8010 Exam Dumps - Operational Risk Manager (ORM) Exam

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 bycalculating 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.

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 anyparticular 'accuracy ratio' or rankings. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Measures of risk sensitivity include delta, gamma, vega, PV01, convexity and CR01, among others. They allow approximating the change in the value of a portfolio from achange (generally small) in one of the underlying risk factors.

Risk sensitivity measures are derivatives of the value of the portfolio, calculated with respect to the risk factor. Some risk sensitivity measures are second derivatives, and allow a more precise calculation of the change in the value of the portfolio. Many risk sensitivities are represented by Greek letter, but not all.

Delta (δ) is a measure of the change in portfolio value based on a 1% change in the value of the underlying. Gamma (γ) is asecond order derivative that improves the calculation as part of a Taylor expansion. CR01 is a measure of the change due to a 1 basis point change in the credit spread. PL01 is not a measure of any kind of risk sensitivity, it does not mean anything.

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 three pillars are minimum capital requirements, supervisory review and market discipline. National regulation is not a pillar described under the accord. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

A non-financial firm such as a manufacturing company faces market risks similar to those faced by financial firms, except perhaps for not being exposed to risks from the equity markets. Non financial firms commonly face interest rate risks in respect of their debts, commodity price risks in respect of their inputs and products, and foreign currency risks in respect of their overseas operations. It is therefore not correct to say that the manufacturing firm does not face market risk because it does not take proprietary positions. While decisions on positions may not be actively taken, positions in foreign exchange (eg, through overseas debtors owing foreign currency, or liabilities in foreign currencies to overseas suppliers), commodities (through exposure to the need for raw material and inventory of finished goods) and interest rates (through debt financed, whether at fixed or floating rates) exist and create market risk much in the same way as they would for a proprietary position. Therefore statement I is incorrect.

While the firm faces market risks as an externality (as do financial firms for that matter, though often they seek such exposure to profit from their view on which way the externality will express itself), it is incorrect to say that these risks must be borne. They can be measured and hedged. Therefore statement II is incorrect.

The results of a manufacturing firm will include gains and losses arising from exposure to market risk, and will cloud the true profitability of the business. A firm with significant unhedged overseas sales may show vastly different results across time periods due to the FX gains and losses, making comparative assessment of profitability difficult. Therefore statement III is correct.

Market risks for a manufacturing firm may be directionally biased in terms of exposure, ie there may be a consistent 'long' position in a particular commodity that the firm produces, and a consistent 'short' position in the commodities consumed. In the same way, directional biases may exist in FX or interest rate exposures too. Regardless of the bias, the existence of market risk exposures increase the volatility of the income stream and make the firm more risky, even though the long term expected returns from such exposures is zero (ie, returns may be zero but standard deviation is not). Therefore statement IV is not correct as market risks form non financialfirms do increase the overall risk of the firm.

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.

The correct definition of CVA is LGD * EPE * PD. All other answers areincorrect.

CVA reflects the adjustment for counterparty default on derivative and other trading book transactions. This reflects the credit charge, that neeeds to be reduced from the expected value of the transaction to determine its true value. It is calculated as a product of the loss given default, the probability of default and the average weighted exposure of future EPEs across the time horizon for the transaction.

The future exposures need to be discounted to the present, and occasionally the equations for CVA will state that explicitly. Similarly, in some more advanced dynamic models the correlation between EPE and PD is also accounted for. The conceptual ideal though remains the same: CVA=LGD*EPE*PD.