRT(0.001/(1 - 0.05 - 0.93)) * SQRT(250) = 3.54%. Yesterday's volatility of 1% is irrelevant to the question.

Generally, the probability of default is an input into determining the price of a security. However, if we know the market price of a security, we can back out the probability of default that the market is factoring into pricing that security. Market implied default probabilities are the probabilities of default priced into security prices, and can be determined from both bond prices and CDS spreads. Credit ratings issued by a credit agency do not give us 'market implied default probabilities', and neither does an internal scoring model like Altman's as these do not consider actual market prices in any way.

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer and the others are not.

Let the probability of default over a month be p. Therefore the probability of survival at the end of 12 months would be (1 - p)^12. Since the one year probability of default is 12%, we know that the probability of survival is 88%. Putting (1 - p)^12 = 88% and solving for p, we get p = 1.06%. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Expected value = $90 ($100 - 10%)

Value at 99% confidence level = $65

Therefore economic capital required at this level of confidence = $90 - $65 = $25.

Choice 'a' is the correct answer, the other choices are not.

(We can also look at it this way as explained in section III.B.6.2.2 of the handbook: Economic capital is designed to absorb unexpected losses, which are equal to total losses at a given confidence level minus expected losses. (Expected losses are to be covered by credit reserves). Total losses are $100-$65=$35, and expected losses are 10%*$100=$10, therefore economic capital should be $35-$10=$25.)

Component VaR measures the proportion of total VaR that can be allocated to each asset in the portfolio. It is based upon the covariance matrix multiplied by the weights, and each row represents the component VaR for the asset in question. Since the total of such a matrix is the total VaR, component VaR is additive. Component VaR is used to assess the contribution of each asset in the portfolio to total risk and has the useful property of being additive so some sense can be made of the contribution of each asset to total risk.

Incremental VaR, conditional VaR and VaR are sub-additive by definition, and therefore not the correct answer.

A LIBOR based loan requires cash to move from the lender to the borrower in the amount of the notional. The Overnight Index Swap requires only the exchange of interest payments, and therefore represents less risk.

Therefore the LIBOR based loan is a riskier exposure.

The LIBOR is generally higher than the OIS. In fact, the difference between the two, the LIBOR-OIS spread, is a standard measure of the risk premium in the market that goes up when the risk of default by counterparty banks is considered high. This is because when the market perceives the risk of default to be high, the participants need a risk premium to take on the default risk which is considerably lesser with the OIS.

Statement I is true as expected losses are the 'cost of doing business' and charged against the P&L of the unit holding the exposure. When evaluating the business unit, expected losses are taken into account. Unexpected losses however require risk capital reserves to be maintained against them.

Statement II is not true. Credit portfolio loss distributions are not symmetrical, in fact they are highly skewed and have heavy tails.

Statement III is true. The notional, or the face value of a defaulted debt is the basis for a claim in bankruptcy court, and not the market value.

Statement IV is false. In the case of over the counter instruments, the replacement value of the contract represents the amount of the claim, and not the notional amount (which can be very high!).

According to ISDA, a credit event is an event linked to the deteriorating credit worthiness of an underlying reference entity in a credit derivative. The occurrence of a credit event usually triggers full or partial termination of the transaction and a payment from protection seller to protection buyer. Credit events include

- bankruptcy,

- failure to pay,

- restructuring,

- obligation acceleration,

- obligation default and

- repudiation/moratorium.

A rating downgrade is not a credit event.

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

Choice 'c' is the correct answer. The Markov property is the assumption that there is no ratings momentum, and that transition probabilities are dependent only upon where the rating currently is and where it is going to. Where it has come from, or what the past changes in ratings have been, have no effect on the transition probabilities. ('Herstatt risk' refers to settlement risk, and is irrelevant.)

Since the BHC always fails when the investment bank fails, the joint probability of default of the two is merely the probability of the investment bank failing, ie 0.05.

The probability of just the BHC failing, given that both the investment bank and the retail bank have survived will be equal to 0.11 - (0.05+0.05-0.05*0.05) = 0.0125. (The easiest way to understand this would be to consider a venn diagram, where the area under the largest circle is 0.11, and there are two intersecting circles inside this larger circle, each with an area of 0.05 and their intersection accounting for 0.05*0.05. We need to calculate the area outside of the two smaller circles, but within the larger circle representing the BHC).

Refer diagram below, please excuse the awful colors.

The VaR in this case will be the top quintile of observations. In this case, since there are exactly 100 observations, this would mean the worst return would become the VaR. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Choice 'a' and Choice 'c' make no sense. This highlights that at higher confidence levels, fewer and fewer observations impact the VaR if we are using historical simulation based VaR.

The peaks-over-threshold model is used when losses over a given threshold are recorded, as is often the case when using data based on external public sources where only large loss events tend to find a place. The generalized Pareto distribution is also used when attempting to model loss severity using EVT. Lognormal mixtures and generalized hyperbolic distributions are not used as extreme value distributions.

Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

In the case of mean reversion, the actual VaR would be lower than that estimated using the square root of time rule. This is because gains over a period would be followed by losses so that the price can revert to the mean. In such cases, the autocorrelation between subsequent periods is effectively negative. This means the combined VaR over the periods would be lower.

In the case of positive autocorrelation, the actual VaR would be higher than that estimated using the square root of time rule for exactly the opposite reason than that described for the mean-reverting case.

(Recall that Variance (A + B) = Variance(A) + Variance(B) + 2*Correlation*StdDev(A)*StdDev(B). In cases where correlation is zero, the variance can simply be added together (which is the case for iid observations). In cases where the correlation is negative, the combined variance (and therefore standard deviation and also VaR) will be lower; and where correlation is positive, the combined variance (and therefore standard deviation and also VaR) will be higher.)

Therefore statement II is correct, and so is statement III. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Statement I is not correct as VaR does not set an upper limit on losses. In this case, the bank expects the losses to exceed $253m 5% of the times, and the VaR number does not indicate any theoretical maximum amount of losses.Statement II is incorrect as there is a 95% (and not 5%) probability that the bank's losses will not exceed $253mStatement III is correct and describes VaR.Statement IV is incorrect, as regulatory capital is a more complex computation for which VaR is only one of the various input.Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

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.

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.

A non-financial firm such as a manufacturing company faces market risks similar to those faced by financial firms, except perhaps for not being exposed to risks from the equity markets. Non financial firms commonly face interest rate risks in respect of their debts, commodity price risks in respect of their inputs and products, and foreign currency risks in respect of their overseas operations. It is therefore not correct to say that the manufacturing firm does not face market risk because it does not take proprietary positions. While decisions on positions may not be actively taken, positions in foreign exchange (eg, through overseas debtors owing foreign currency, or liabilities in foreign currencies to overseas suppliers), commodities (through exposure to the need for raw material and inventory of finished goods) and interest rates (through debt financed, whether at fixed or floating rates) exist and create market risk much in the same way as they would for a proprietary position. Therefore statement I is incorrect.

While the firm faces market risks as an externality (as do financial firms for that matter, though often they seek such exposure to profit from their view on which way the externality will express itself), it is incorrect to say that these risks must be borne. They can be measured and hedged. Therefore statement II is incorrect.

The results of a manufacturing firm will include gains and losses arising from exposure to market risk, and will cloud the true profitability of the business. A firm with significant unhedged overseas sales may show vastly different results across time periods due to the FX gains and losses, making comparative assessment of profitability difficult. Therefore statement III is correct.

Market risks for a manufacturing firm may be directionally biased in terms of exposure, ie there may be a consistent 'long' position in a particular commodity that the firm produces, and a consistent 'short' position in the commodities consumed. In the same way, directional biases may exist in FX or interest rate exposures too. Regardless of the bias, the existence of market risk exposures increase the volatility of the income stream and make the firm more risky, even though the long term expected returns from such exposures is zero (ie, returns may be zero but standard deviation is not). Therefore statement IV is not correct as market risks form non financial firms do increase the overall risk of the firm.

The minimum variance hedge ratio answers the question of how much of the hedge to buy to hedge a given position. It minimizes the combined volatility of the primary and the hedge position. The minimum variance hedge ratio is given by the expression [ ?(x) / ?(y) ] * ?(x,y)]. Effectively, this is the same as the beta of the primary position with respect to the hedge.

In this case, the hedge ratio is = 10%/9% * 0.9 = 1

It is the cross-default clauses in debt agreements that generally provide that a default on one obligation is considered a credit event applying to all debts of the obligor, and therefore we are able to deal with credit risk at the borrower level, and not at the level of the individual security. It also helps avoid situations where borrowers can selectively default on some obligations while continuing to service others. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. The other choices are incorrect.

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.

When calculating volatility weighted VaR, returns are adjusted by a factor equal to the current volatility divided by the historical volatility, ie the volatility that existed during the time period the returns were earned. If the current volatility is greater than the historical volatility (also called contemporary volatility), then it has the effect of increasing the magnitude of any past returns (whether positive or negative). This in turn increases the VaR.

Consider an example: if the current volatility is 2%, and a return of -5% was earned at a time when the volatility was 0.8%, then the volatility weighted return would be 12.5% (=-5% x 2%/0.8%). Clearly, this has the effect of increasing the VaR.

Choice 'd' is therefore the correct answer.

Choice 'a' is the correct answer. According to the Basel II document, banks using the Basic Indicator Approach must hold capital for operational risk equal to the average over the previous three years of a fixed percentage (denoted alpha, and currently 15%) of positive annual gross income. Figures for any year in which annual gross income is negative or zero should be excluded from both the numerator and denominator when calculating the average.

The probability that only one of the three bonds will default is equal to the sum of the probabilities of the three scenarios where one bond defaults and the other two survive. This probability is given by 1%*(1 - 2%)*(1 - 3%) + (1 - 1%)*2%*(1 - 3%) + (1 - 1%)*(1 - 2%)*3% = 5.7818%. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Historical Simulation VaR is conceptually very straightforward: actual prices as seen during the observation period (1 year, 2 years, or other) become the 'scenarios' forming the basis of the valuation of the portfolio. For each scenario, full revaluation is performed, and a P&L data set becomes available from which the desired loss quantile can be extracted.

Historical simulation is based upon actually seen prices over a selected historical period, therefore no distributional assumptions are required. The data is what the data is, and is the distribution. Statement I is therefore not correct.

It uses full revaluation for each historical scenario, therefore statement II is correct.

Since the prices are taken from actual historical observations, a correlation matrix is not required at all. Statement III is therefore incorrect (it would be true for Monte Carlo and parametric Var).

Historical simulation VaR suffers from the limitation that if enough representative data points are no available during the historical observation period from which the scenarios are drawn, the results would be inaccurate. This is likely to be the case for new products. Therefore Statement IV is incorrect.

When two bonds that appear identical in every respect trade at different prices, the difference is often due to differences in liquidity between the two bonds (the less liquid bond will be cheaper and yield higher), and also due to the fact that ratings from the major rating agencies do not generally react to day to day changes in the market. The market's perception of the differences in the two credits will cause a divergence in the prices. This has been an extremely visible phenomenon during the credit crisis of 2007-2009, where fixed income security prices have changed sharply for many securities without any changes in external credit ratings.

Bonds carrying 'different market risk' is meaningless, and so is the difference in convexity (because the calculated convexity would be identical for similar bonds).

Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The VaR for a spot FX position is merely a function of the standard deviation of the exchange rate. If V be the value of the position (in this case, EUR 15m x 1.5 = USD 22.5m), z the appropriate z value associated with the level of confidence desired, and ? be the standard deviation of the portfolio, the VaR is given by Z?V.

In this case, the 10-day standard deviation is given by SQRT(10/250)*16%. Therefore the VaR is =1.645*15*1.5*(16%*SQRT(10/250)) = USD 1.1844m. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The square root of time rule cannot be applied here because the returns across the periods are not independent. (Recall that the square root of time rule requires returns to be iid, independent and identically distributed.) Here there is a 'autocorrelation' in play, which means one period's returns affect the returns of the other period.

VaR is merely a multiple of volatility, or standard deviation, using the factor for the desired confidence level. VaR across time periods can be combined using the square root of time rule, in fact if returns were independent we could have easily calculated the VaR for the 20-day period as equal to $100m*SQRT(20/10) = $141.4m

But in this case we need to account for the autocorrelation. We can do this akin to the way we combine the VaR of different assets that have a given correlation. Since we know that:

Variance (A + B) = Variance(A) + Variance(B) + 2*Correlation*StdDev(A)*StdDev(B).

The standard deviation, which the VaR is a multiple of, can be calculated by taking the square root of the variance.

Therefore the combined VaR over the two months will be equal to =SQRT( (100^2) + (100^2) + 2*0.2*100*100 )= $154.92m. All other answers are incorrect.

This questions deals with the appropriate levels of the holding period and confidence levels for VaR estimates. These depend upon the use the VaR estimate is intended to be put to - so when calculating VaR levels for capital requirements, or for maintaining credit ratings, very high levels of confidence are generally used. On the contrary, when setting limits or validating a model, a few excess loss situations are not only acceptable but actually desirable, and therefore lower levels of confidence are used.When it comes to the holding period, that may be mandated, as it is under Basel II as being a 10 day period. For other cases, it may be a horizon roughly corresponding to a period in which positions may be liquidated in an orderly day, which could be just one day for highly liquid markets, or a week or more for larger positions in illiquid markets.Therefore statements I and III are true and the others are false. Therefore the only correct answer is Choice 'b'.

The 'degree' of a node in a network measures the number of links to other nodes. For the financial network, each market participant can be thought of as a node. The 'degree distribution' can be thought of as the histogram of the number of links for each node.

The financial network has a degree distribution with rather long tails - and therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. The other choices are incorrect. Long tailed networks have the property that they are robust when affected by random disturbances, but susceptible to targeted attacks, for example on key hubs.

When the economy is expanding, firms are less likely to default. Therefore the conditional probability of default, given an economic expansion, is likely to be lower than the unconditional probability of default. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer and the other statements are incorrect.

Once the frequency distribution has been determined (for example, using the binomial, Poisson or the negative binomial distributions) and the severity distribution has also been determined (for example, using the lognormal, gamma or other functions), the loss distribution can be produced by a Monte Carlo simulation using successive drawings from each of these two distributions. It is assumed that the severity and frequency are independent of each other. The resulting distribution gives a distribution showing the losses for operational risk, from which there Op Risk VaR can be determined using the appropriate percentile.Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Unexpected loss for a credit portfolio refers to the excess of the VaR estimate over the average expected loss. The term 'unexpected loss' has this specific meaning in the context of credit risk, and not any other intuitive meaning. So if for a portfolio worth $100m expected losses are 4%, and the credit VaR at 99% is $12m, then unexpected losses at that VaR quintile are $8m. This is unrelated to actual realized losses versus expected losses.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer and the others are not.

Unexpected loss is used to determine the capital reserves to be maintained against a credit portfolio at a certain level of confidence.

Exposure for derivative instruments can vary significantly over the lifetime of the instrument, depending upon how the market moves. The potential future exposure represents the extremes, not the most likely outcome. The expected exposure is the most suitable measure for pricing the credit risk. Over time, as multiple transactions are entered into, the expectation (or the mean) will be realized - though individual transactions may have more or less by way of exposure.

The notional amount may not be relevant, though for loans it may be the most important contributor to the expected exposure. Mark-to-market will represent the exposure at a given point in time, but cannot be predicted nor be used to price the credit risk.

Volatility clustering leads to levels of current volatility that can be significantly different from long run averages. When volatility is running high, institutions need to shed risk, and when it is running low, they can afford to increase returns by taking on more risk for a given amount of capital. An institution's response to changes in volatility can be either to adjust risk, or capital, or both. Accounting for volatility clustering helps institutions manage their risk and capital and therefore statements I and II are correct.

Regulatory requirements do not require volatility clustering to be taken into account (at least not yet). Therefore statement III is not correct, and neither is IV which is completely unrelated to volatility clustering.

According to the Basel II framework, Tier 1 capital, also called core capital or basic equity, includes equity capital and disclosed reserves.

Tier 2 capital, also called supplementary capital, includes undisclosed reserves, revaluation reserves, general provisions/general loan-loss reserves, hybrid debt capital instruments and subordinated term debt issued originally for 5 years or longer.

Tier 3 capital, or short term subordinated debt, is intended only to cover market risk but only at the discretion of their national authority. This only includes short term subordinated debt originally issued for 2 or more years.

An interesting thing to note is the difference between 'subordinated term debt' under Tier 2 and the 'short term subordinated debt' under Tier 3. The distinction is based upon the years to maturity at the time the debt was issued. The remaining time to maturity is not relevant. For the subordinated term debt included under Tier 2, the amount that can be counted towards capital is reduced by 20% for every year when the debt is due within 5 years. This takes care of the time to maturity problem for Tier 2 subordinated debt. For Tier 3 short term subordinated debt, this is not an issue because debt will only qualify for Tier 3 if it has a lock-in clause stipulating that the debt is not required to be repaid if the effect of such repayment is to take the bank below minimum capital requirements.

The immediate impact of the default would be to improve the liquidity available in the short term due to the pay out from the CDSs.

It is also important to consider the impact on liquidity from the occurence of a default even in situations where CDS protection may not have been purchased. In such cases, there may be a nearer term payout in the form of the recovery rate. Of course, recovery payments are generally not realized for longer periods of time as court cases linger on, but there is a good likelihood that a payment, albeit lower in total, is likely to be realized sooner than the maturity of the bond in cases where the bond is a longer term bond. At the same time, any interest payments, and the final principal payment, which may have been included in liquidity projections, will not occur.

For the PRM exam, it is important to remember the z-multiples for both 99% and 95% confidence levels (these are 2.33 and 1.64 respectively).

The value at risk for an equity portfolio is its standard deviation multiplied by the appropriate z factor for the given confidence level. If we knew the standard deviation, VaR would be easy to calculate. The standard deviation can be derived using a correlation matrix for all the stocks in the portfolio, which is not a trivial task. So we simplify the calculation using the CAPM and essentially say that the standard deviation of the portfolio is equal to the beta of the portfolio multiplied by the standard deviation of the market.

Therefore VaR in this case is equal to Beta x Mkt Std Dev x Value x z-factor, and therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Extreme value theory focuses on the extreme and rare events, and in the case of VaR calculations, it is focused on the right tail of the loss distribution. In very simple and non-technical terms, EVT says the following:

1. Pull a number of large iid random samples from the population,

2. For each sample, find the maximum,

3. Then the distribution of these maximum values will follow a Generalized Extreme Value distribution.

(In some ways, it is parallel to the central limit theorem which says that the the mean of a large number of random samples pulled from any population follows a normal distribution, regardless of the distribution of the underlying population.)

Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distributions have three parameters: ? (shape parameter), ? (location parameter) and ? (scale parameter). Based upon the value of ?, a GEV distribution may either be a Frechet, Weibull or a Gumbel. These are the only three types of extreme value distributions.

According to the first principle set out by the BCBS paper on stress testing, the Board has ultimate responsibility for the overall stress testing programme. Senior management is accountable for the implementation, management and oversight of the programme, but the overall responsibility stays with the Board of Directors of the institution. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Additionally, this principle lays down that stress testing should be a part of the overall governance, ie support the strategic choices made as part of business planning; and be integrated with the risk management culture of the bank, ie stress tests should be used as an input for setting the risk appetite, exposure limits, and the capital and liquidity planning processes of the bank.

According to a paper by the BCBS, here is an excellent summary of what happened. Based on this, Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

"At the outset of the crisis, mortgage default shocks played a part in the deterioration of market prices of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Simultaneously, these shocks revealed deficiencies in the models used to manage and price these products. The complexity and resulting lack of transparency led to uncertainty about the value of the underlying investment. Market participants then drastically scaled down their activity in the origination and distribution markets and liquidity disappeared. The standstill in the securitisation markets forced banks to warehouse loans that were intended to be sold in the secondary markets. Given a lack of transparency of the ultimate ownership of troubled investments, funding liquidity concerns were triggered within the banking sector as banks refused to provide sufficient funds to each other. This in turn led to the hoarding of liquidity, exacerbating further the funding pressures within the banking sector. The initial difficulties in subprime mortgages also fed through to a broader range of market instruments since the drying up of market and funding liquidity forced market participants to liquidate those positions which they could trade in order to scale back risk. An increase in risk aversion also led to a general flight to quality, an example of which was the high withdrawals by households from money market funds."

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 correct answer is choice 'b'

Both statements are accurate. Basel II requires pooled probabilities of default to be applied to risk buckets that contain similar exposures. Also, stress testing is mandatory for both market and credit risk.

Survivorship bias is the tendency for failed companies, funds, investments and even entire markets (eg Russian stock market returns after the Communist revolution) to be excluded from performance studies because they no longer exist. Survivorship bias results in past results looking better than they actually were as data points relating to failures are not included.

A risk manager needs to be aware of survivorship bias when basing risk analysis on historical data and should question if failures (eg failed funds, delisted companies etc) have been included in the data he or she is relying upon.

The second order approximation of the VaR of an options position is given by [Option delta x Underlying's VaR - Option gamma/2 x (Underlying's VaR)^2]. Therefore, a higher gamma reduces VaR and a lower gamma increases VaR. Hence Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The term 'group risk' has been defined in the FSA document 08/24 on stress testing as the risk that a firm may be adversely affected by an occurrence (financial or non-financial) in another group entity or an occurrence that affects ther group as a whole. These risks may occur through:

- reputational contagion,

- financial contagion,

- leveraging,

- double or multiple gearing,

- concentrations and large exposures (particularly intra-group).

Thus, the insurance sector may be considered a group, and a firm may suffer just because another group firm has had losses or reputational issues.

The FSA statement goes on to identify some elements of group risk as follows:

- intra-group exposures (credit or operational exposures through outsourcing or service arrangements, as well as more standard business exposures);

- concentration risks (from credit, market or insurance risks which could put a strain on capital resources across entities simultaneously);

- contagion (reputational damage, operational or financial pressures); and

- complex group structures (with dependencies, complex split of responsibilities and accountabilities).

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer and the rest of the choices are incorrect.

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.

If annual variance is 0.0256, then annual volatility (ie standard deviation) is ?0.0256. Therefore the daily volatility will be ?0.0256/?250 = 1.01%. The other choices are not correct.

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).

Statement I is true - component VaR for individual assets in the portfolio add up to the total VaR for the portfolio. This property makes component VaR extremely useful for risk disaggregation and allocation.

Stateent II is incorrect, the incremental VaRs for the positions in a portfolio do not add up to the portfolio VaR, in fact their sum would be greater.

Statement III is correct. Marginal VaR for an asset or position in the portfolio is by definition the change in the VaR as a result of a $1 change in that position. Incremental VaR is the change in the VaR for a portfolio from a new position added to the portfolio - and if that position is $1, it would be identical to the marginal VaR.

Statement IV is correct, VaR is sub-additive due to the diversification effect. Adding up the VaRs for all the positions in a portfolio will add up to more than the VaR for the portfolio as a whole (unless all the positions are 100% correlated, which effectively would mean they are all identical securities which means the portfolio has only one asset).

Statement V is in incorrect. As explained for Statement I above, component VaR adds up to the VaR for the portfolio.

The beta distribution is commonly used to model recovery rates. It is a distribution for variables whose values lie between 0 & 1, and the parameters of the distribution can be estimated using the mean and standard deviation of the data. Therefore Choice 'a' is correct and the others are wrong.

Refer to the tutorial on distributions for an Excel model of the beta distribution.

The $10m cash flow due in 6 months is equivalent to a bond with a present value of 10m/(1.05)^0.5 =$9,759,000. Essentially, the question requires us to calculate the VaR of a bond.

The VaR of a fixed income instrument is given by Duration x Interest Rate x Volatility of the interest rate x z-factor corresponding to the confidence level.

In this case, since the question requires us to calculate the value "closest to" the correct answer, we can use an estimate for the modified duration of the bond as equal to 0.5 years/(1+r) = 0.5/1.05 = 0.47 years. The VaR would be given by 0.5 * 5% * 15% * 2.326 * sqrt(1/250) * 9,759,000 = $5,384 which is closest to $5,500. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Note that we have to multiply by sqrt(1/250) as the given volatility is annual and the question is asking for daily VaR. All other answers are incorrect.

Credit reserves are created in respect of expected losses, which are considered the cost of doing business. Unexpected losses are borne by economic credit capital, which is a part of economic capital. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Economic capital is sub-additive, ie, because of the correlation being less than perfect between the risks of the different business units, the total economic capital for the firm will be less than the sum of the EC for the individual business units. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

In practice, correlations are difficult to estimate reliably, and banks often use estimates and corroborate their capital calculations with reference to a number of data points.