8010 Exam Dumps : Operational Risk Manager (ORM) Exam

The easiest way to answer this question is to ignore the joint probability of default as thatis irrelevant to expected losses. The joint probability of default impacts the volatility of the losses, but not the expected amount. One way to think about it is to think of asset portfolios, where diversification reduces risk (ie standard deviation) butthe expected returns are nothing but the average of the expected returns in the portfolio. Just as the expected returns of the portfolio are not affected by the volatility or correlations (these affect standard deviation), in the same way the joint probability of default does not affect the expected losses. Therefore the expected losses for this portfolio are simply $1m x 10% + $1m x 15% = $250,000.

This can also be seen from the lens of a joint probability distribution as follows:

There are four possibilities for this portfolio:

- Only loan A defaults: loss of $1m: 9% probability

- Only loan B defaults: loss of $1m: 14% probability

- Both loan A and B default: loss of $2m: 1% probability

- Neither A nor B default: loss of $0m: 76% probability

Therefore the expected losses on the portfolio are ($1m x 9%) + ($1m x 14%) + ($2m x 1%) + ($0m x 76%) = $250,000.

(Notes: How is the above table calculated? The totals (10%, 90%, 15% and 85%) are filled in first. The top left cell (both A & B default) is given as 1%. We can now calculate the rest of the cells as the totals are known.)

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 'c'. The following is a brief description of the major approaches available to model credit risk, and the analysis that underlies them:

1. CreditMetrics: based on the credit migration framework. Considers the probability of migration to other credit ratings and the impact of such migrations on portfolio value.

2. CreditPortfolio View: similar to CreditMetrics, but adds the impact of the business cycle to the evaluation.

3. The contingent claims approach: uses option theory by considering a debt as a put option on the assets of the firm.

4. KMV's EDF (expected default frequency) based approach: relies on EDFs and distance to default as a measure of credit risk.

5. CreditRisk+: Also called the 'actuarial approach', considers default as a binary event that either happens or does not happen. This approach does not consider the loss of value from deterioration in credit quality (unless the deterioration implies default).