Free Practice Questions for PRMIA 8008 Exam

A CFP is indeed a disaster recovery plan to deal with a liquidity crisis. Therefore statement I is correct.

A CFP should consider market stress conditions, including wide scale failures of payment and settlement systems. Statement II is not correct.

It is true that reputational damage may result if a firm has to activate its CFP - therefore the plan should consider internal and external communications, the timing of information release and the groups within the firm who need to know about the implementation of the plan. Reputational damage can only make any existing liquidity problems worse. Statement III is correct.

Sources of emergency funding should not include funding from the central bank - unless as part of a regular lending facility. Its role as a lender of last resort can not be considered in a CFP. Statement IV is incorrect.

Therefore only statements I and III are correct.

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 Loss and Tail average.

The stresses on liquidity that happened as part of the credit crisis beginning 2007-08 led to drying up of trading and liquidity crisis in the corporate bond markets, the auction rate securities markets, the wholesale (interbank lending) markets, the money markets, the markets for structured products, and even the otherwise liquid futures and forwards markets (as there was no liquidity available to fund the financing of futures). The one market that was not affected was the market for treasuries, in fact the flight to quality ensured that this market was very liquid (even though stressed from a pricing perspective as yields plummetted).

Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

This is easy to calculate as follows: At the 99% confidence level, the VaR=2.326 * Std Deviation (remember the z values at the 95% and 99% levels, the PRMIA exam may not give you these values). Thus the 1-day standard deviation is $250m/2.326, and the 250-day standard deviation is √250 * ($250m/2.326) = $1,699.4m.

Remember: if you know the VaR, you know the standard deviation. Once you know the standard deviation for any period of time, you can convert it into standard deviation for another period using the square root of time rule. You can also calculate the VaR at a different confidence level too.

The risk analyst is using the block maxima approach. The data points that result will then be used to fit a GEV distribution.

Expected shortfall refers to the expected losses beyond a specified threshold. The peaks-over-threshold approach is an alternative approach to the block maxima approach, and involves considering exceedances above a threshold. Fourier transformation is not relevant in this context, and is a non-sensical option.

Choice 'b' is the correct answer. All other answers are incorrect.

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.

Component VaR measures the proportion of total VaR that can be allocated to each asset in the portfolio. It is based upon the covariance matrix multiplied by the weights, and each row represents the component VaR for the asset in question. Since the total of such a matrix is the total VaR, component VaR is additive. Component VaR is used to assess the contribution of each asset in the portfolio to total risk and has the useful property of being additive so some sense can be made of the contribution of each asset to total risk.

Incremental VaR, conditional VaR and VaR are sub-additive by definition, and therefore not the correct answer.

When modeling for operational risk, we are generally concerned with tail losses - this is because 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 using heavy 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 using a 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 likelihood function 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 to additions, 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 parts of the distribution differently from each other.