Free PRMIA 8010 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

The change in the price of a security that follows a Weiner process isdetermined by its standard deviation and expected return. To get the price itself, we need to add this change in price to the current price. Therefore the future price in a Weiner process is determined by all three of current price, expected return and standard deviation.

Top down approaches rely upon available data such as total capital, income volatility, peer group information etc and attempt to imply the capital attributable to operational risk. They do not consider firm specific scenarios or causal factors. Bottom up approaches on the other hand attempt to determine operational risk capital based upon an identification and quantification of firm specific risks. Bottom up approaches help determine a traditional loss distribution from which capital requirements can be determined at a given level of confidence.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

This question requires the calculation of the credit VaR of the bonds - note that in the real exam the question may not refer to 'credit' VaR, but that canbe inferred from the context, ie because the probability of default is provided, it can only be asking for the credit VaR. (Note the difference from the market risk VaR which is driven by interest rate changes affecting the value of the bonds - there are other questions addressing that calculation).

Credit VaR = Expected Value - Worst case portfolio value at the selected percentile (ie the confidence level)

Thus if we know the distribution of the portfolio value in the future, we can find out the value at the required percentile (in this case 99%), and the VaR will be the difference between this value and the expected value of the portfolio.

An important piece of information provided is that the defaults are independent, ie they are not correlated. This means joint probabilities of default or survival can be easily found by multiplying the relevant probabilities. The following outcomes are possible:

1. Both bonds default: Probability = 1% * 1% = 0.01%. Portfolio value = $0 (because both bonds have defaulted& there is zero recovery)

2. One bond defaults and the other survives: Probability = 2 * 1% * 99% = 1.98%. Portfolio value = $1m (because one bond survives with a value of $1m and the defaulted bond has a value of $0). (Note that because there are two waysin which this can happen, ie bond 1 defaults, bond 2 survives; and bond 1 survives, bond 2 defaults, we need to multiply the probability by 2).

3. Both bonds survive: Probability = 99% * 99% = 98.01%. Portfolio value = $2m.

Expected value is therefore $1.98m (which is equal to 2 * $1m * (1 - 1%), or alternatively can also be obtained by multiplying the probabilities in the above three outcomes with the value associated with each).

The future distribution of the value of the portfolio can be constructed from the three outcomes outlined above:

a. Upto the 98.01th percentile the value of the portfolio is $2m, and the VaR is zero (being greater than the expected value, so there is nothing to lose)

b. From the 98.01th percentile to the 99.99th percentile (98.01+the next 1.98%), the value of the portfolio is $1m. VaR in this range is $0.98m (=$1.98m - $1m)

c. From the 99.99th to the 100th percentile the value of the portfolio is $0, and the VaR is $1.98m.

Since the question is asking for VaR at the 99% confidencelevel, it lies in the range in 'b' above, and therefore the VaR is $0.98m.

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

For a dataset with 250 observations, the top 2% of the losses will be the top 5 observations. Expected shortfall is the average of the losses beyond the VaR threshold. Therefore the correct answer is (20 + 19 + 19 + 17 + 16)/5 = 18.2m .

Note that Expected Shortfall is also called conditional VaR (cVaR), Expected Tail Lossand Tail average.

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 financialfirms do increase the overall risk of the firm.

Choice 'a' is the correct answer. The other choices represent non-sensical statements.

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.

Credit VaR is the difference between the expected value of the portfolio and the value of the portfolio at the given confidence level. Therefore the credit VaR is $85m - $ 60m = $25m. Choice 'b' is the correctanswer.

Note that economic capital and credit VaR are identical at a risk horizon of one year. Therefore if the question asks for economic capital, the answer would be the same.

[Again, an alternative way to look at this is to consider the explanation given in III.B.6.2.2: Credit Var = Q(L) - EL where Q(L) is the total loss at a given confidence interval, and EL is the expected loss. In this case Q(L) - $100-$60 = $40, and EL = $100-$85=$15. Therefore Credit VaR = $40-$15=$25.]

Unexpected losses (UEL) for individual loans in a portfolio will always sum to greater than the total unexpected loss for the portfolio (unless all the loans are correlatedin such a way that they default together). This is akin to the 'diversification effect' in market risk, in other words, not all the obligors would default together. So the UEL for the portfolio will always be less than the sum of the UELs for individual loans. Therefore statement III is true.This 'diversification effect' will be affected by the default correlations between the obligors, in cases where the probability of various obligors defaulting together is low, the UEL for the portfolio would bemuch less than the UEL for the individual loans. Hence statement IV is true.I and II are false for the reasons explained above.

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.)