Very helpful @David Harper CFA FRM
Strange how other sources employ approach resulting in significantly different results.
From what i was able to read so far this is my synopsis viz. the above workout:
(1,3)(3,1): Discordant cuz 1<3 BUT 3>1
(1,4)(2,3): Concordant cuz 1<4 AND 2<3
(2,4)(4,3)...
Thanks a bunch @David Harper CFA FRM...but please bear with me...i am not able to follow through...
Please provide an alternate view...maybe with examples:
(1,3)(3,1)?
(1,4)(2,3)?
(2,4)(3,3)?
Also, if we look at earlier definition on "neither" where xt=xt* or yt=yt*...say (1,4)(2,4) as in...
Dear @David Harper CFA FRM
Knowing default is characterized by a bernoulli distribution, can you please advise if an analytical solution exists to deriving PDs from sigma PD.
Let me be more precise..if sigma PD = 7%. What is PD? Would appreciate if you share the workout!
Thanks.
Hi @David Harper CFA FRM
Please confirm if we are required perform calculations of the below for FRM 2 May 2017 exam:
1- VAR and ES under POT
2- WCDR and Maturity Adjustment under Basel IRB approach.
Thanks.
I have a feeling the inputs are incorrect as they (in the case of HIJ and portfolio) lead to correlation parameter estimate > 1. @David Harper CFA FRM will come to the rescue hopefully soon.
Thanks @David Harper CFA FRM
Helpful, but a bit of sherlock holmes re. your last statement!
Wouldn't a distribution with mean 0 and variance of 1 by default be a standard normal distribution, hence 1.65 deviate to 95% VaR quantile?!!
I think the key is for the distribution to be elleyptical...
Hi everyone:
A 95% VaR measure that assumes normal distribution cuts off at 1.65 critical z.
If an alternative distribution entails a 95% VaR at 1.56, what does that tell us about properties of the distribution?
Is is safe to assume it exhibits thinner tails?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.