8010 Exam Dumps : Operational Risk Manager (ORM) Exam

Note that events of default under the ISDA MA are caused by one of the parties that is considered 'atfault'. In contrast, "termination events" are events for which no one is at fault, for example changes in legislation, illegality etc that still justify termination of the transactions under the contract.

The ISDA MA describes the following 8 types of events of default:

1. failure of pay or deliver

2. breach of agreement

credit support default

4. misrepresentation

5. default under specified transaction

6. cross default

7. bankruptcy

8. merger without assumption

All of the options presented in the question are events of default.

Incremental capital (or incremental VaR, depending upon the context), is a measure of the change in the capital (or VaR) requirements if a certain change is made to a portfolio.It uses the 'before' and 'after' approach, ie find out what the capital requirement or VaR will be without the change, and what it will be after the change. The difference is the incremental capital or incremental VaR. It helps measure the change in risk as a result of a particular action, eg a change in a position.

Marginal capital or VaR on the other hand is a method to break down the capital requirement or the VaR so that it can be assigned to individual positions within the portfolio. The total of marginal capital or marginal VaR for all the positions in a portfolio adds up to the total capital requirements or total VaR. Note that marginal VaR is also called component VaR.

Therefore incremental capital is the correct answer to this question. The other choices are incorrect. In the exam, the question may be phrased differently, so try to keep in mind the different between incremental and marginal capital, which can be a bit confusing given what these terms mean in plain English.

According to a paper by the BCBS, here is an excellent summary of what happened. Based on this, Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

"At the outset of the crisis, mortgage default shocks played a part in the deterioration of marketprices of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Simultaneously, these shocks revealed deficiencies in the models used to manage and price these products. The complexity and resulting lack of transparency led to uncertainty about the value of the underlying investment. Market participants then drastically scaled down their activity in the origination and distribution markets and liquidity disappeared. The standstill in the securitisation markets forced banks to warehouse loans that were intended to be soldin the secondary markets. Given a lack of transparency of the ultimate ownership of troubled investments, funding liquidity concerns were triggered within the banking sector as banks refused to provide sufficient funds to each other. This in turn led to the hoarding of liquidity, exacerbating further the funding pressures within the banking sector. The initial difficulties in subprime mortgages also fed through to a broader range of market instruments since the drying up of market and funding liquidity forced market participants to liquidate those positions which they could trade in order to scale back risk. An increase in risk aversion also led to a general flight to quality, an example of which was the high withdrawals by households from money market funds."