The probability that only one of the three bonds will default is equal to the sum of the probabilities of the three scenarios where one bond defaults and the other two survive. This probability is given by 1%*(1 - 2%)*(1 - 3%) + (1 - 1%)*2%*(1 - 3%) + (1 - 1%)*(1 - 2%)*3% = 5.7818%. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

All the listed variables are relevant to management monitoring the credit risk profile of an institution, therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Marginal VaR of a component of a portfolio is the change in the portfolio VaR from a $1 change in the value of the component. It helps a risk analyst who may be trying to identify the best way to influence VaR by changing the components of the portfolio. Marginal VaR is also important for calculating component VaR (for VaR disaggregation), as component VaR is equal to the marginal VaR multiplied by the value of the component in the portfolio.

Marginal VaR is by definition the derivative of the portfolio value with respect to the component i. This is reflected in Choice 'a' above. Using the definitions and relationships between correlation, covariance, beta and volatility of the portfolio and/or the component, we can show that the other two choices are also equivalent to Choice 'a'.

Therefore all the choices present are correct.

EVT, when used in the context of operational risk measurement, focuses on tail events and attempts to build a distribution of losses beyond what is covered by VaR. Statements I, II and II are correct. Statement IV describes conditional VaR (CVAR) and not EVT.

Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Statement I is correct. The financial system proved to be stable against small shocks and disturbances, or shocks of a particular type (eg, the dotcom crash, the wars in the Persian Gulf); but rather fragile against other types of shocks, including disturbances to key market participants caused by a worsening of mortgage defaults. Statement II is incorrect. Financial innovation, in particular the slicing and dicing of 'risk' through securitization, significantly increased interrelationships, dependence on the same risk factors, and the complexity of the system as a whole. Statement III is incorrect. A distinction is s ometimes made between risk that is knowable, measureable, and quantifiable through parameters; and uncertainty, where the parameters are not known at all. The latter is called 'Knightian uncertainty' after the name of the scholar who came up with the disti nction between the two. Statement IV is correct. Feedback effects had the greatest impact on liquidity which was tended to be hoarded, and on asset prices that tumbled as market participants tried to sell assets to become more liquid. Thus, choice is a th e correct answer.

The persistence parameter, λ, is the coefficient of the prior day's variance in EWMA calculations. A higher value of the persistence parameter tends to 'persist' the prior value of variance for longer. Consider an extreme example - if the persistence parameter is equal to 1, the variance under EWMA will never change in response to returns.

1 - λ is the coefficient of recent market returns. As λ is lowered, 1 - λ increases, giving a greater weight to recent market returns or shocks. Therefore, as λ is lowered, the model will react faster to market shocks and give higher weights to recent returns, and at the same time reduce the weight on prior variance which will tend to persist for a shorter period.

According to the option pricing approach developed by Merton, the shareholders of a firm have a put on the assets of the firm where the strike price is equal to the face value of the firm's debt. This is just a more complicated way of saying that the debt holders are entitled to all the assets of the firm if these assets are insufficient to pay off the debts, and because of limited liability of the shareholders of a corporation this part payment will fully extinguish the debt.

A firm will default on its debt if the value of the assets falls below the face value of the debt. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. All other choices are incorrect.

(There are two ways to consider this sort of optionality, and I have mentioned only one for this question:

1. The equity holders can sell the assets of the firm to the debt holders at a price equal to the face value of the debt, ie a put. (ie they can extinguish their liability to the debt holders in full by handing them the assets of the firm, effectively selling them the assets at the value of the debt)

2. The equity holders have a long position in a call option where they can keep the assets of the firm by paying a price equal to the face value of the debt (ie, they can pay off the debt holders and keep the assets)

For this question, perspective 1 applies but you should be aware of the second one too as a question may reference that view point.)