PRMIA 8010 Operational Risk Manager (ORM) Exam Practice Test

Answer : D

Probability of the joint default of both A and B =

We know all the numbers except default correlation, and we can solve for it.

Default Correlation*SQRT(0.03*(1 - 0.03)*0.08*(1 - 0.08)) + 0.03*0.08 = 0.014.

Solving, we get default correlation = 25%

Answer : B

EDFs are derived from the distance to default. The distance to default is the number of standard deviations that expected asset values are away from the default point, which itself is defined as short term debt plus half of the long term debt. Therefore debt levels affect the EDF. Similarly, asset values are estimated using equity prices. Therefore market capitalization affects EDF calculations. Asset volatilities are the standard deviation that form a place in the denominator in the distance to default calculations. Therefore asset volatility affects EDF too. The risk free rate is not directly factored in any of these calculations (except of course, one could argue that the level of interest rates may impact equity values or the discounted values of future cash flows, but that is a second order effect). Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Answer : B

The bank paid $7m for the bonds, and expected recovery is $3m (30% x $10m face). Therefore Bank B's loss is $4m ($7m - $3m). Choice 'b' is the correct answer. All other answers are incorrect.

Answer : A

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.)

Answer : D

Statement I is true - capital adequacy indeed is a reference to the ability of the firm to stay a 'going concern'. (Going concern is an accounting term that means the ability of the firm to continue in business without the stress of liquidation.)

Statement II is not true because even though the stated objective of regulatory capital requirements is similar to the purposes for which economic capital is calculated, regulatory capital calculations are based upon a large number of ad-hoc estimates and parameters that are 'hard-coded' into regulation, while economic capital is generally calculated for internal purposes and uses an institution's own estimates and models. They are rarely identical.

Statement II is not true as the purpose of economic capital is to provide a buffer against unexpected losses. Expected losses are covered by the P&L (or credit reserves), and not capital.

Statement IV is incorrect as even though economic capital may be calculated at very high confidence levels, that is never 100% which would require running a 'risk-free' business, which would mean there are no profits either. The level of confidence is set at a level which is an acceptable balance between the interests of the equity providers and the debt holders.

Answer : A

Regardless of the approach being followed by a bank (ie, whether foundation IRB or advanced IRB), it must make its own estimates for the probability of default. Banks following the foundation IRB approach may use values set by the supervisor for the other three parameters, though those following the advanced IRB approach may use their own estimates for all four inputs. (This is also the difference between advanced IRB and the foundation IRB approaches.) Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Also note the four difference elements that go as inputs to the internal ratings based approach in the choices provided.

Answer : C

When a derivative position is entered into, its mark-to-market value is generally close to zero (though the notional may be high). With the passage of time, the derivative's value fluctuates in an unpredictable way, creating a counterparty exposure that may be difficult to estimate and risk manage. Counterparty risk in such cases is estimated based on Potential Future Exposure, which may be calculated using either:

a) Take the mark-to-market at present, and add a certain percentage of the notional, or

b) Perform a Monte Carlo simulation, capturing the stochastic nature of the PFE.

Therefore I and II are valid choices. MLE and parametric estimation are not methods for calculating PFE.