PRMIA 8010 Operational Risk Manager (ORM) Exam Exam Practice Test

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 difference between the yields oncorporate 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.

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 abank 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.

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

According to Basel II, in any given year, negative capital charges(resulting from negative gross income) in any business line may offset positive capital charges in other business lines without limit. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

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.

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) andnot EVT.

Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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 persistence parameter, λ, is the coefficient of the prior day's variance in EWMA calculations. A higher value of the persistence parameter tends to 'persist' the prior value of variance for longer. Consider an extreme example - if the persistence parameter is equal to 1, the variance under EWMA will never change in response to returns.

1 - λ is the coefficient of recent market returns. As λ is lowered, 1 - λ increases,giving a greater weight to recent market returns or shocks. Therefore, as λ is lowered, the model will react faster to market shocks and give higher weights to recent returns, and at the same time reduce the weight on prior variance which will tend to persist for a shorter period.

Since the BHC always fails when the investment bank fails, the joint probability of default of the two is merely the probability of the investment bank failing, ie 0.05.

The probability of just the BHC failing, given that both the investment bank and the retail bank have survived will be equal to 0.11 - (0.05+0.05-0.05*0.05) = 0.0125. (The easiest way to understand this would be to consider a venn diagram, where the area under the largest circle is 0.11, and there are two intersecting circles inside this larger circle, each with an area of 0.05 and their intersection accounting for 0.05*0.05. We need to calculate the area outside of the two smaller circles, but within the larger circle representing the BHC).

Refer diagram below, please excuse the awful colors.

A default hazard rate is the rate of default in a continuous time setting. This question is asking for probability of survival at the end of 5 years. The formula to calculate the probability of survival at the end of t years where the default hazard rate is λ is e^(-λ *t) (or in Excel,=exp(-λ*t). Therefore the correct answer is Choice 'd'.

(It may be tempting to infer that if the probability of survival at the end of 1 year is 90% (1 - 10%), then the probability of survival in 5 years would be 90%^5. However this reasoning is not correct for the reason that the given rate is not the discrete rate of default, but the hazard rate which is nothing but the continuously compounded rate of default.)

Under theCreditPortfolio View approach, the credit rating transition matrix is adjusted for the state of the economy in a way as to increase the probability of defaults when the economy is not doing well, and vice versa. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.The other choices represent nonsensical options.

While conceptually VaR is a fairly straightforward concept, a number of decisions need to be made to select between the different choices available for the exact mechanism to be used for the calculations.

The Basel framework requires banks toestimate VaR at the 99% confidence level over a 10 day horizon. Yet this is a decision that needs to be explicitly made and documented. Therefore 'I' is a correct choice.

At various stages of the calculations, portfolio values need to be determined. The valuation can be done using a 'full valuation', where each position is explicitly valued; or the portfolio(s) can be reduced to a handful of risk factors, and risk sensitivities such as delta, gamma, convexity etc be used to value the portfolio. The decisionbetween the two approaches is generally based on computational efficiency, complexity of the portfolio, and the degree of exactness desired. 'II' therefore is one of the decisions that needs to be made.

The decision as to disclosing the VaR in financial filings comes after the VaR has been calculated, and is unrelated to the VaR calculation system a bank needs to set up. 'III' is therefore not a correct answer.

Though the Basel framework requires a 10-day VaR to be calculated, it also allows the calculation of the 1-day VaR and and scaling it to 10 days using the square root of time rule. The bank needs to decide whether it wishes to scale the VaR based on a 1-day VaR number, or compute VaR for a 10 day period to begin with. 'IV' therefore is a decision tobe made for setting up the VaR system.

The correct answer is choice 'a'

The correct order of steps to addressing data quality problems in an organization would include:

1. Assesing the current state

2. Designing the future state, and

3. Planning and implementation which would include identifying the gaps between the current and the desired future state, and implementation to address the gaps.

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Choice 'c' is incorrect because a gap analysis cannot be performed without understanding the 'as-is' (which results from understanding the current state).

Choice 'b' is non-sensical, and Choice 'd' is a flippant option (though often used in real life situations by management as an easy (and ineffective) way to escape accountability for difficult problems)

Choice 'c' correctly describes Altman's z-score. All other choices are incorrect.

Loss provisioning is intended to cover expected losses. Economic capital is expected to cover unexpected losses. No capital or provisions are set aside for losses in excess of unexpected losses, which will ultimately be borne by equity.

Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

We will need to calculate the joint probability distribution of the portfolio as follows.Probability of the joint default of both A and B =

The marginal probabilities (ie the standalone probabilities of default of the two bonds) are known, and if we can calculate the probability of joint defaults of the two bonds, we can calculate the rest of the entries. We thenmultiply the probabilities with the expected loss under each scenario and add them up to get the total expected loss.

The calculations are shown below. The expected loss is $5.5m, and therefore the correct answer is Choice 'd'.

Marginal VaR of a component of a portfolio is the change in the portfolio VaR from a $1 change in the value of the component. It helps a risk analyst who may be trying to identify the best way to influence VaR by changingthe components of the portfolio. Marginal VaR is also important for calculating component VaR (for VaR disaggregation), as component VaR is equal to the marginal VaR multiplied by the value of the component in the portfolio.

Marginal VaR is by definitionthe derivative of the portfolio value with respect to the component i. This is reflected in Choice 'a' above. Using the definitions and relationships between correlation, covariance, beta and volatility of the portfolio and/or the component, we can show that the other two choices are also equivalent to Choice 'a'.

Therefore all the choices present are correct.

Choice 'd' is the correct answer. Settlement risk, as the name suggests, arises upon settlement when one of the parties delivers its obligation under the transaction and the other does not. Consider a EUR/USD FX forward contract maturing in a month. At maturity, one of the parties will deliver EURs and the other USDs. If one party fails to deliver, then it constitutes a very large risk to the other party. This risk is much larger than pre-settlement risk, because the amount at risk is the entire notional and not just the replacement value. Of course, settlement risk exists for a very short period of time, no more than a number or hours or a day.

There is no such thing as 'replacement risk', and credit risk is a larger category of which settlement risks is one component. Settlement risk is the most appropriate answer.

The exact formula for VaR is = -(Zα σ + μ), where Z α is the z-multiple for the desired confidence level, and μ is the mean return. Now Zα is always a negative number, or at least will certainly be provided the desired confidence level is greater than 50%, and μ is often assumed to be zero because generally for the short time periods for which market risk VaR is calculated, its value is very close to zero.

Therefore in practice the formula for VaR just becomes -Zασ, andsince Z is always negative, we normally just multiply the Z factor without the negative sign with the standard deviation to get the VaR.

For this question, there are two ways to get the answer. If we use the formula, we know that -Zασ= 250,000 (as μ=0), and therefore -Zασ - μ = 250,000 - 10,000 = $240,000.

The other, easier way to think about this is that if the mean changes, then the distribution's shape stays exactly the same, and the entire distribution shifts to the right by $10,000 as the mean moves upby $10,000. Therefore the VaR cutoff, which was previously at -250,000 on the graph also moves up by 10k to -240,000, and therefore $240,000 is the correct answer.

The other choices are intended to confuse by multiplying the z-factor for the 99% confidence level with 10,000 etc.

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.

The actuarial or CreditRisk+ model considers default as an 'end of game' event modeled by a Poisson distribution. The annual number of defaults is a stochastic variable with a mean of μ and standard deviation equal to √μ.

The probability of n defaults is given by (μ^n e^-μ) /n!, and therefore in this case is equal to (=2^4 * exp(-2))/FACT(4)) = 0.0902.

Note that CreditRisk+ is the same methodology as the actuarial approach, and requires using thePoisson distribution.

When modeling for operational risk, we are generally concerned with tail losses - this isbecause 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 usingheavy 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 usinga 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 likelihoodfunction 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 toadditions, 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 partsof the distribution differently from each other.

Top down approaches do not consider event frequency and severity, on the otherhand 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 downapproaches 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.

Choice 'a' is the correct answer. According to theBasel II document, banks using the Basic Indicator Approach must hold capital for operational risk equal to the average over the previous three years of a fixed percentage (denoted alpha, and currently 15%) of positive annual gross income. Figures for anyyear in which annual gross income is negative or zero should be excluded from both the numerator and denominator when calculating the average.

Economic capital is sub-additive, ie, because of the correlation being less than perfect between the risks of thedifferent business units, the total economic capital for the firm will be less than the sum of the EC for the individual business units. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

In practice, correlations are difficult to estimate reliably, and banks often use estimates and corroborate their capital calculations with reference to a number of data points.

Assuming time invariance and the Markov property, it is easy to calculate the transition matrix for any time period as P^n, where P is the given transition matrix for one period andn the number of time periods that we need to compute the new transition matrix for.

However, when the new time period is less than the time period the matrix is available for, the only way to deriving a transition matrix for a partial period is to numerically calculate a matrix M such that M^n = P. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Taking cube roots of a matrix is not a possible operation, dividing by 3 gives a matrix meaningless in this context, and P x P x P will give us the transition matrix for 3 years, not 1/3rd of a year.

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.

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.

Once we have a number of distributions in themodel space, the task is to select the "best" distribution that is likely to be a good estimate of true severity. We have a number of distributions to pick from, an empirical dataset (from internal or external losses), and we can estimate the parameters for the different distributions. We then have to decide which distribution to pick, and that generally requires considering both approximation and fitting errors.

There are three methods that are generally used for selecting a model:

1. Thecross-validation method: This method divides the available data into two parts - the training set, and the validation set (the validation set is also called the 'testing set'). Parameter estimation for each distribution is done using the training set, anddifferences are then calculated based on the validation set. Though the temptation may be to use the entire data set to estimate the parameters, that is likely to result in what may appear to be an excellent fit to the data on which it is based, but without any validation. So we estimate the parameters based on one part of the data (the training set), and check the differences we get from the remaining data (the validation set).

2. Complexity penalty method: This is similar to the cross-validation method, but with an additional consideration of the complexity of the model. This is because more complex models are likely to produce a more exact fit than simpler models, this may be a spurious thing - and therefore a 'penalty' is added to the more complex modelsas to favor simplicity over complexity. The 'complexity' of a model may be measured by the number of parameters it has, for example, a log-normal distribution has only two parameters while a body-tail distribution combining two different distributions mayhave many more.

3. The bootstrap method: The bootstrap method estimates fitting error by drawing samples from the empirical loss dataset, or the fit already obtained, and then estimating parameters for each draw which are compared using some statistical technique. If the samples are drawn from the loss dataset, the technique is called a non-parametric bootstrap, and if the sample is drawn from an estimated model distribution, it is called a parametric bootstrap.

4. Using goodness of fit statistics: The candidate fits can be compared using MLE based on the KS distance, for example, and the best one selected. Maximum likelihood estimation is a technique that attempts to maximize the likelihood of the estimate to be as close to the true value of the parameter.It is a general purpose statistical technique that can be used for parameter estimation technique, as well as for deciding which distribution to use from the model space.

All the choices listed are the correct answer.

With the passage of time, the range of possible values the FX contract can take increases. Therefore the maximumvalue of the contract, which is when the credit risk would be maximum, would be at maturity. (Note that this is different than an interest rate swap whose value at maturity approaches zero.) Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer and the others are incorrect.

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

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

Operational risk isdefined 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.

Therefore any losses from poor strategic planning will not be a part of operational risk. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Note that floods, earthquakes and the like are covered under the definition of operational risk as losses arising from loss or damage to physical assets from natural disaster orother events.

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.)

Basel II proposes three approaches to compute operational risk capital - the basic indicator approach(BIA), the standardized approach (SIA) and the advanced measurement approach (AMA). There is no operational risk approach called the factor based approach.