Free PRMIA 8008 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 7

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 correct answer is choice 'd'

Marginal VaR is just the change in total VaR from a $1 change in the value of the asset in the portfolio. All other answers are incorrect. Mathematically, it is expressed as follows, where VaRp is the VaR for the portfolio, and Vi is the value of the asset in question.

Other answers describe other VaR related concepts such as incremental VaR, Component VaR and Conditional 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.

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.

Banks using the basic indicator approach must hold 15% of the average annual gross income for the past three years, excluding any year that had a negative gross income. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Statement I is true - capital adequacy indeed is a reference to the ability of the firm to stay a 'going concern'. (Going concern is an accounting term that means the ability of the firm to continue in business without the stress of liquidation.)

Statement II is not true because even though the stated objective of regulatory capital requirements is similar to the purposes for which economic capital is calculated, regulatory capital calculations are based upon a large number of ad-hoc estimates and parameters that are 'hard-coded' into regulation, while economic capital is generally calculated for internal purposes and uses an institution's own estimates and models. They are rarely identical.

Statement II is not true as the purpose of economic capital is to provide a buffer against unexpected losses. Expected losses are covered by the P&L (or credit reserves), and not capital.

Statement IV is incorrect as even though economic capital may be calculated at very high confidence levels, that is never 100% which would require running a 'risk-free' business, which would mean there are no profits either. The level of confidence is set at a level which is an acceptable balance between the interests of the equity providers and the debt holders.

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.

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.

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.

Note that events of default under the ISDA MA are caused by one of the parties that is considered 'at fault'. In contrast, "termination events" are events for which no one is at fault, for example changes in legislation, illegality etc that still justify termination of the transactions under the contract.

The ISDA MA describes the following 8 types of events of default:

1. failure of pay or deliver

2. breach of agreement

credit support default

4. misrepresentation

5. default under specified transaction

6. cross default

7. bankruptcy

8. merger without assumption

All of the options presented in the question are events of default.

Normal mixtures address fat or heavy tails, not volatility clustering. Therefore statement I is not correct.

Statement II is not correct. Where VaR is calculated at low levels of confidence, VaR based on normal mixtures may be lower than that under a normal assumption. This is no different than for other fat tailed distributions.

Statement III is correct. In situations where multiple market scenarios can unfold with a given probability, and each scenario is normal, we can express the result with a normal mixture where the underlying normal distributions have the probabilities of the different scenarios.