Free PRMIA 8008 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

Monte Carlo VaR computations generally include the following steps:

1. Generate multivariate normal random numbers, based upon the correlation matrix of the risk factors

2. Based upon these correlated random numbers, calculate the new level of the risk factor (eg, an index value, or interest rate)

3. Use the new level of the risk factor to revalue each of the underlying assets, and calculate the difference from the initial valuation of the portfolio. This is the portfolio P&L.

4. Use the portfolio P&L to estimate the desired percentile (eg, 99th percentile) to get and estimate of the VaR.

Monte Carlo based VaR calculations rely upon full portfolio revaluations, as opposed to delta/delta-gamma approximations. As a result, they are also computationally more intensive. Because they are not limited by the range of instruments and the properties they can cover, they can capture a wide range of distributional assumptions for asset returns. They also tend to provide more robust estimates for the tail, including portions of the tail that lie beyond the VaR cutoff.

Therefore I and III are true, and the other two are not.

The current Basel rules for the basic VaR based charge for market risk capital set market risk capital requirements as the maximum of the following two amounts:

1. 99%/10-day VaR,

2. Regulatory Multiplier x Average 99%/10-day VaR of the past 60 days

The 'regulatory multiplier' is a number between 3 and 4 (inclusive) calculated based on the number of 1% VaR exceedances in the previous 250 days, as determined by backtesting.

- If the number of exceedances is <= 4, then the regulatory multiplier is 3.

- If the number of exceedances is between 5 and 9, then the multiplier = 3 + 0.2*(N-4), where N is the number of exceedances.

- If the number of exceedances is >=10, then the multiplier is 4.

So you can see that in most normal situations the risk capital requirement will be dictated by the multiplier and the prior 60-day average VaR, because the product of these two will almost often be greater than the current 99% VaR.

The correct answer therefore is = max(200mm, 3*250mm) = $750mm.

Interestingly, also note that a 99% VaR should statistically be exceeded 1%*250 days = 2.5 times, which means if the bank's VaR model is performing as it should, it will still need to use a reg multiplier of 3.

All the above listed reasons are valid explanations as to why an institution level stress test cannot be estimated by merely summing up the results of the stress tests of the individual desks.

We will need to calculate the joint probability distribution of the portfolio as follows.Probability of the joint default of both A and B =

The marginal probabilities (ie the standalone probabilities of default of the two bonds) are known, and if we can calculate the probability of joint defaults of the two bonds, we can calculate the rest of the entries. We then multiply the probabilities with the expected loss under each scenario and add them up to get the total expected loss.

The calculations are shown below. The expected loss is $5.5m, and therefore the correct answer is Choice 'd'.

Measures of risk sensitivity include delta, gamma, vega, PV01, convexity and CR01, among others. They allow approximating the change in the value of a portfolio from a change (generally small) in one of the underlying risk factors.

Risk sensitivity measures are derivatives of the value of the portfolio, calculated with respect to the risk factor. Some risk sensitivity measures are second derivatives, and allow a more precise calculation of the change in the value of the portfolio. Many risk sensitivities are represented by Greek letter, but not all.

Delta (δ) is a measure of the change in portfolio value based on a 1% change in the value of the underlying. Gamma (γ) is a second order derivative that improves the calculation as part of a Taylor expansion. CR01 is a measure of the change due to a 1 basis point change in the credit spread. PL01 is not a measure of any kind of risk sensitivity, it does not mean anything.

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'.

Simulations of liquidity needs can be of various types: historical simulations, where the current positions are subjected to the kind of liquidity shocks experienced in the past; static simulations, where a static view of current positions, counterparty credit position, and the business is considered; and dynamic simulations where all factors are dynamically changed including counterparty credit standing, changes to the current portfolio and behavioural aspects of the business. Choice 'b' is incorrect as dynamic simulations require no such assumptions.

Liquidity risk is often thought of in terms of market liquidity risk and funding liquidity risk. Market liquidity risk relates to the the liquidity for a particular type of asset drying up. For example, during the 2007-2009 crisis a large number of corporate bonds and structured products became extremely illiquid. Market liquidity risk manifests itself in the form of higher bid offer spreads, higher pricde impact, and a reduction in the normal market size (ie, the 'normal' size of a trade for which a dealer quote is valid for). Therefore Choice 'd' is correct. Similarly, Choice 'a' is incorrect as adverse price impact results from market liquidity risk and not funding liquidity risk.

Market liquidity risk applies to the entire market and all its participants. It is not idiosyncratic. Therefore Choice 'c' is incorrect too. Funding liquidity risk on the other hand applies to an individual institution that is under liquidity stress in the sense of not being able to meet its obligations such as margin or collateral calls because of a lack of liquid assets. Thus it is funding liquidity that is idiosyncratic. Market liquidity risk often leads to funding liquidity risks materializing as firms are unable to get to the funds they were relying upon due to assets becoming illiquid.

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.

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)]

For EVT, we use the block maxima or the peaks-over-threshold methods. These provide us the data points that can be fitted to a GEV distribution.

Least squares and maximum likelihood are methods that are used for curve fitting, and they have a variety of applications across risk management.