PRMIA 8010 Exam Dumps

Risks such as abrupt changes to a firm's business model caused by legislation, or the introduction of capital controls in foreign countries where a firm in invested, geo-political risks etc are not modelable in the traditional sense. These risks cannot be modeled using VaR. Therefore statement I is correct.

VaR indeed does not consider liquidity risk, it is only concerned with the standard deviation of portfolio returns. Statement II is a valid criticism.

Statement III is not correct, as VaR can consider historical price movements.

Statement IV is correct, as VaR does not consider systemic risk or the risk of contagion.

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

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.

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.

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.