PRMIA 8008 Exam Questions

In December 2009 the BIS came out with a new consultative document on liquidity risk. Given the events of 2007 - 2009, it has been clear that a key characteristic of the financial crisis was the inaccurate and ineffective

management of liquidity risk

The paper two separate but complementary objectives in respect of liquidity risk management: The first objective relates to the short-term liquidity risk profile of institution, and the second objective is to promote resiliency over longer-term time horizons. The paper identifies the following two ratios - you should be aware of these - though I am not sure if these will show up in the PRMIA exam:

1. Liquidity Coverage Ratio addresses the ability of an institution to survive an acute liquidity risk stress scenario lasting one month. It is calculated as follows:

Liquidity Coverage Ratio = Stock of high quality liquid assets/Net cash outflows over a 30-day time period

2. Net Stable Funding Ratio has been developed to capture structural issues related to funding choices.

Net Stable Funding Ratio = Available amount of stable funding/Required amount of stable funding

Both ratios should be equal to or greater than 1. The statement contains detailed definitions of what is included or excluded from each of the terms used in the calculations for each of the ratios. In addition, the standard also describes the what the 'acute' scenario should include (things such as a 3 notch credit downgrade, reduction in retail deposits etc)

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Book Value to Share Price and Earnings Per Share are accounting measures unrelated to liquidity.

The minimum variance hedge ratio answers the question of how much of the hedge to buy to hedge a given position. It minimizes the combined volatility of the primary and the hedge position. The minimum variance hedge ratio is given by the expression [ (x) / (y) ] * (x,y)]. Effectively, this is the same as the beta of the primary position with respect to the hedge.

In this case, the hedge ratio is = 10%/9% * 0.9 = 1

Some parts of this question draw upon contingent claims framework to the value of a firm. According to this framework, the relationship between the debt and equity holders of a firm can be viewed as follows: The equity holders have a call option on the assets of the firm with a strike price equal to the value of the debt, and the debt holders have sold them this call. This is so because should the value of the assets of the firm fall below the value of the debt, the equity holders can walk away by handing over the assets to the debt holders in full extinguishment of their claims. If the value of the firm's assets is greater than the value of debt, the equity holders will exercise their call option. At the same time, it is also possible to view the debtholders as holding an asset and having sold a put on the assets of the firm with a strike price equal to the value of the debt. If the value of the assets of the firm were to fall below the value of the debt, they will end up buying the assets at a price equal to the value of the debt.

An increase in the volatility of returns on the assets of a firm increases the volatility of the asset value. This means the likelihood that the asset value will go below the value of the debt of the firm will increase. Callable debt can be considered to be a summation of two separate securities: a regular debt, for which the firm pays interest and receives a principal loan; and a call option that the debt holders have sold to the firm allowing the firm to buy back the debt. In return, the firm pays an implied 'premium' to the debt holders who have agreed to buy the callable debt. Therefore the total payments by the company to callable debt holders is equal to the interest payments plus the premium payment for the option. An increase in asset volatility will increase the value of this option as it is likely that the assets will increase in value, and strengthen the company's credit, and lower its spread at which time it would like to repay the debt and refinance/roll over at the new lower rate. Therefore an increase in volatility will increase the 'premium' demanded by the callable debt holders, thereby increasing the total yield and lowering the value of the callable debt. Therefore Choice 'b' (An increase in the value of the callable debt of the firm) is incorrect.

An increase in asset volatility will decrease the value of the firm as it is now riskier than before (higher standard deviation, same expected returns). Therefore Choice 'a' (An increase in the value of the equity of the firm) is false too.

The value of the implicit put in the debt of the firm will increase and not decrease as the volatility of the underlying assets increases. Therefore Choice 'c' (A decrease in the value of the implicit put in in the debt of the firm) is incorrect too.

Choice 'd' (A decrease in the value of the non-callable debt issued by the firm) is correct because higher asset volatility will increase the riskiness of the company's debt, making the required yield higher and decreasing its value.

First of all, if prices are lognormally distributed, that implies the returns (which are equal to the log of prices) are normally distributed. To say that prices are lognormally distributed is just another way of saying that returns are normally distributed.

Since the correlation between the two securities is zero, this means their variances can be added. But standard deviations, or volatilities cannot be added (they will be the square root of sum of variances). VaR is nothing but a multiple of standard deviation, and therefore it is not additive if correlations are anything other than 1 (ie perfect positive, which would imply we are dealing with the same asset). Therefore VaR(A+B)=SQRT(VaR(A)^2 + VaR(B)^2). This implies the combined VaR of a portfolio with these two securities will be less than the sum of VaRs of the two individual securities.

Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer and the other choices are wrong.