8008 Questions and Answers

It is important to note the difference between sensitivity analysis and stress testing. Sensitivity analysis applies to measuring the effect of changes on the outputs of a model by varying the inputs - generally one input at a time.

In scenario analysis, a number of variables may be changed at the same time to see the impact on the dependent variable. For example, a bank may measure the changes in the value of its mortgage portfolio by varying its assumptions on prepayment expectations, interest rates and other factors, using its modeling software or application. The changes in the inputs may or may not relate to integrated real world situations that may arise. Sensitivity analysis is purely a quantitative exercise, much like calculating the delta of a portfolio.

A stress test may include shocks or large changes to input parameters but it does so as part of a larger stress testing programme that generally considers the interaction of risk factors, past scenarios etc. At its simplest, a stress test may be no different from a sensitivity analysis exercise, but that is generally not what is considered a stress test at large financial institutions.

A stress test may consider multiple scenarios, for example one scenario may include the events witnessed during the Asian crisis, another may include the events of the recent credit crisis. Simulation generally refers to a Monte Carlo or historical simulation, and is often a more limited exercise.

The exercise described in the question is the closest to a scenario analysis, therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

It is important to note that all of the choices referred to in this question are related to each other, and the boundaries between them tend to be fuzzy. At what point does a complex sensitivity analysis start resembling a scenario, or a stress test can always be debatable, but such a debate would be more about the symantics than be of any practical use.

The probability that only none of the three bonds will default is equal to the probability of all surviving. Since default correlation is zero, we can simply multiply the probabilities of survival. Therefore the correct answer is 94% = (1 - 1%) * (1 - 2%) * (1 - 3%)

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 [ σ(x) / σ(y) ] * ρ(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

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.

While conceptually VaR is a fairly straightforward concept, a number of decisions need to be made to select between the different choices available for the exact mechanism to be used for the calculations.

There is more than one way to calculate returns. Absolute returns may be relevant for risk factors where the size of the movement is unrelated to its current value. For other risk factors, the returns might scale with the size of the existing value of the risk factor, eg equity prices. The right return definition needs to be adopted for each risk factor, therefore 'I' is a correct choice.

The risk analyst has a Choice 'b'etween parametric VaR, Monte Carlo, and historical simulation based VaR. 'II' therefore is one of the decisions that needs to be made (though historical simulation is the choice most often made).

The decision as to what to include in a portfolio is not a decision that is affected by choices made for VaR calculations. 'III' is therefore not a correct answer.

There are multiple ways to calculate volatility - including decisions on how long back in time to go for the data, and whether volatility clustering needs to be accounted for using EWMA or GARCH. Therefore 'IV' is a correct answer.

The actuarial model considers defaults to follow a Poisson distribution with a given mean per period, and these are binary in nature, ie a default happens or it does not happen. The model does not consider the loss of value from credit downgrades, and focuses only on defaults. The model also does not consider default correlations between obligors. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The other choices are not true statements that would apply to the actuarial approach.

Basel II requires financial institutions to compare their ex-ante VaR estimates to actual realized P&L. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. A bank may use hypothetical P&L based upon constant positions to validate its model, but that is not required for Basel II.

Explanation

If the risks are considered perfectly positively correlated, ie assumed to have a correlation equal to 1, the standard deviations can simply be added together. This gives the most conservative estimate of combined risk for capital calculation purposes. In practice, this is the assumption used most often.

If risks are uncorrelated, ie correlation is assumed to be zero, variances can be added or the standard deviation is the root of the sum of the squares of the individual standard deviations. This obviously gives a number lower than that given when correlation is assumed to be +1.

Similarly, assumptions of negative correlation, or any correlation other than +1 will give a standard deviation number that is smaller and therefore less conservative. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

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.

A CFP is indeed a disaster recovery plan to deal with a liquidity crisis. Therefore statement I is correct.

A CFP should consider market stress conditions, including wide scale failures of payment and settlement systems. Statement II is not correct.

It is true that reputational damage may result if a firm has to activate its CFP - therefore the plan should consider internal and external communications, the timing of information release and the groups within the firm who need to know about the implementation of the plan. Reputational damage can only make any existing liquidity problems worse. Statement III is correct.

Sources of emergency funding should not include funding from the central bank - unless as part of a regular lending facility. Its role as a lender of last resort can not be considered in a CFP. Statement IV is incorrect.

Therefore only statements I and III are correct.

Altman's Z-score, the Probit and the Logit models can all be used to assess the credit rating of an individual borrower. There is no such model as the 'distance to default model', and therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

I, III and IV represent situations where Monte Carlo simulations can be employed. I is not a situation where Monte Carlo can be used, as there is no basis available to simulate the returns. When no distribution assumption is possible, it may be advisable to use historical simulations. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer, and the others are incorrect.

Some risk experts have suggested the use of extreme value theory to model tail risk or extreme events for operational risk. The generalized Pareto model or the Peaks-over-Threshold (POT) model are often used to model extreme value distributions, and therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

All the listed variables are relevant to management monitoring the credit risk profile of an institution, therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

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.

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)]

The CCAR is a supervisory mechanism adopted by the US Federal Reserve Bank to assess capital adequacy for bank holding companies it supervises. It was not a concept introduced by the international Basel framework.

The other three were indeed rules introduced by Basel 2.5, which was ultimately subsumed into Basel III.

Stressed VaR is just the standard 99%/10 day VaR, calculated with the assumption that relevant market factors are under stress.

The Incremental Risk Charge (IRC) is an estimate of default and migration risk of unsecuritized credit products in the

trading book. (Though this may sound like a credit risk term, it relates to market risk - for example, a bond rated A being downgraded to BBB. In the old days, the banking book where loans to customers are held was the primary source of credit risk, but with OTC trading and complex products the trading book also now holds a good deal of credit risk. Both IRC and CRM account for these.)

While IRC considers only non-securitized products, the CRM (Comprehensive Risk Model) considers securitized products such as tranches, CDOs, and correlation based instruments.

The IRC, SVaR and CRM complement standard VaR by covering risks that are not included in a standard VaR model. Their results are therefore added to the VaR for capital adequacy determination.

When a derivative position is entered into, its mark-to-market value is generally close to zero (though the notional may be high). With the passage of time, the derivative's value fluctuates in an unpredictable way, creating a counterparty exposure that may be difficult to estimate and risk manage. Counterparty risk in such cases is estimated based on Potential Future Exposure, which may be calculated using either:

a) Take the mark-to-market at present, and add a certain percentage of the notional, or

b) Perform a Monte Carlo simulation, capturing the stochastic nature of the PFE.

Therefore I and II are valid choices. MLE and parametric estimation are not methods for calculating PFE.

The bank will not be able to recover the principal advanced on this loan if both the home buyer defaults, and the house value falls to less than $1m, ie the price moves adversely by more than $500k, which is $-500k/$150k = -3.33σ. (Note that 150k is the 1 year volatility in dollars, ie $1.5m * 10%).

The probability of both these things happening together is just the product of the two probabilities, one of which we know to be 5%. The other is also certainly a small number, and intuitively it is clear that the probability of both the things happening together will be less than 1%.

For a more precise answer, we can calculate the probability of the house price falling by 3.33 standard deviations by calculating the area under the standard normal curve to the left of -3.33σ. This indeed is a very small number (actually equal to NORMSINV(-3.33)=0.00043), which when multiplied by the probability of default of the home buyer at 5% is certainly going to be less than 1%. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Generally, stress tests consider a shock or a severe scenario in order to determine the 'what-if' that circumstance were to materialize. They focus on the outcome based upon a set of shocks. In a reverse stress test, the outcome is assumed to be known (generally something as severe as bankruptcy, non-compliance with capital requirements etc), and the test is intended to work out what shocks or events would lead to such an outcome.

Reverse stress tests therefore start from a known stress test outcome (such as breaching regulatory captial ratios, illiquidity or insolvency) and then asking what events could lead to such an outcome for the bank. This can be quite a challenging task. Principle 9 laid out in the BCBS document on stress testing (May 2009) (which is part of the PRM syllabus effective March 1, 2010) lays down the expectations relating to reverse stress tests.

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. All the other choices are nonsensical.

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.

The minimum multiplication factor specified under Basel II is 3. Therefore the correct answer is Choice 'a'. The exact requirements are laid down below.

Each bank must meet, on a daily basis, a capital requirement expressed as the higher of (i) its previous day’s value-at-risk number measured according to the parameters specified in this section and (ii) an average of the daily value-at-risk measures on each of the preceding sixty business days, multiplied by a multiplication factor.

The multiplication factor will be set by individual supervisory authorities on the basis of their assessment of the quality of the bank’s risk management system, subject to an absolute minimum of 3. Banks will be required to add to this factor a “plus” directly related to the ex-post performance of the model, thereby introducing a built in positive incentive to maintain the predictive quality of the model. The plus will range from 0 to 1 based on the outcome of so-called “backtesting.”

Offsetting trades with other counterparties will not reduce credit exposure to a given counterparty. All other choices represent means of reducing credit risk. Therefore 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.

The Pareto distribution has a 'shape parameter'. The average of two Pareto distributions with tail parameters ξ1 and ξ2 (ξ is a Greek character, pronounced as 'sai' (saa-eee)), is the weighted average of ξ1 and ξ2 with weights proportional to the number of observations in the datasets underlying the distributions.

The stresses on liquidity that happened as part of the credit crisis beginning 2007-08 led to drying up of trading and liquidity crisis in the corporate bond markets, the auction rate securities markets, the wholesale (interbank lending) markets, the money markets, the markets for structured products, and even the otherwise liquid futures and forwards markets (as there was no liquidity available to fund the financing of futures). The one market that was not affected was the market for treasuries, in fact the flight to quality ensured that this market was very liquid (even though stressed from a pricing perspective as yields plummetted).

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

The capital adequacy ratio, also called the minimum capital requirement for credit risk per Basel II is 8% of risk weighted assets. The other choices are incorrect.

EVT, when used in the context of operational risk measurement, focuses on tail events and attempts to build a distribution of losses beyond what is covered by VaR. Statements I, II and II are correct. Statement IV describes conditional VaR (CVAR) and not EVT.

Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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.

A high score under the probit and logit models indicates a higher default risk, while under Altman's methodology it indicates a lower default risk. Therefore Choice 'd' 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.

Statement I is correct. Data is often divided into two sets - a 'training set' that is used to create and fine-tune the model while the 'control set' is used to prove that the model works on sample data. Back testing is then perfomed using actual data that becomes available over time, or may already be available as historical data.

Statement II is incorrect. A risk manager often spends a great deal of time in managing data, and ensuring that the data being used is accurate enough for the purpose it is being used for. A risk manager can expect to spend a good part of his or her team's time in cleansing data. While he or she can try to get the IT processes and systems to produce correct data in the first place so it requires minimal subsequent cleansing or validation, this task is likely to remain a key part of a risk manager's role for quite some time in the future given the challenges nearly all organizations face in managing risk data.

Statement III is correct. There was not enough granular data available on the underlying components of some of the derivative debt securities whose markets dried up during the crisis that began in 2007. This was because investors became increasingly unsure of what the value of these securities, such as CDOs was, leading to market seizure and firesale prices.

Statement IV is not correct. There is no easy solution to the lack of enough historical data, which is used to create as well as test models, and construct stress scenarios. Analytical approaches are not a good enough substitute for real market data. During the recent crisis, many instruments had rather short histories and there was not enough data available, and risk managers and portfolio managers relied upon analytical approaches to value and price them. Many of the assumptions that underpinned these approaches were untested in the real world and turned out to be incorrect.

Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer and the rest are incorrect.

Statement I is correct. Economic capital is the capital available to absorb unexpected losses, and credit ratings are also based upon a certain probability of default. Economic capital is often calculated at a level equal to the confidence required for the desired credit rating. For example, if the probability of default for a AA rating is 0.02%, then economic capital maintained at a 99.98% would allow for such a rating. Economic capital set at a 99.8% level can be thought of as the level of losses that would not be exceeded with a 99.8% probability.

Loss distributions are the product of the severity and frequency distributions, each of which are estimated separately. The total loss distribution is affected far more by the severity distribution than by the frequency distribution, therefore statement II is correct.

The Loss Distribution Approach (LDA) is one of the ways in which the requirements of the AMA can be satisfied, and not the other way round. Therefore statement III is incorrect.

Statement IV is correct as the total loss distribution is estimated using separate estimates of loss frequency and distributions.

Negative publicity, a downgrade in the credit rating, a falling stock price are all pointers to potential credit problems, and the counterparty credit monitoring group of a bank should be using these as possible early indicators of an upcoming credit health problem. A decline in the yield of the debt issued by a counterparty means its spread is declining and the health of the credit is actually improving. Therefore a decline in the counterparty's corporate debt yield cannot be used as an indicator of potential credit problems.

Choice 'c' is therefore the correct answer.

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.

A forward rate agreement allows one of the parties to borrow an amount at a rate for a length of time, all of which are agreed in advance. Consider a "3 x 6" FRA. This allows a fixed rate borrowing starting at 3 months till the end of 6 months. This is economically equivalent to holding a zero coupon bond till the end of 6 months, and being short another zero coupon bond till the end of 3 months (or the other way round, depending upon which end of the FRA you are on). Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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.

A recap would be in order here: calculating operational risk capital is a multi-step process.

First, we fit curves to estimate the parameters to our chosen distribution types for frequency (eg, Poisson), and severity (eg, lognormal). Note that these curves are fitted at the UoM level - which is the lowest level of granularity at which modeling is carried out. Since there are many UoMs, there are are many frequency and severity distributions. However what we are interested in is the loss distribution for the entire bank from which the 99.9th percentile loss can be calculated. From the multiple frequency and severity distributions we have calculated, this becomes a two step process:

- Step 1: Calculate the aggregate loss distribution for each UoM. Each loss distribution is based upon and underlying frequency and severity distribution.

- Step 2: Combine the multiple loss distributions after considering the dependence between the different UoMs. The 'dependence' recognizes that the various UoMs are not completely independent, ie the loss distributions are not additive, and that there is a sort of diversification benefit in the sense that not all types of losses can occur at once and the joint probabilities of the different losses make the sum less than the sum of the parts.

Step 1 requires simulating a number, say n, of the number of losses that occur in a given year from a frequency distribution. Then n losses are picked from the severity distribution, and the total loss for the year is a summation of these losses. This becomes one data point. This process of simulating the number of losses and then identifying that number of losses is carried out a large number of times to get the aggregate loss distribution for a UoM.

Step 2 requires taking the different loss distributions from Step 1 and combining them considering the dependence between the events. The correlations between the losses are described by a 'copula', and combined together mathematically to get a single loss distribution for the entire bank. This allows the 99.9th percentile loss to be calculated.

Frequency modeling is performed using discrete distributions that have a positive integer as a resultant - this allows for the number of events per period of time to be modeled. Of the distributions listed above, Poisson, negative binomial and binomial can be used for modeling frequency distributions. The Poisson and negative binomial distributions are encountered the most in practice.

The gamma distribution is a continuous distribution and cannot be used for frequency modeling.

A situation where a firm has more liabilities than assets does not necessarily imply default, so long as the firm is able to pay its obligations when they come due. Therefore, short term debts have a greater bearing on a firm's default than longer term debt. However, this is not to say that merely having enough to pay off the short term debts (ie debts due within one year) is enough to avoid default. Over time, the long term debt will also be turning to short term debt, and it may not be possible for the firm to roll over its liabilities without lenders considering the long term debt. The KMV approach considers the entire short term debt and half of the long term debt as the critical value of assets below which default will be triggered. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The question is asking for the probability of default over a 6 month period when the probability of annual default is known. If we let the 6 month probability of defaut be 'd', then the probability of survival at the end of 1 year would be (1 - d)^2. This we know is equal to 1 - 3% = 0.97. Therefore we can calculate 'd' to be equal to 1.51%. Choice 'c' is the correct answer, the others are incorrect.

Note that an exam question may ask for probability of the security having survived after 6 months, in which case the answer might be 1 - 1.51%. Also note that such questions will always require you to use the probability of survival (1 - probability of default) for doing the calculations. That is because the probabilities of survival can be multiplied over periods of time, but not probabilities of default as the first default in any period is the 'game-over' event after which neither survival nor defaults mean anything. Therefore you generally always have to get the probability of survival till a point in time, and use that for any other calculations.

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.

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.

While conceptually VaR is a fairly straightforward concept, a number of decisions need to be made to select between the different choices available for the exact mechanism to be used for the calculations.

The Basel framework requires banks to estimate VaR at the 99% confidence level over a 10 day horizon. Yet this is a decision that needs to be explicitly made and documented. Therefore 'I' is a correct choice.

At various stages of the calculations, portfolio values need to be determined. The valuation can be done using a 'full valuation', where each position is explicitly valued; or the portfolio(s) can be reduced to a handful of risk factors, and risk sensitivities such as delta, gamma, convexity etc be used to value the portfolio. The decision between the two approaches is generally based on computational efficiency, complexity of the portfolio, and the degree of exactness desired. 'II' therefore is one of the decisions that needs to be made.

The decision as to disclosing the VaR in financial filings comes after the VaR has been calculated, and is unrelated to the VaR calculation system a bank needs to set up. 'III' is therefore not a correct answer.

Though the Basel framework requires a 10-day VaR to be calculated, it also allows the calculation of the 1-day VaR and and scaling it to 10 days using the square root of time rule. The bank needs to decide whether it wishes to scale the VaR based on a 1-day VaR number, or compute VaR for a 10 day period to begin with. 'IV' therefore is a decision to be made for setting up the VaR system.

According to ISDA standard definitions, the legal claim for OTC derivatives is the current replacement value of the contract. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer. None of the other choices are correct.

The correct answer is choice 'd'

For settlement of interbank payments, there are broadly two kinds of systems: RTGS (Real Time Gross Systems) and Deferred Net Systems (DNS). RTGS process payments in real time, settlement by settlement, and each transaction is settled by the a clearing institution (mostly the central bank) on a gross basis without regard for other settlements affecting the counterparty. DNS systems, on the other hand, allow for debiting or crediting the accounts of counterparties at periodic intervals after netting all payments paid or received since the last settlement. The exact timing of the payments does not matter so long as a bank has sufficient funding on a net basis at settlement time. Implicit in the DNS system is the extension of credit and liquidity by the central bank to the participating banks as it is possible for a bank to issue payment instructions even without having funds so long as they can arrange for such funds prior to settlement at the end of the day. In RTGS, a bank needs to have funds to make a payment at any point, and cannot make a payment against moneys expected to be received later intra-day. RTGS systems therefore need more liquidity on the part of the participants, and consume far more liquidity than DNS arrangements. Of course, the 'liquidity' of the DNS arrangement has a cost - which is that someone is taking up settlement risk, and invariably it is the central bank. If a bank under DNS fails to settle, its transactions have to be 'unwound', ie all payments made by it have to be rolled back. This can cause other banks to trip, causing further unwinding transactions. RTGS systems do not carry this risk. Therefore statement I is not correct as RTGS consume more liquidity than DNS arrangements.

Statement II is correct. US Fedwire or European TARGET are RTGS while CHIPS is a DNS based payment system.

Statement III is not correct. Current Basel requirements do not require any disclosure in respect of liquidity risk management. A consultative paper was issued by BIS in Dec 2009 for comments from members, but it is far from final. The BIS is still reacting to the liquidity issues that arose during the 2007-09 credit crisis.

Statement IV is not correct as a CFP is like a disaster recovery plan for liquidity, ie it helps a bank plan for and think about what steps would be taken to deal with a liquidity disaster situation. It does not provide any access to central bank financing.

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.

Stress events rarely play out in a well defined period of time, and looking back it is always difficult to put exact start and end dates on historical stress events. Even after that is done, the question arises as to what magnitude of a change in a particular risk factor (for example interest rates, spreads, or exchange rates) are reasonable to consider for the purposes of the stress test.

Statements I and III correctly identify the two approaches that are acceptable and used in practice - the risk manager can either take the maximum adverse move - from peak to trough - in the risk factor, or alternatively he or she could consider the change in the risk factor from the start of the event to the end as defined for the purposes of the stress test. Between the two, the approach mentioned in statement III is considered slightly superior as it produces more believable shocks.

Statement II is incorrect because we never want to consider the minimum, and statement IV is not correct as it is likely to generate a shock of a magnitude that is not plausible. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Under the CreditPortfolio View approach, the credit rating transition matrix is adjusted for the state of the economy in a way as to increase the probability of defaults when the economy is not doing well, and vice versa. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. The other choices represent nonsensical options.

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.