A residential mortgage carries a prepayment option for the borrower, where in the event of a decrease in interest rates they are likely to repay the mortgage and refinance at the new lower rate. If rates go up, the bank does not have a similar option. If the volatility of the underlying interest rates increases, mortgage holders are more likely to be faced with new rates that are sufficiently lower to persuade them to refinance. This reduces the ability of the bank to continue to earn the higher interest rate it was earning before.

Therefore an increase in volatility of the mortgage interest rates decreases the value of the mortgage portfolio.

The same rationale applies to callable bonds, where the borrower has the option to call the bond.

Since $100 is convertible into two shares, the price upon conversion per share is $50, which is the same as the current share price. Therefore there is no premium, and Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

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.

This question relates to fitting a distribution to the true severity of the operational risk loss we are trying to model. The quality of the fit, or the precision of the fit, has two elements to the difference between the severity as represented by our model and the true severity. To understand this, consider the three data points below:

a. The true severity,

b. The best approximation of the true severity in the model space, and

c. The fit based on the dataset.

- True severity is what we are trying to model.

- The model space refers to the collection of analytical distributions (log-normal, burr etc) that we are considering to arrive at the estimate of the severity.

- The 'best approximation of the true severity in the model space' is reached by estimating the parameters of the distribution that optimizes the risk functional.

- The 'fit' is the actual parameter estimates we settle for with the distribution we have determined best fits the true estimate of our severity. When estimating parameters, we have various methods available for estimation - the least squares method, the maximum likelihood method, for example, and we can get different estimates depending upon the method we choose to use.

Our severity model will be different from the true severity, and the total difference can be split into two types of errors:

1. Fitting error, represented by 'c - b' above: The difference between the fit based on the dataset and the best approximation of the true severity is called 'fitting error', ie, a measure of the extent to which we could have estimated the parameters better.

2. Approximation error, represented by 'b - a' above: Approximation error is the difference between the true severity, and the best approximation of the true severity that can be achieved within the model space is called 'approximation error'.

One can reduce the approximation error by expanding the model space by adding more distributions. This will reduce the approximation error, but generally has the effect of increasing the fitting error because the complexity of the model space increases, and there are more ways to fit to the true severity.

The OTC market for foreign exchange is indeed much larger than the exchange traded futures market for FX. Therefore statement I is correct.

Delivery-versus-payment (DVP) arrangements make sure that title to a security passes only when payment has been made, and these arrangements, usually implemented through national clearing agencies such as the DTC in the US, help avoid the risk of counterparty defaults.

Electronic Clearing Networks (ECNs) offer cheaper trading costs than exchanges, in fact that is their primary attraction. Exchanges offer other advantages, but lower trading costs is not one of them.

ISDA master agreements provide templates that a large number of OTC market participants use to standardize their OTC trading activities. Therefore statement IV is correct.

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.