8011 Credit and Counterparty Manager (CCRM) Certificate Exam Questions and Answers

Delta is non-linear with respect to prices for a number of securities such as bonds, options and other derivatives. It changes with changes in prices, and any hedge initially undertaken becomes quickly mismatched. Therefore delta hedges need to be managed quite actively and kept up-to-date. Therefore I is true. Primary risks comprise most of the risk in a position, and therefore portfolio managers are right to focus on them over secondary risks. Therefore II is true. The greater the hedge rebalance frequency, the lower is the hedge mismatch at any point in time, and therefore residual risks would be lower. However, rebalancing hedges requires rebalance trades to be done, and these involve transaction costs. Generally, a reasonable balance needs to be struck between the frequency of rebalances (a lower frequency increases residual risk, but this residual risk is not directionally biased) and the costs of rebalancing. III is correct. Vega risk is the risk arising due to changes in prices due to changes in volatility.  Options carry vega risk. Therefore any hedges against vega risks can only be obtained using other options positions.  (Vega risk may also be hedged using other volatility based products, eg an OTC volatility swap, or a VIX futures type product.)

A break close, also called a 'mutual put', gives either party the right to terminate a transaction at market price at a given date, or dates in the future. These are usually availed of in longer dated transactions, eg 10 years and over. For example, a 15-year swap might have a mutual put in year 5, and every 2 years thereafter.

All other choices are incorrect.

The easiest way to answer this question is to ignore the joint probability of default as that is irrelevant to expected losses. The joint probability of default impacts the volatility of the losses, but not the expected amount. One way to think about it is to think of asset portfolios, where diversification reduces risk (ie standard deviation) but the expected returns are nothing but the average of the expected returns in the portfolio. Just as the expected returns of the portfolio are not affected by the volatility or correlations (these affect standard deviation), in the same way the joint probability of default does not affect the expected losses. Therefore the expected losses for this portfolio are simply $1m x 10% + $1m x 15% = $250,000.

This can also be seen from the lens of a joint probability distribution as follows:

A white rectangular grid with black text Description automatically generated

There are four possibilities for this portfolio:

- Only loan A defaults: loss of $1m: 9% probability

- Only loan B defaults: loss of $1m: 14% probability

- Both loan A and B default: loss of $2m: 1% probability

- Neither A nor B default: loss of $0m: 76% probability

Therefore the expected losses on the portfolio are ($1m x 9%) + ($1m x 14%) + ($2m x 1%) + ($0m x 76%) = $250,000.

(Notes: How is the above table calculated? The totals (10%, 90%, 15% and 85%) are filled in first. The top left cell (both A & B default) is given as 1%. We can now calculate the rest of the cells as the totals are known.)

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 is third party based. Cash reserves are not credit enhancements (unless held as collateral).

The difference between the yields on corporate bonds and the risk free rate is called the corporate bond spread. Widening of the spread means that corporate bonds yield more, and their yield curve shifts upwards, driving down bond prices. The increase in the spread is a consequence of the market risk from holding these interest rate instruments, which is a part of market risk. If the reduction in the value of the portfolio were to be caused by a change in the credit rating of the bonds held, it would have been a loss arising due to credit risk. Counterparty risk and liquidity risk are not relevant for this question. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The correct answer is Choice 'b'. 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).

In the case of mean reversion, the actual VaR would be lower than that estimated using the square root of time rule. This is because gains over a period would be followed by losses so that the price can revert to the mean. In such cases, the autocorrelation between subsequent periods is effectively negative. This means the combined VaR over the periods would be lower.

In the case of positive autocorrelation, the actual VaR would be higher than that estimated using the square root of time rule for exactly the opposite reason than that described for the mean-reverting case.

(Recall that Variance (A + B) = Variance(A) + Variance(B) + 2*Correlation*StdDev(A)*StdDev(B). In cases where correlation is zero, the variance can simply be added together (which is the case for iid observations). In cases where the correlation is negative, the combined variance (and therefore standard deviation and also VaR) will be lower; and where correlation is positive, the combined variance (and therefore standard deviation and also VaR) will be higher.)

Therefore statement II is correct, and so is statement III. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

GARCH is a mean reverting model of volatility, with a steady state mean that the model reverts to in the absence of market shocks. EWMA is not mean reverting and volatility under EWMA stays constant in the absence of shocks. Therefore statement I is correct.

Both EWMA and GARCH models are designed to address volatility clustering, which explains much of the non-normality of returns. When returns are standardized to the volatility calculations under either of these methods, the returns appear far closer to the normal distribution than non-standardized returns. (If it were not to, then there would have been no point in using these techniques.) Statement II is correct.

Steady state variance under GARCH is defined as ω / (1 - α - β), where α and β are the two parameters (called the reaction and persistence coefficient respectively). Clearly, it is affected by more than just the persistence coefficient, therefore statement III is not correct.

Sub-additivity is a very desired property in risk measures. It implies the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. In the case of risk measures, the whole is smaller than the sum of the parts due to diversification. Statement IV is true.

Therefore the correct answer is Choice 'c'

The beta distribution is commonly used to model recovery rates. It is a distribution for variables whose values lie between 0 & 1, and the parameters of the distribution can be estimated using the mean and standard deviation of the data. Therefore Choice 'a' is correct and the others are wrong.

Refer to the tutorial on distributions for an Excel model of the beta distribution.

An n x n positive definite square matrix will have n eigenvectors, and not n - 1. Therefore statement I is incorrect.

A correlation and covariance matrix are related to each other through the matrix of standard deviations. If the covariance matrix is represented by V, the correlation matrix by C and D is the diagonal matrix of standard deviations, then V = DCD. However, there is no simple relationship between the eigenvalues of the two matrices, and it is not possible to derive the eigenvalues for one given the eigenvalues for the other. Therefore statement II is false.

Principal components are uncorrelated to each other. That is correct, and in fact PCA is useful because of this being so. Statement III is therefore true.

PCA does not explain 100% of the variation in a system with just three components - statement IV is false. (Remember though that most (though not 100%) of the variation in a system of term structures is explained by the first three components - trend, tilt and curvature).

Thus Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

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.

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!).

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 bank will not be able to recover the principal advanced on this loan if both the home buyer defaults, and the house value falls to less than $1m, ie the price moves adversely by more than $500k, which is $-500k/$150k = -3.33σ. (Note that 150k is the 1 year volatility in dollars, ie $1.5m * 10%).

The probability of both these things happening together is just the product of the two probabilities, one of which we know to be 5%. The other is also certainly a small number, and intuitively it is clear that the probability of both the things happening together will be less than 1%.

For a more precise answer, we can calculate the probability of the house price falling by 3.33 standard deviations by calculating the area under the standard normal curve to the left of -3.33σ. This indeed is a very small number (actually equal to NORMSINV(-3.33)=0.00043), which when multiplied by the probability of default of the home buyer at 5% is certainly going to be less than 1%. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

In December 2009 the BIS came out with a new consultative document on liquidity risk. Given the events of 2007 - 2009, it has been clear that a key characteristic of the financial crisis was the inaccurate and ineffective

management of liquidity risk

The paper two separate but complementary objectives in respect of liquidity risk management: The first objective relates to the short-term liquidity risk profile of institution, and the second objective is to promote resiliency over longer-term time horizons. The paper identifies the following two ratios - you should be aware of these - though I am not sure if these will show up in the PRMIA exam:

1. Liquidity Coverage Ratio addresses the ability of an institution to survive an acute liquidity risk stress scenario lasting one month. It is calculated as follows:

Liquidity Coverage Ratio = Stock of high quality liquid assets/Net cash outflows over a 30-day time period

2. Net Stable Funding Ratio has been developed to capture structural issues related to funding choices.

Net Stable Funding Ratio = Available amount of stable funding/Required amount of stable funding

Both ratios should be equal to or greater than 1. The statement contains detailed definitions of what is included or excluded from each of the terms used in the calculations for each of the ratios. In addition, the standard also describes the what the 'acute' scenario should include (things such as a 3 notch credit downgrade, reduction in retail deposits etc)

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Book Value to Share Price and Earnings Per Share are accounting measures unrelated to liquidity.

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).

Statement I is true, the quantiles of the averaged models are equal to the geometric average of the quantiles of the original models.

Statement II is correct, the number of data points from which model parameters are estimated must be greater than the number of parameters. So if a distribution, say Poisson, has one parameter, we need at least two data points to estimate the parameter. Other complex distributions may have multiple parameters for shape, scale and other things, and the minimum number of observations required will be greater than the number of parameters.

Statement III is true, if the ILD data and scenarios cover the same risk, they are essentially different perspectives on the same risk, and therefore should be combined as weighted averages.

But if they cover completely different risks, the models will need to be added together, not averaged - which is why Statement IV is true.

If the marginal probability of default of two securities A and B is P(A) and P(B), then the probability of both of them defaulting together is affected by the default correlation between them. Marginal probability of default means the probability of default of each security on a standalone basis, ie, the probability of default of one security without considering the other security.

The relationship that expresses the probability of joint default of the two is given by the following expression:

A black line with letters and numbers Description automatically generated

It is easy to see that in a situation where the Default Correlation of A & B = 0, ie, the defaults are independent, the combined probability of default is P(A)*P(B), exactly what we would intuitively expect. Also in the other extreme case where the default correlation is equal to 1 and P(A) = P(B) = p, ie the securities behave in an identical way, the expression resolves to just p, which is what we would expect.

From the above relationship, it is clear that the probability of joint default of A and B is the greatest when default correlation between the two is equal to 1, ie the securities behave in an identical way. Therefore Choice 'a' is 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.

Top down approaches do not consider event frequency and severity, on the other hand they focus on high level available data such as total capital, income volatility, peer group information on risk capital etc. Bottom up approaches focus on severity and frequency distributions for events. Statement I is therefore not correct.

Top down approaches do indeed rely upon high level aggregate data and tend to infer operational risk capital requirements from these. Bottom up approaches look at more detailed firm specific information. Statement II is correct.

Scenario analysis requires estimating losses from risk scenarios, and allows incorporating the judgment and views of managers in addition to any data that might be available from internal or external loss databases. Statement III is correct. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Counterparty risk was difficult to gauge as it was impossible to know who the counterparty's counterparties were - this is true as the chain of financial transactions became excessively long with no central transparency of who owed who what. Bank A's credit depended upon the health of its counterparties, whose health in turn depended upon other counterparties. Thus Choice 'd' is a correct statement.

In an attempt to diversify, banks became more like each other - chasing yield, they piled into securitized products, and chasing diversification, they piled into different types of securitized products. The system as a whole became susceptible to small shocks in the assets underlying this vast edifice of structured products. Therefore Choice 'a' represents a correct statement.

Choice 'c' does not represent a correct statement. Central banks had little data on the interconnections between institutions. They were aware of the large volumes of OTC transactions, but had no data to figure out who was connected to who, and who had what kind of exposures.

Choice 'b' represents a correct statement. Most transactions, other than exchange cleared futures trades (which were a tiny fraction of all trades) were cleared on a bilateral basis. The existence of central counterparties (CCPs) could have limited the impact of the crisis significantly as market participants would not have lost trust in each other, and the 'collateral damage' that was witnessed from a fall in housing prices, and thereby mortgage assets, would have been more contained.

The square root of time rule can be used to convert, say a 1-day VaR to a 10-day VaR, by multiplying the known number by the square root of time to get the VaR over a different time horizon. However, there are key assumptions that underlie the application of this rule, and statements I to IV correctly state those assumptions.

Statements V and VI are not correct, because the application of the square root of time rule requires the absence of serial correlations, and also the absence of volatility clustering (ie independence). Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The square root of time rule is also applied to convert volatility or standard deviation for one period to the volatility for a different time period. Remember that VaR is just a multiple of volatility, and therefore the assumptions that apply to the square root of time rule for VaR also apply to the same rule when used in the context of volatilities or standard deviation.

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.

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.)

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.

A mathematical equation with numbers and symbols Description automatically generated

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

Marginal liquidity gap measures the expected net change in liquidity over, say, a day. It is just equal to the liquidity inflow minus liquidity outflow. The cumulative liquidity gap measures the aggregate change in liquidity from a point in time, in other words it is just the summation of the marginal liquidity gap for each of the days included in the period under consideration. The residual liquidity gap goes one step further and adds available 'opening balance' of liquidity to the cumulative liquidity gap to reveal the days or times when the net liquidity is most at risk.

Liquidity at Risk measures the expected time to survival at a certain confidence level applied to the firm's cash flows - and is not a measure of the liquidity gap.

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

The VaR in this case will be the top quintile of observations. In this case, since there are exactly 100 observations, this would mean the worst return would become the VaR. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Choice 'a' and Choice 'c' make no sense. This highlights that at higher confidence levels, fewer and fewer observations impact the VaR if we are using historical simulation based VaR.

EVT, when used in the context of operational risk measurement, focuses on tail events and attempts to build a distribution of losses beyond what is covered by VaR. Statements I, II and II are correct. Statement IV describes conditional VaR (CVAR) and not EVT.

Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Choice 'd' is the correct answer, as laid down in the Basel II document. The other choices are incorrect.

Parametric VaR relies upon reducing a portfolio's positions to risk factors, and estimating the first order changes in portfolio values from each of the risk factors. This is called the delta approximation approach. Risk factors include stock index values, or the PV01 for interest rate products, or volatility for options. This approach can be quite accurate and computationally efficient if the portfolio comprises products whose value behaves linearly to changes in risk factors. This includes long and short positions in equities, commodities and the like.

However, where non-linear products such as options are involved and large moves in the risk factors are anticipated, a delta approximation based valuation may not give accurate results, and the VaR may be misstated. Therefore in such situations parametric VaR is not advised (unless it is extended to include second and third level sensitivities which can bring its own share of problems).

Parametric VaR also assumes that the returns of risk factors are normally distributed - an assumption that is violated in times of market stress. So if it is known that the risk factor returns are not normally distributed, it is not advisable to use parametric VaR.

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.

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.

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."

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.)

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.

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.

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 correlated in 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 be much less than the UEL for the individual loans. Hence statement IV is true. I and II are false for the reasons explained above.

Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Exposures such as those to a line of credit of which only a part (or none) may be drawn at the time of assessment present a difficulty when attempting to quantify credit risk. It is not correct to take the entire amount of the line as the exposure at default, and likewise the current exposure is likely to be too aggressively low a number to consider.

While the borrower has an information advantage in that he would be aware of the deterioration in credit standing before the bank and would probably draw cash prior to default, it is unlikely that the entire amount of the line of credit would be drawn in all cases. In some cases, none may be drawn. In other cases, the bank would become aware of the situation and curtail or cancel access to the credit line in a timely fashion.

Therefore a fixed proportion of existing credit lines is considered a reasonable approximation of the exposure at default against credit lines.

The probability that only one of the three bonds will default is equal to the sum of the probabilities of the three scenarios where one bond defaults and the other two survive. This probability is given by 1%*(1 - 2%)*(1 - 3%) + (1 - 1%)*2%*(1 - 3%) + (1 - 1%)*(1 - 2%)*3% = 5.7818%. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Rating agencies target both accuracy and stability when they assign ratings. These two objectives can sometimes conflict, so a balance needs to be struck between the two. Rating agencies do not target any particular 'accuracy ratio' or rankings. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

If the confidence levels for a VaR estimate are set too high, there may never be any exceedences, ie actual losses will never exceed VaR estimates. For limit setting, we want actual losses to exceed the VaR estimates enough number of times as during the year so that the limits are considered seriously. If the VaR estimate is exceeded too many times, or never, then it is unlikely to be considered seriously. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The other answers are incorrect as they either require the VaR to be too high (ie zero or rare excess loss situations) or too low (ie there will be too many cases of excess loss situations to be taken seriously).

In a bankruptcy, equity ranks last. Preferred equity is one level above equity. Senior debt gets paid out first compared to junior debt, and secured debt is paid out first to the extent of the asset securing it (after which it counts as unsecured debt). Accounts payable and other short term liabilities are treated like unsecured creditors. Debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing ranks higher than any other asset as it is financing secured after the bankruptcy to continue the business.

Based on the above, statement I does not represent a correct ordering of seniority as equity is paid last. Similarly, DIP financing receives higher priority than even secured debt, and therefore statement IV is incorrect. Therefore the only correct statements are II and III and Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Error rates are generally modeled using the Poisson distribution. Recall that the Poisson distribution has only one parameter - λ - which is its mean and also its variance.

In the given case, the mean number of errors is 2,000,000 x 0.005% = 100. Since this is the variance as well, the standard deviation is √100 = 10. Therefore the range of outcomes within 2 standard deviations of the mean is 100 +/- (2*10) = 80 to 120 errors in a day.

Model risk is the risk that a model built for estimating a variable will produce erroneous estimates. Model risk is caused by a number of factors, including:

a) Misspecifying the model: For example, using a normal distribution when it is not justified.

b) Model misuse: For example, using a model built to estimate bond prices to estimate equity prices

c) Parameter estimation errors: In particular, parameters that are subjectively determined can be subject to significant parameter estimation errors

d) Programming errors: Errors in coding the model as part of computer implementation may not be detected by end users

e) Data errors: Errors in data used for building the model may also introduce model risk

Therefore the correct answer is d, as all the choices are a source of model risk.

The ISDA MA provides a template that can be used by market participants to document derivative transactions. It has a core section that applies always, and various schedules that can be agreed to by the parties. The ISDA MA considerably facilitates closing transactions once the ISDA MA has been has been negotiated, without requiring a renegotiation each time.

A key feature of the ISDA MA is that it binds all transactions into a single net obligation. The ISDA Master 2002 states that "All transactions are entered into in reliance on the fact that this Master Agreement and all Confirmations form a single agreement between the parties ... and the parties would not otherwise enter into any Transactions." Therefore transactions under the ISDA MA are not considered separate obligations.

The ISDA MA does indeed define close out processes, default and termination events, and the CSA is one of the parts of the MA that describes the collateral related agreement.

Negative publicity, a downgrade in the credit rating, a falling stock price are all pointers to potential credit problems, and the counterparty credit monitoring group of a bank should be using these as possible early indicators of an upcoming credit health problem. A decline in the yield of the debt issued by a counterparty means its spread is declining and the health of the credit is actually improving. Therefore a decline in the counterparty's corporate debt yield cannot be used as an indicator of potential credit problems.

Choice 'c' is therefore the correct answer.

Ex-ante VaR calculations can differ from actual realized P & L due to a large number of reasons. I, II and III represent some of them. Mean reversion however has nothing to do with VaR estimates differing from actual P & L. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Under the contingent claims approach, a firm will default on its debt when the value of its assets fall to less than the face value of the debt. Debt holders can protect themselves against such an event by buying a put on the assets of the firm, where the strike price is equal to the value of the debt. In other words, Risky Debt + Put on the firm's assets = Risk free debt. This is because if the value of the assets is greater than the value of the debt, they will be paid in full. If the value of the assets is lower than the value of the debt, they will exercise the put and be paid in full.

Therefore the value of the put on the firm's assets with a strike equal to the value of the debt represents the cost of eliminating credit risk. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Note that it is improbable that a put on the firm's assets is available in real life to debt holders. However, the same effect can be synthetically achieved by using the shares of the firm as a proxy for its assets, and shorting an appropriate number of shares. Such a synthetic put will require frequent readjustments.

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.

Marginal probabilities of default are the probabilities for default for a given period, conditional on survival till the end of the previous period. Cumulative probabilities of default are probabilities of default by a point in time, regardless of when the default occurs. If the marginal probabilities of default for periods 1, 2... n are p1, p2...pn, then cumulative probability of default can be calculated as Cn = 1 - (1 - p1)(1-p2)...(1-pn). For this question, we can calculate the probability of default for year 3 as =1 - (1-2%)*(1-3%)*(1-4%) = 8.74%

Be wary of questions asking you to calculate VaR where the mean or expected returns are different from zero. The VaR formula of z-value times standard deviation needs to have an adjustment for the expected return [ie use VaR = z-value times standard deviation minus expected return]. In this case, the standard deviation for 1 day for the portfolio is =SQRT(1/250)*20%*$10m = $126,491. The VaR is therefore (2.326 * $126,491) - ($10,000,000 * 10% * 1/250) = $290,218.

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.

It is not generally sufficient to ensure the adequacy of liquidity across a group - ie it is not appropriate to just add up the sources and needs for liquidity across multiple entities in a group. This is because there can be restrictions on transferring liquidity between entities, particularly when the entities are located across borders. In cases where transfers of liquidity are permitted, there may be settlement delays in transferring funds from one entity to another. Therefore both statements I and II are incorrect.

Wholesale funding sources refers to the temporary interbank funding sources that need to be rolled over on very short intervals, often as short as overnight. These are not stable sources for long term funding. Statement III is therefore false.

Statement IV is correct as funding diversification refers to diversification of both funding sources and the duration for which the amounts are borrowed, ie tenor diversity.

Statement IV is the only correct statement and therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Choice 'b' is the correct answer. All other answers are incorrect.

Refer to the detailed loss event type classification under Basel II (see Annex 9 of the accord). You should know the exact names of all loss event types, and examples of each.

The state of the economy, credit quality of individual borrowers and concentration risk are all factors that affect the credit risk facing a lender. Mark to market accounting does not change the credit risk, or the underlying economic reality facing the institution. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

All of the listed reports (or information) would be useful to a risk manager analyzing liquidity risk. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer. Additionally, reports on assets brought on margin (that may result in collateral or margin calls), trading exposures to different counterparties, reports on financial health, share price and credit ratings of key counterparties will also be useful.

According to ISDA, a credit event is an event linked to the deteriorating credit worthiness of an underlying reference entity in a credit derivative. The occurrence of a credit event usually triggers full or partial termination of the transaction and a payment from protection seller to protection buyer. Credit events include

- bankruptcy,

- failure to pay,

- restructuring,

- obligation acceleration,

- obligation default and

- repudiation/moratorium.

A rating downgrade is not a credit event.

The Basel II framework allows the use of the basic indicator approach, the standardized approach and the advanced measurement approaches for operational risk. There is no approach called the 'internal measurement approach' permitted for operational risk. Choice 'a' is therefore the correct answer.

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

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.

If capital calculations are done in a standard way regardless of risk (as reflected by credit ratings), then it creates a perverse incentive for the lenders' employees to lend to the riskiest borrowers that offer the highest expected returns as there is no incentive to 'save' on economic capital requirements that are equal for both safe and unsafe borrowers. Therefore statement I is correct.

Given that the portfolio of such an institution is likely to then comprise poor quality borrowers, and economic capital would be based upon 'average' expected ratings, it is likely to carry lower economic capital given its exposures. Therefore any such economic risk capital model is likely to understate economic capital requirements. Therefore statement IV is correct.

Statements II and III are incorrect and Choice 'b' 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.

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.)

Using the beta for VaR calculations is a significant simplification based on the CAPM and the assumption that any specific risks are diversified away. The one thing a risk model based on the CAPM does not consider is the specific risk of individual stocks, because, as mentioned, these are considered to be offsetting each other so that the portfolio only carries market risk reflected in the beta.

Therefore Choice 'c' is not true and therefore the correct answer.

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 'degree' of a node in a network measures the number of links to other nodes. For the financial network, each market participant can be thought of as a node. The 'degree distribution' can be thought of as the histogram of the number of links for each node.

The financial network has a degree distribution with rather long tails - and therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. The other choices are incorrect. Long tailed networks have the property that they are robust when affected by random disturbances, but susceptible to targeted attacks, for example on key hubs.

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.

Unexpected loss for a credit portfolio refers to the excess of the VaR estimate over the average expected loss. The term 'unexpected loss' has this specific meaning in the context of credit risk, and not any other intuitive meaning. So if for a portfolio worth $100m expected losses are 4%, and the credit VaR at 99% is $12m, then unexpected losses at that VaR quintile are $8m. This is unrelated to actual realized losses versus expected losses.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer and the others are not.

Unexpected loss is used to determine the capital reserves to be maintained against a credit portfolio at a certain level of confidence.

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 $253m Statement 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.

The change in the price of a security that follows a Weiner process is determined 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.

Operational risk capital estimated using the implied capital model is merely the capital that is not attributable to market or credit risk. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. All other responses are incorrect.

An error rate of 10 basis points means the number of errors expected in a day will be 15 (recall that 100 basis points = 1%). Therefore the total number of errors expected in a year will be 15 x 250 = 3750. Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

High frequency and low severity risks, for example the risks of fraud losses for a credit card issuer, may have high expected losses, but low unexpected losses. In other words, we can generally expect these losses to stay within a small expected and known range. The capital requirement will be the worst case losses at a given confidence level less expected losses, and in such cases this can be expected to be low.

On the other hand, medium severity medium frequency risks, such as the risks of unexpected legal claims, 'fat-finger' trading errors, will have low expected losses but a high level of unexpected losses. Thus the capital requirement for such risks will be high.

It is also worthwhile mentioning high severity and low frequency risks - for example a rogue trader circumventing all controls and bringing the bank down, or a terrorist strike or natural disaster creating other losses - will probably have zero expected losses & high unexpected losses but only at very high levels of confidence. In other words, operational risk capital is unlikely to provide for such events and these would lie in the part of the tail that is not covered by most levels of confidence when calculating operational risk capital.

Note that risk capital is required for only unexpected losses as expected losses are to be borne by P & L reserves. Therefore the operational risk capital requirements for a low severity high frequency risk is likely to be low when compared to other risks that are lower frequency but higher severity.

Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

KMV Moody's uses a proprietary database to convert the distance to default to expected default probabilities.

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.]

The correct answer is choice 'd'

For settlement of interbank payments, there are broadly two kinds of systems: RTGS (Real Time Gross Systems) and Deferred Net Systems (DNS). RTGS process payments in real time, settlement by settlement, and each transaction is settled by the a clearing institution (mostly the central bank) on a gross basis without regard for other settlements affecting the counterparty. DNS systems, on the other hand, allow for debiting or crediting the accounts of counterparties at periodic intervals after netting all payments paid or received since the last settlement. The exact timing of the payments does not matter so long as a bank has sufficient funding on a net basis at settlement time. Implicit in the DNS system is the extension of credit and liquidity by the central bank to the participating banks as it is possible for a bank to issue payment instructions even without having funds so long as they can arrange for such funds prior to settlement at the end of the day. In RTGS, a bank needs to have funds to make a payment at any point, and cannot make a payment against moneys expected to be received later intra-day. RTGS systems therefore need more liquidity on the part of the participants, and consume far more liquidity than DNS arrangements. Of course, the 'liquidity' of the DNS arrangement has a cost - which is that someone is taking up settlement risk, and invariably it is the central bank. If a bank under DNS fails to settle, its transactions have to be 'unwound', ie all payments made by it have to be rolled back. This can cause other banks to trip, causing further unwinding transactions. RTGS systems do not carry this risk. Therefore statement I is not correct as RTGS consume more liquidity than DNS arrangements.

Statement II is correct. US Fedwire or European TARGET are RTGS while CHIPS is a DNS based payment system.

Statement III is not correct. Current Basel requirements do not require any disclosure in respect of liquidity risk management. A consultative paper was issued by BIS in Dec 2009 for comments from members, but it is far from final. The BIS is still reacting to the liquidity issues that arose during the 2007-09 credit crisis.

Statement IV is not correct as a CFP is like a disaster recovery plan for liquidity, ie it helps a bank plan for and think about what steps would be taken to deal with a liquidity disaster situation. It does not provide any access to central bank financing.

A PRNG (pseudo random number generators of the kind included in statistical packages and Excel) is used to generate random numbers that are not correlated with each other, ie they are random. A Markov process is a stochastic model that depends only upon its current state. Simulation underlies many financial calculations. None of these directly relate to generating correlated multivariate normal random numbers. That job is done utilizing a Cholesky decomposition of the correlation matrix.

Specifically, a Cholesky decomposition involves the factorization of the correlation matrix into a lower triangular matrix (a square matrix all of whose entries above the diagonal are zero) and its transpose. This can then be combined with random numbers to generate a set of correlated normal random numbers. This technique is used for calculating Monte Carlo VaR.

Recovery rates vary a great deal from year to year, and are difficult to predict. Therefore statement III is true. Similarly, any attempt to predict these is hamstrung by a high standard error, which can be as high as the historical mean itself. The error does not cancel itself out due to the effect of the business cycle making the error directionally biased. Thus statement IV is false.

Statement II is true as these are all factors that make forecasting recovery rates for any credit risk model rather difficult. Statement I is false because recovery rates are difficult to predict and assumptions are not easy to make.

Asset returns are relevant for credit risk models where a default is related to the value of the assets of the firm falling below the default threshold. When assessing credit risk for portfolios with multiple credit assets, it becomes necessary to know the asset correlations of the different firms. Since this data is rarely available, it is very common to approximate asset correlations using equity prices. Equity correlations are used as proxies for asset correlation, therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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.

A bullet bond is a bond that pays coupons covering interest during the life of the bond and the principal at maturity. An amortizing loan pays the interest as well as a part of the principal with every payment. Therefore, the exposure of the amortizing loan continually reduces, and approaches zero towards the end of its life. The bullet bond will always have a higher exposure at any time during its life when compared to an equivalent amortizing loan. Hence Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

When a derivative transaction is entered into, its value generally is close to zero. Over time, as the value of the underlying changes, the transaction acquires a positive or negative value. It is not possible to predict the future value of the transaction in advance, however distributional assumptions can be made and potential exposure can be measured in multiple ways. Of all the possible future exposures, it is generally positive exposures that are relevant to credit risk because that is the only situation where the bank may lose money from a default of the counterparty.

The maximum (generally a quantile eg, the 97.5th quantile) exposure possible over the time of the transaction is the 'Potential Future Exposure', or PFE.

The average of the distribution of positive exposures at a specified date before the longest trade in the portfolio is called 'Expected Exposure', or EE.

The expected positive exposure calculated as the weighted average of the future positive Expected Exposure across a time horize is called the EPE, or the 'Expected Positive Exposure'.

The price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date - is the 'fair value', as defined under FAS 157.

Therefore the corect answer is that EPE is the weighted average of the future positive expected exposure across a time horizon.

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.

An observed fact that the KMV approach relies upon is that firms do not default when their liabilities exceed assets, but when asset values are somewhere between short term liabilities and the total liabilities. In fact, the 'default point' in the KMV methodology is defined as the short term debt plus half of the long term debt. The difference between expected value of the assets in one year and this 'default point', when expressed in terms of standard deviation of the asset values, is called the 'distance-to-default'.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. The other choices are incorrect.

Refer to the detailed loss event type classification under Basel II (see Annex 9 of the accord). You should know the exact names of all loss event types, and examples of each.

Altman's Z-score, the Probit and the Logit models can all be used to assess the credit rating of an individual borrower. There is no such model as the 'distance to default model', and therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Choice 'a' (The amplification of smaller initial shocks to one risk factor creating larger subsequent shocks through system-wide interactions between other risks, creating self-perpetuating downward stresses in the markets) is the most comprehensive description of 'feedback effects', as described in the BCBS document on stress testing. Choice 'c' is one manifestation of feedback effects, but does not describe the entire effect. Choice 'b' is not a description of 'feedback effects', but one of the various weaknesses in stress testing that was seen during the crisis. Choice 'd' is plain nonsensical.

The BCBS paper provides a good and succinct description of feedback effect: how mortgage default shocks led to a deterioration of market prices of CDOs, followed by a drying up of the liquidity in these markets. This led to banks having to hold on to assets they intended to securitize (securitization and warehousing risk), and given the absence of transparency on who was exposed to what, banks refusing to lend to each other and a drying up of the wholesale funding market as well. All of this was additionally accompanied by a general flight to quality, households withdrawing money from money market funds creating a crisis in that market as well. At each stage, the initial shock was amplified and fed back into the system through interactions that had not been imagined by any market participant or regulator, leave alone risk managers.

Ultimately, the objective of the operational risk severity estimation exercise is to calculate the 99.9th percentile loss over a one year horizon; and everything else we do with data, collecting loss information, modeling, curve fitting etc revolves around this objective. If we cannot estimate the 99.9th percentile loss accurately, then not much else matters. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Minimizing the combination of fitting and approximation errors is one of the things we do with a view to better estimating the operational loss distribution. Likewise, empirical loss data generally is range bound because corporations do not require employees to log losses less than an threshold, and high value losses are generally rare. This problem is addressed by extrapolating both large and small losses, something that impacts the performance of our model. Likewise, one of the objectives of scenario analysis is to fill data gaps by generating plausible scenarios. Yet while all these are real issues to address, the primary problem we are trying to solve is estimating the 0.999th quantile.

The economic capital required to avoid insolvency is just the asset VaR, ie $100. This means that if the worst case losses are realized, the institution would need to have a buffer equivalent to those losses which in this case will be $100, and this buffer is the economic capital.

The actual value of liabilities is not relevant as they are considered 'riskless' from the institution's point of view, ie they will be taken at full value. In this particular case, the institution has $200 in capital which is more than the economic capital required.

Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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

The recovery rate, the default hazard rate (also called the average default intensity) and the spread on debt are linked by the equation Hazard Rate = Spread/(1 - Recovery Rate). Therefore, the recovery rate implicit in the given data is = 1 - 8%/10% = 20%.

In an interest rate swap, the parties agree to exchanging interest rate payments, with one party being a fixed interest rate payer and the other paying floating rates. The party receiving fixed rates and paying floating can be considered to be long a fixed rate bond and short a floating rate note. Therefore an IRS can be modeled as a combination of a fixed coupon bond and a floating rate note. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Operational risk as defined in Basel II specifically excludes strategic and reputational risk. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Note that Basel II defines operational risk as follows:

Operational risk is defined as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. This definition includes legal risk, but excludes strategic and reputational risk.

First of all, if prices are lognormally distributed, that implies the returns (which are equal to the log of prices) are normally distributed. To say that prices are lognormally distributed is just another way of saying that returns are normally distributed.

Since the correlation between the two securities is zero, this means their variances can be added. But standard deviations, or volatilities cannot be added (they will be the square root of sum of variances). VaR is nothing but a multiple of standard deviation, and therefore it is not additive if correlations are anything other than 1 (ie perfect positive, which would imply we are dealing with the same asset). Therefore VaR(A+B)=SQRT(VaR(A)^2 + VaR(B)^2). This implies the combined VaR of a portfolio with these two securities will be less than the sum of VaRs of the two individual securities.

Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer and the other choices are wrong.

The index option is affected by the spot value for the underlying index, as also the risk free interest rate, or the zero rate for the duration of the option. It is also affected by the volatility of the underlying. The 'strike price' is set and is fixed at the time the option is purchased, and therefore is not a risk factor.

Therefore other than IV, all other choices are valid risk factors that underlie an equity index option.

Other instruments may have other risk factors - for example, a long forex position will have the spot exchange rate as the only risk factor.