This situation represents one of the paradoxes in estimating severity that one needs to be aware of - the improvement in controls reduces the weight of the body/middle of the distribution and moves it towards the tails (as the total probability under the curve must stay at 100%) and the distribution becomes more heavy tailed. As a result, the 99.9th percentile loss actually increases. instead of decreasing, creating a counterintuitive result. Therefore the correct answer is that the capital required will increase.

If scenario analysis produces such a result, the analyst must question if the 1 in 100 year loss severity is still accurate. If the new control has reduced the severity in the body of the distribution, the question as to why the more extreme losses have not changed should be raised.

The second order approximation of the VaR of an options position is given by [Option delta x Underlying ' s VaR - Option gamma/2 x (Underlying ' s VaR)^2]. Therefore, a higher gamma reduces VaR and a lower gamma increases VaR. Hence Choice ' b ' is the correct answer.

A LIBOR based loan requires cash to move from the lender to the borrower in the amount of the notional. The Overnight Index Swap requires only the exchange of interest payments, and therefore represents less risk.

Therefore the LIBOR based loan is a riskier exposure.

The LIBOR is generally higher than the OIS. In fact, the difference between the two, the LIBOR-OIS spread, is a standard measure of the risk premium in the market that goes up when the risk of default by counterparty banks is considered high. This is because when the market perceives the risk of default to be high, the participants need a risk premium to take on the default risk which is considerably lesser with the OIS.

When returns are non-normal and have fat tails, an assumption of normality in returns leads to underestimation of VaR at high confidence levels. At the same time, at lower confidence levels the normal distribution may give higher VaR estimates. Therefore Choice ' a ' is correct. The other choices are incorrect.

Also refer to the tutorial about VaR and heavy tails.

A computation of Altman ' s Z-score considers the following ratios:

- Working capital to total assets

- Retained earnings to total assets

- EBIT to total assets

- Market cap to debt

- Sales to total assets

It does not consider Net Income to total assets, therefore Choice ' c ' is the correct answer. This makes sense as net income is after interest and taxes, both of which are not relevant for considering the cash flows for debt servicing.

Economic capital is often calculated with a view to maintaining the credit ratings for a firm. It is the capital available to absorb unexpected losses, and credit ratings are also based upon a certain probability of default. Economic capital is often calculated at a level equal to the confidence required for the desired credit rating. For example, if the probability of default for a AA rating is 0.02%, and the firm desires to hold an AA rating, then economic capital maintained at a confidence level of 99.98% would allow for such a rating. In this case, economic capital set at a 99.8% level can be thought of as the level of losses that would not be exceeded with a 99.8% probability, and would help get the firm its desired credit rating.

Choice ' c ' is the correct answer. Economic capital does not target minimizing the cost of capital, nor is it a provision for losses arising from market risk. The concept of economic capital is unrelated to where an institution or firm is based, therefore Choice ' a ' is incorrect as well.

A cumulative accuracy plot measures the accuracy of credit ratings assigned by rating agencies by considering the relative rankings of obligors according to the ratings given. Choice ' d ' is the correct answer.

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.

This question requires the calculation of the credit VaR of the bonds - note that in the real exam the question may not refer to ' credit ' VaR, but that can be inferred from the context, ie because the probability of default is provided, it can only be asking for the credit VaR. (Note the difference from the market risk VaR which is driven by interest rate changes affecting the value of the bonds - there are other questions addressing that calculation).

Credit VaR = Expected Value - Worst case portfolio value at the selected percentile (ie the confidence level)

Thus if we know the distribution of the portfolio value in the future, we can find out the value at the required percentile (in this case 99%), and the VaR will be the difference between this value and the expected value of the portfolio.

An important piece of information provided is that the defaults are independent, ie they are not correlated. This means joint probabilities of default or survival can be easily found by multiplying the relevant probabilities. The following outcomes are possible:

1. Both bonds default: Probability = 1% * 1% = 0.01%. Portfolio value = $0 (because both bonds have defaulted & there is zero recovery)

2. One bond defaults and the other survives: Probability = 2 * 1% * 99% = 1.98%. Portfolio value = $1m (because one bond survives with a value of $1m and the defaulted bond has a value of $0). (Note that because there are two ways in which this can happen, ie bond 1 defaults, bond 2 survives; and bond 1 survives, bond 2 defaults, we need to multiply the probability by 2).

3. Both bonds survive: Probability = 99% * 99% = 98.01%. Portfolio value = $2m.

Expected value is therefore $1.98m (which is equal to 2 * $1m * (1 - 1%), or alternatively can also be obtained by multiplying the probabilities in the above three outcomes with the value associated with each).

The future distribution of the value of the portfolio can be constructed from the three outcomes outlined above:

a. Upto the 98.01th percentile the value of the portfolio is $2m, and the VaR is zero (being greater than the expected value, so there is nothing to lose)

b. From the 98.01th percentile to the 99.99th percentile (98.01+ the next 1.98%), the value of the portfolio is $1m. VaR in this range is $0.98m (=$1.98m - $1m)

c. From the 99.99th to the 100th percentile the value of the portfolio is $0, and the VaR is $1.98m.

Since the question is asking for VaR at the 99% confidence level, it lies in the range in ' b ' above, and therefore the VaR is $0.98m.

Therefore Choice ' c ' is the correct answer and the rest are incorrect.

Right after inception ' is incorrect as the interest rate swap (IRS) would be valued at close to zero right after inception and the credit risk would be minimum. Choice ' a ' (ie 10 years, at maturity) is incorrect as at maturity there would be no more cash flows to exchange, and the replacement value of the contract would again be close to zero.

Therefore the worst time for the counterparty to default is somewhere between inception and maturity - in fact the range of possible outcomes for the contract increases with the passage of time, and we should find the worst time to default to be a later date. However, towards maturity, the value of the contract starts to go towards zero again, and the maximum value is reached around 7 years. 2 years is too early for the maximum to be reached for the 10 year IRS, and therefore choice a is the correct answer.