PRMIA 8008 PRM Certification - Exam III: Risk Management Frameworks . Operational Risk . Credit Risk . Counterparty Risk . Market Risk . ALM . FTP - 2015 Edition Exam Practice Test

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.

Normal mixtures, EVT and the t-distribution are all possible solutions addressing the issue of heavy tails in financial returns.

EWMA and GARCH address volatility clustering, which is the other problem when doing risk calculations. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer as EWMA is not used to address heavy tails but volatility clustering.

Statement I is correct. The financial system proved to be stable against small shocks and disturbances, or shocks of a particular type (eg, the dotcom crash, the wars in the Persian Gulf); but rather fragile against other types of shocks, including disturbances to key market participants caused by a worsening of mortgage defaults.Statement II is incorrect. Financial innovation, in particular the slicing and dicing of 'risk' through securitization, significantly increased interrelationships, dependence on the same risk factors, and the complexity of the system as a whole.Statement III is incorrect. A distinction is sometimes made between risk that is knowable, measureable, and quantifiable through parameters; and uncertainty, where the parameters are not known at all. The latter is called 'Knightian uncertainty' after the name of the scholar who came up with the distinction between the two.Statement IV is correct. Feedback effects had the greatest impact on liquidity which was tended to be hoarded, and on asset prices that tumbled as market participants tried to sell assets to become more liquid.Thus, choice is a the correct answer.

If the current level of the S&P 500 is 2000, and a single day volatility is 1%, and the delta (ie change in portfolio value from a one point change) is $100, then the 1 day volatility for the portfolio in dollars is 2000 * 1% * $100 = $2,000.

At the 99% confidence level, the value of the inverse cumulative density function for the normal distribution is 2.33 (=NORMSINV(99%), in Excel). Therefore the 1 day VaR will be 2.33 * $2000 = $4,660. Extending it to 10 days using the square root of time rule, we get the 10 day VaR as equal to SQRT(10)*4660 = $14,736.

Since this method of calculating VaR relies upon a delta approximation of a risk factor (in this case the S&P500), it is the parametric approach to calculating VaR (the other methods being historical simulation, and Monte Carlo simulation).

The 2015 Handbook provides an excellent example of parametric (and other) VaR calculations in Chapter 3 of Volume III of Book 3. The spreadsheet used for the illustration can be downloaded from http://www.prmia.org/prm-exam/handbook-resources.

Explantion:

Changing leverage does not affect the Sharpe ratio or the Information ratio. However, leverage magnifies both risk and return. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.Recall that Sharpe ratio is the ratio of the excess returns (over the risk free rate) of an investment to its standard deviation, and the information ratio is the ratio of the 'alpha' returns to the standard deviation of such returns.

The probability of default would make the expected value of the future cash flows from both the corporate bond and the risk free bond 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))

=> 5%*0 + (1 - 5%)*(1 + 12%) = (1 + Rf).

therefore Rf = 6.4%

(In reality investors would demand a 'credit risk premium' 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.)

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.

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 correct answer.

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.]

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.

This situation represents one of the paradoxes in estimating severity that one needs to be aware of - the improvement in controls reduces the weight of the body/middle of the distribution and moves it towards the tails (as the total probability under the curve must stay at 100%) and the distribution becomes more heavy tailed. As a result, the 99.9th percentile loss actually increases. instead of decreasing, creating a counterintuitive result. Therefore the correct answer is that the capital required will increase.

If scenario analysis produces such a result, the analyst must question if the 1 in 100 year loss severity is still accurate. If the new control has reduced the severity in the body of the distribution, the question as to why the more extreme losses have not changed should be raised.

The binomial, Poisson and the negative binomial distributions can all be used to model the loss event frequency distribution. The omega distribution is not used for this purpose, therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Also note that the negative binomial distribution provides the best model fit because it has more parameters than the binomial or the Poisson. However, in practice the Poisson distribution is most often used due to reasons of practicality and the fact that the key model risk in such situations does not arise from the choice of an incorrect underlying distribution.

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.

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.

The Options Theoretic approach to calculating economic capital is a top-down approach that considers the value of capital as being equivalent to a call option with a strike price equal to the notional value of the debt - ie, the shareholders have a call option on the assets of the firm which they can acquire by paying the debt holders a value equal to their notional claim (ie the face value of the debt). Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer and the other choices are incorrect.

Statement I is true as expected losses are the 'cost of doing business' and charged against the P&L of the unit holding the exposure. When evaluating the business unit, expected losses are taken into account. Unexpected losses however require risk capital reserves to be maintained against them.

Statement II is not true. Credit portfolio loss distributions are not symmetrical, in fact they are highly skewed and have heavy tails.

Statement III is true. The notional, or the face value of a defaulted debt is the basis for a claim in bankruptcy court, and not the market value.

Statement IV is false. In the case of over the counter instruments, the replacement value of the contract represents the amount of the claim, and not the notional amount (which can be very high!).

Statement I is correct. Retail Risk Based Pricing (RRBP) involves the use of borrower specific data (such as FICO scores, average balances etc) to arrive at credit decisions. These 'retail' credit decisions may include decisions on whether to grant a line of credit, a mortgage, issue a credit card, or any of the various other retail activities a bank may be dealing with. At the same time, this data can also be used to price the product, in addition to providing a yes or no credit decision so that risky borrowers are charged more than less risky borrowers.

Statement II is not correct, because an integrated Risk Information Management Environment includes three elements - people, processes and technology (and not just people and processes).

Statement III is correct. An LDM is a blue print of an organization's data, and describes the relationships between the various data elements.

Statement IV is not correct because reference data and metadata are not the same thing. Reference data refers to relatively static data, such as customer name (while actual transactions may not be so static). Metadata refers to data about data, and is stored in a data dictionary.

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

When a operational loss frequency distribution (which, for example, may be based upon a Poisson distribution) and a loss severity distribution (for example, based upon a lognormal distribution), it is assumed that the frequency of losses and the severity of the losses are completely independent and do not impact each other. Therefore statement II is correct, and the others are not valid assumptions underlying the operational loss distribution.

According to the Basel II framework, Tier 1 capital, also called core capital or basic equity, includes equity capital and disclosed reserves.

Tier 2 capital, also called supplementary capital, includes undisclosed reserves, revaluation reserves, general provisions/general loan-loss reserves, hybrid debt capital instruments and subordinated term debt.

Tier 3 capital, or short term subordinated debt, is intended only to cover market risk but only at the discretion of their national authority.

According to a paper by the BCBS, here is an excellent summary of what happened. Based on this, Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

"At the outset of the crisis, mortgage default shocks played a part in the deterioration of market prices of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Simultaneously, these shocks revealed deficiencies in the models used to manage and price these products. The complexity and resulting lack of transparency led to uncertainty about the value of the underlying investment. Market participants then drastically scaled down their activity in the origination and distribution markets and liquidity disappeared. The standstill in the securitisation markets forced banks to warehouse loans that were intended to be sold in the secondary markets. Given a lack of transparency of the ultimate ownership of troubled investments, funding liquidity concerns were triggered within the banking sector as banks refused to provide sufficient funds to each other. This in turn led to the hoarding of liquidity, exacerbating further the funding pressures within the banking sector. The initial difficulties in subprime mortgages also fed through to a broader range of market instruments since the drying up of market and funding liquidity forced market participants to liquidate those positions which they could trade in order to scale back risk. An increase in risk aversion also led to a general flight to quality, an example of which was the high withdrawals by households from money market funds."

An interesting property that distinguishes the three most used distributions for modeling event frequency is that for a given mean, their variances differ. The ratio of variance to mean (the variance-mean ratio, calculated as variance/mean) can then be used to decide the kind of distribution to use. Both the variance and the mean can be estimated from available data points from the internal or external loss databases, or the scenario exercise.

The variance-mean ratio reflects how dispersed a distribution is. (In the PRMIA handbook, the variance to mean ratio has been described as the "Q-Factor".)

The Poisson distribution has its mean equal to its variance, and therefore the variance to mean ratio is 1. For the negative binomial distribution, this ratio is always greater than 1, which means there is greater dispersion compared to the mean - or more intervals with low counts as well as more intervals with high counts. For the binomial distribution, the variance to mean ratio is less than one, which means it is less dispersed than the Poisson distribution with values closer to the mean.

In a situation where operational risk events are seen as clustering together, or dependent, the variance will be higher and it would be more appropriate to use the negative binomial distribution.

Credit reserves are created in respect of expected losses, which are considered the cost of doing business. Unexpected losses are borne by economic credit capital, which is a part of economic capital. This question is a bit nuanced - and 'economic capital' would generally be a good answer as well. However, taking a rather beady eyed view of the terminology and distinguishing between 'economic credit capital' which is a subset of 'economic capital', we can say that 'economic credit capital' is a more appropriate Choice 'a's the question relates to credit losses.

According to the option pricing approach developed by Merton, the shareholders of a firm have a put on the assets of the firm where the strike price is equal to the face value of the firm's debt. This is just a more complicated way of saying that the debt holders are entitled to all the assets of the firm if these assets are insufficient to pay off the debts, and because of limited liability of the shareholders of a corporation this part payment will fully extinguish the debt.

A firm will default on its debt if the value of the assets falls below the face value of the debt. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. All other choices are incorrect.

(There are two ways to consider this sort of optionality, and I have mentioned only one for this question:

1. The equity holders can sell the assets of the firm to the debt holders at a price equal to the face value of the debt, ie a put. (ie they can extinguish their liability to the debt holders in full by handing them the assets of the firm, effectively selling them the assets at the value of the debt)

2. The equity holders have a long position in a call option where they can keep the assets of the firm by paying a price equal to the face value of the debt (ie, they can pay off the debt holders and keep the assets)

For this question, perspective 1 applies but you should be aware of the second one too as a question may reference that view point.)

A LIBOR based loan requires cash to move from the lender to the borrower in the amount of the notional. The Overnight Index Swap requires only the exchange of interest payments, and therefore represents less risk.

Therefore the LIBOR based loan is a riskier exposure.

The LIBOR is generally higher than the OIS. In fact, the difference between the two, the LIBOR-OIS spread, is a standard measure of the risk premium in the market that goes up when the risk of default by counterparty banks is considered high. This is because when the market perceives the risk of default to be high, the participants need a risk premium to take on the default risk which is considerably lesser with the OIS.

According to the first principle set out by the BCBS paper on stress testing, the Board has ultimate responsibility for the overall stress testing programme. Senior management is accountable for the implementation, management and oversight of the programme, but the overall responsibility stays with the Board of Directors of the institution. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Additionally, this principle lays down that stress testing should be a part of the overall governance, ie support the strategic choices made as part of business planning; and be integrated with the risk management culture of the bank, ie stress tests should be used as an input for setting the risk appetite, exposure limits, and the capital and liquidity planning processes of the bank.

If annual variance is 0.0256, then annual volatility (ie standard deviation) is √0.0256. Therefore the daily volatility will be √0.0256/√250 = 1.01%. The other choices are not correct.

A computation of Altman's Z-score considers the following ratios:

- Working capital to total assets

- Retained earnings to total assets

- EBIT to total assets

- Market cap to debt

- Sales to total assets

Nearly all the numbers above are accounting measures derived straight from the balance sheet or the income statement. Market capitalization is a market driven number. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer as the Altman credit risk score considers both accounting and market based measures.

Altman's score, though computationally straightforward and intuitively easy to understand, was introduced in the late sixties and has been very accurate in predicting corporate bankruptcies, which is why it continues to be used extensively.

Statement I is not correct as VaR does not set an upper limit on losses. In this case, the bank expects the losses to exceed $253m 5% of the times, and the VaR number does not indicate any theoretical maximum amount of losses.Statement II is incorrect as there is a 95% (and not 5%) probability that the bank's losses will not exceed $253mStatement III is correct and describes VaR.Statement IV is incorrect, as regulatory capital is a more complex computation for which VaR is only one of the various input.Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Statement I is incorrect. A transition matrix expresses the probabilities of moving to a given set of ratings at the end of a period (usually one year) conditional upon a given rating at the beginning of the period. It does not make a reference to an individual security and certainly not to the probability of migrating to other ratings during its entire lifetime.

Statement II is correct. Marginal default probabilities are the probability of default in a given year, conditional upon survival at the beginning of that year.

Statement III is incorrect. Cumulative probabilities of default will always be greater than the marginal probabilities of default - except in year 1 when they will be equal.

Statement IV is correct. LGD = 1 - Recovery Rate, therefore a low recovery rate implies higher LGD.

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 can be 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 ways in 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% confidence level, 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.

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.

The probability that the security would not default in the next 4 years is equal to the probability of survival raised to the power four. In other words, =(1 - 3%)^4 = 88.53%. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The trend component refers to parallel shifts in the term structure, the tilt refers to changes in the shape of the term structure at the long and short ends, and the curvature refers to movements in the medium term part. The phrase 'parallel component' has no meaning and is not a part of the principal components in analyzing term structures.

Changes in the term structure can also be analyzed as "level, slope and curvature", so you should be aware of this terminology as well to refer to the principal components of a term structure analysis.

The total variance of the system is 100^2 + 40^2 + 30^2 = 12500 (as variance = volatility squared). The first factor alone has a variance of 10,000, or 80%. Therefore only the first factor will be included in the final analysis, and the rest will be ignored.

Interestingly, this example highlights one of the limitations of PCA. Obviously, the second and third factors are material when considering volatility, though the effect of squaring them to get the variance makes them appear less important than they are.

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.

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.

The correct definition of CVA is LGD * EPE * PD. All other answers are incorrect.

CVA reflects the adjustment for counterparty default on derivative and other trading book transactions. This reflects the credit charge, that neeeds to be reduced from the expected value of the transaction to determine its true value. It is calculated as a product of the loss given default, the probability of default and the average weighted exposure of future EPEs across the time horizon for the transaction.

The future exposures need to be discounted to the present, and occasionally the equations for CVA will state that explicitly. Similarly, in some more advanced dynamic models the correlation between EPE and PD is also accounted for. The conceptual ideal though remains the same: CVA=LGD*EPE*PD.

When modeling for operational risk, we are generally concerned with tail losses - this is because the horizon for operational risk is 1 year at the 99.9th percentile. Since the 99.9th percentile is in the tail region, we would like to ensure that the tails are modeled as accurately as possible. Operational risk distributions are modeled using heavy tailed distributions.

Heavy tailed parametric distributions such as log-normal, pareto and others are therefore a good choice for modeling risk severity, therefore statement I is correct.

Body-tail distributions are combinations of parametric distributions, with different types of distributions being used to model the body and the tail - this provides flexibility because small and medium losses upto a threshold can be modeled using one distribution, and losses beyond the threshold can be modeled using a different distribution that is a better estimate of the tail. Statement II is therefore correct.

A log-likelihood function simplifies the optimization of a regular likelihood function. We generally maximize (or minimize the risk functional) a likelihood function with a view to estimating the parameters of the underlying distribution. If the likelihood function is complex, it may sometimes make it mathematically easier to optimize the log of the function - as that changes exponents and multiplications to additions, while behaving in the same way as the underlying function. Therefore statement III is correct, log-likelihood is a means to estimate parameters for a distribution.

Statement IV is correct as body-tail distributions allow modeling different parts of the distribution differently from each other.

The correct answer is choice 'a'

Recall the formula for calculating variance under EWMA. See below. Therefore the correct answer is =SQRT((1 - 0.93)*(LN(11/10))^2 + 0.93*((3.5%^2))) = 4.21%. Other answers are incorrect. Note that continuous returns are to be used, ie ln(11/10) and not discrete returns (=1/10) - though generally the difference between the two is small over short time periods. (If in the exam the answer doesn't exactly match, try using discrete returns.)

In the univariate Gaussian model, each risk factor is modeled separately independent of the others, and the dependence between the risk factors is captured by the covariance matrix (or its equivalent combination of the correlation matrix and the variance matrix). Risk factors could include interest rates of different tenors, different equity market levels etc.

While this is a simple enough model, it has a number of limitations.

First, it fails to fit to the empirical distributions of risk factors, notably their fat tails and skewness. Second, a single covariance matrix is insufficient to describe the fine codependence structure among risk factors as non-linear dependencies or tail correlations are not captured. Third, determining the covariance matrix becomes an extremely difficult task as the number of risk factors increases. The number of covariances increases by the square of the number of variables.

But an inability to capture linear relationships between the factors is not one of the limitations of the univariate Gaussian approach - in fact it is able to do that quite nicely with covariances.

A way to address these limitations is to consider joint distributions of the risk factors that capture the dynamic relationships between the risk factors, and that correlation is not a static number across an entire range of outcomes, but the risk factors can behave differently with each other at different intersection points.

Credit enhancements come in two varieties: counterparty based, where the exercise of the credit enhancement requires a third party to pay, and this includes guarantees and CDS contracts. Asset based credit enhancements are based upon a physical asset in possession, and these include collateral and balances owed on other trades or transactions, and availed through close out netting arrangements.

Of the listed choices, I and III are asset based credit enhancements, and II and IV are third party based.

The correct answer is Choice 'd'. The following is a brief description of the major approaches available to model credit risk, and the analysis that underlies them:

1. CreditMetrics: based on the credit migration framework. Considers the probability of migration to other credit ratings and the impact of such migrations on portfolio value.

2. CreditPortfolio View: similar to CreditMetrics, but adds the impact of the business cycle to the evaluation.

3. The contingent claims approach: uses option theory by considering a debt as a put option on the assets of the firm.

4. KMV's EDF (expected default frequency) based approach: relies on EDFs and distance to default as a measure of credit risk.

5. CreditRisk+: Also called the 'actuarial approach', considers default as a binary event that either happens or does not happen. This approach does not consider the loss of value from deterioration in credit quality (unless the deterioration implies default).

Steady state variance under the GARCH model is given by the formula ω/(1 - α – β). In this case, steady state variance therefore works out to 0.00025/(1 - 0.1 - 0.8) = 0.0025. Since this is the variance, volatility is the square root of 0.0025, which works out to 0.05.

Thus, 5% (=0.05) is the correct answer, and the others are incorrect.

Also recall the following in respect of GARCH:

Let the probability of default over a month be p. Therefore the probability of survival at the end of 12 months would be (1 - p)^12. Since the one year probability of default is 12%, we know that the probability of survival is 88%. Putting (1 - p)^12 = 88% and solving for p, we get p = 1.06%. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Netting is the ability to set just the net balances when amounts are both owed and due. Netting can take many forms. Payment netting is netting between counterparties that owe moneys to each other in the same currency under the same transaction (or master agreement). Closeout netting is when parties settle a net amount for the value of all outstanding transactions upon the occurrence of an event of default such as bankruptcy. Multiateral netting involves a third party that sets off exposures across counterparties that owe moneys to each other.

Closeout netting under the ISDA master agreement enables a party to terminate transactions early if an Event of Default or Termination Event occurs in respect of the other party. It involves the calculation and netting of the termination values of all transactions to produce a single amount payable between the parties. Closeout netting is therefore the correct answer.

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.

Remember that VaR is merely a multiple of the portfolio's standard deviation. The multiple is determined by the confidence level, and for a 99% confidence level this multiple is 2.3264 (=-NORMSINV(1%) in Excel). Therefore one standard deviation at this level of confidence would be equal to VaR/2.3264.

In addition to the Z-value at 99% confidence, you should also remember what the Z value is for a 95% level of confidence, as PRM questions may expect you to know these. The standard Windows calculator allowed in the exam does not allow you to calculate these, so it is safer to just remember these values.

Credit reserves are created in respect of expected losses, which are considered the cost of doing business. Unexpected losses are borne by economic credit capital, which is a part of economic capital. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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

Current replacement values are a very poor measure of the credit exposure from a derivative contract, because the future value of these instruments is unpredictable, ie is stochastic, and the range of values it can take increases the further ahead in the future we look. Therefore it is common for credit exposures for derivatives to be measured using forward looking exposure profiles, which are distributions of the expected value of the derivative at the time horizon for which credit risk is being measured. To be conservative, a high enough quintile of this distribution is taken as the 'loan equivalent value' of the derivative as the exposure. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The notional value of derivative contracts generally tends to be quite high and unrelated to their economic value or the counterparty exposure. Therefore notional value is irrelevant.

There are multiple ways to incorporate scenario analysis for modeling operational risk capital - and the exact approach used depends upon the quantity of loss data available, and the quality of scenario assessments. Generally:

- If there is no past loss data available, scenarios are the only practical means to model operational risk loss distributions. Both frequency and severity estimates can be modeled based on scenario data.

- If there is plenty of past data available, scenarios can be used as a modifier for estimates that are based solely on data (for example, consider the MAX of the loss estimates at the desired quantile as provided by the data, and as indicated by scenarios)

- If high quality scenario data is available, and there is sufficient past data, one could mix scenario assessments with the loss data and fit the combined data set to create the loss distribution. Alternatively, both could be fitted with severity estimates and then the two severities could be parametrically combined.

In short, there is considerable flexibility in how scenarios can be used.

Statement I is therefore correct, and so is statement II as both indicate valid uses of scenarios.

Statement III is not correct because it may be okay to create severity estimates based on scenario data alone.

Statement IV is not correct because while using scenarios as modifiers to other means of estimation is acceptable, that is not the only use of scenarios.

Transition matrices are used for building distributions of the value of credit portfolios, and are the realized frequencies of migration from one credit rating to another over a period, generally one year. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Since they represent an actually observed set of values, they are not probabilities nor are they forward looking ex-ante estimates, though they are often used as proxies for probabilities. Choice 'a' and Choice 'c' are not correct. They include more than information on just defaults, therefore Choice 'b' is not correct.

Any good risk measure has the property that it is sub-additive, which means the whole is less than the sum of the parts. In the case of VaR, sub-additivity arises due to the diversification effect, or said differently, due to the correlation between different assets being less than one. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Super-additivity is just the opposite of sub-additivity, ie, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Good risk measures do not have super-additivity. Therefore Choice 'b' is incorrect.

Choice 'c' states the same thing as Choice 'b' in different words, and is incorrect. Choice 'a' is non-sensical and incorrect.

Choice 'b', Choice 'c' and Choice 'a' correctly describe a bilateral close out netting as recommended by the ISDA. However Choice 'd' is not correct as it suggests individual settlement of transactions without netting which is the whole point of bilateral close out netting.

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