Free PRMIA 8008 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 8

All the reasons and risks presented above are valid reasons for using scenario analysis, except V and VI - ie, the need to reduce the complexity of calculations is not a valid reason for using scenario analysis. Similarly, making operational risk capital estimates match management's desired capital allocation targets is also not a valid reason. Capital calculations are intended to provide adequate capital for managing the risk from operations, regardless of what management may desire them to be.

Where a historical shock factor does not exist for a security, for example because the security is new or was only thinly traded earlier, or because a particular emerging market was immature at the time of the historical scenario being considered, it is inappropriate to leave the position unshocked. By and large, the general rule to be followed when carrying out stress testing is to leave no position unshocked. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Choice 'd', Choice 'a' and Choice 'c' all represent valid approaches to estimating a shock factor in such cases.

The exact formula for VaR is = -(Zα σ + μ), where Z α is the z-multiple for the desired confidence level, and μ is the mean return. Now Zα is always a negative number, or at least will certainly be provided the desired confidence level is greater than 50%, and μ 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 -Zασ, 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 -Zασ= 250,000 (as μ=0), and therefore -Zασ - μ = 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.

The Earnings Volatility approach to calculating economic capital is a top down approach that considers economic capital as being the capital required to make for the worst case fall in earnings, and calculates EC as equal to the worst case decrease in earnings capitalized at the rate of return expected of the firm. The worst case decrease in earnings, or the earnings-at-risk can only be stated at a given confidence level, and is equal to the Expected Earnings less Earnings under the worst case scenario.

Managing liquidity requires understanding and providing for two things: the amount of liquidity needed to pay for all current obligations (in both normal and stressed scenarios), and determining the time horizon over which this liquidity should be available. The first is essentially a function of the business of the firm, and the assets and liabilities resulting from operations. The second considers other factors such as the speed with which new cash can be borrowed (eg, from the repo markets), the consequences are of running out of liquidity (eg, maybe only an overdrawn fee as opposed to bankruptcy), etc. In other words, liquidity risk management answers two questions: how much, and for how long.

This question asks for identifying the factors that affect the 'how much' part. Choice 'd', Choice 'c' and Choice 'b' do affect the determination of the liquidity needs of the firm. Choice 'a' does not affect the liquidity needs, but the 'how long' part. Choice 'a' is therefore the correct answer.

The current exposure is negative, so there is no immediate credit exposure. However, since the price of the derivative is volatile, we can reasonably expect the value to be greater than zero sometime in the future. This is a stochastic variable which will have a distribution, and not just a unique value, in the future that will represent the credit exposure. Since there is no unique value, a conservative approach is to pick a quintile of the distribution, and use that as the future value of the derivative contract, with the assurance that the probability of the credit exposure exceeding that quintile is known and has been consciously selected. This number can then be converted to a loan equivalent amount for credit risk purposes. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Choice 'a', Choice 'd' and Choice 'c' are incorrect for these reasons.

The probability of default would make the future cash flows from both the bonds identical. If p be the probability of default, the cash flows from the risky corporate bond would be

= (cash flows in the event of default x probability of default) + (cash flows without default x (1 - probability of default))

=> p*0 + (1 - p)*(1 + 8.5%) = (1 - p)*1.085.

The cash flows from the treasury bond would be 1.04. These two should be equal, ie,

1.04 = (1- p)*1.085, implying p = 4.15%.

(Note: The above is a simplification intended for the exam. In reality investors would demand a 'credit risk premium' for the corporate bond over and above the expected default loss rate. They are unlikely to be happy with just being compensated with exactly the expected default loss rate plus the risk-fre rate because the expected default loss rate itself is uncertain. They would demand some premium over and above what the default rate alone might mathematically imply above the risk free rate. In this question, this credit risk premium is ignored.)

Total expected losses which are average and anticipated are equal to the sum of expected losses in the underlying exposures. Total unexpected losses, which are the excess of worst case losses at a certain confidence level over the expected losses, benefit from the diversification effect and are lower than the sum of unexpected losses of the underlying exposures. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer. The other choices are incorrect.

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 σ be the standard deviation of the portfolio, the VaR is given by ZσV.

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 correct answer is choice 'a'

A long position in a credit sensitive bond is equivalent to earning the risk free rate and the spread on the bond. The risk free rate can be earned through a long position in a treasury bond, and the spread can be earned in the form of premiums on a CDS, which are received by the protection seller, ie the party short a CDS contract. Therefore we can get the same results as a long bond position using a combination of a long treasury bond and a short position in a CDS. Choice 'a' is the correct answer.