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

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.

The risk analyst is using the block maxima approach. The data points that result will then be used to fit a GEV distribution.

Expected shortfall refers to the expected losses beyond a specified threshold. The peaks-over-threshold approach is an alternative approach to the block maxima approach, and involves considering exceedances above a threshold. Fourier transformation is not relevant in this context, and is a non-sensical option.

Concentration risk in a credit portfolio arises due to a high degree of correlation between the default probabilities of the issuers of securities in the portfolio. For example, the fortunes of the issuers in the same industry may be highly correlated, and an investor exposed to multiple such borrowers may face 'concentration risk'.

A low degree of correlation, or independence of individual defaults in the portfolio actually reduces or even eliminates concentration risk.

The fact that issuers are from the same country may not necessarily give rise to concentration risk - for example, a bank with all US based borrowers in different industries or with different retail exposure types may not face practically any concentration risk. What really matters is the default correlations between the borrowers, for example a lender exposed to cement producers across the globe may face a high degree of concentration risk.

Basel II requires financial institutions to compare their ex-ante VaR estimates to actual realized P&L. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. A bank may use hypothetical P&L based upon constant positions to validate its model, but that is not required for Basel II.

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.

In the February of 2009, the Federal Reserve (which is the US central bank system) and other US banking regulators embarked on a simultaneous assessment of the capital held by the 19 largest US bank holding companies. This was an unprecedented exercise of a kind never undertaken before, and was known as the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP). The purpose of the exercise was to determine the amount of additional capital (called the 'capital buffer') each of the institutions covered would need to ensure that it would have sufficient capital if the economy weakened more than was then expected. The idea was that these financial institutions would then raise additional capital equal to their respective capital buffers by the fourth quarter of 2009.

Statement I is false on two counts: firstl the SCAP was conducted by the US central bank and other regulators, and not the 'Treasury Department' (the Treasury Department in the US is the equivalent of the Ministry of Finance in may other countries). Second, the SCAP was a one time exercise, and not annual.

Statement II is correct. The regulators prescribed rates of losses on credit assets of different kinds and other macro-economic assumptions, and asked the banks to determine the extent of losses they would need to bear (in addition to calculating them independently too). Therefore the SCAP was a stress test where the scenario was prescribed by the regulators.

Statement III is false. Capital buffer under the SCAP referred to the additional capital the banks would need to have certain ratios of capital, and not 'excess' capital.

Statement IV is correct. The SCAP envisaged two capital targets: a Tier 1 capital ratio in excess of 6% at the end of 2010; and a Tier 1 common capital ratio in excess of 4%. Therefore both the total Tier 1 capital and Tier 1 common capital were targeted.

Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The point that this question is trying to emphasize is the independence of the risk management function. The risk function should be segregated from the risk taking functions as to maintain independence and objectivity.

Choice 'd', Choice 'c' and Choice 'a' run contrary to this requirement of independence, and are therefore not correct. The risk function should report directly to senior levels, for example directly to the audit committee, and not be a part of the risk taking functions.

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.

Conditional default probabilities are modeled as a logit function under CreditPortfolio view. That ensures the resulting probabilities are 'well behaved', ie take a value between 0 and 1. The probability may be expressed as = 1/ (1 + exp(I)), where I is a country specific index taking various macro economic factors into account.

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.