Discrete VaR (September 2012, Q1)

Discussion in 'CM2' started by VSA_88, Sep 29, 2020.

  1. VSA_88

    VSA_88 Active Member

    Hi

    I am struggling with some of the concepts for a discrete variable with question 1, part (c) of part (ii).

    Here we are asked to find the 95% VaR and 95% TailVaR. When I write out the pdf of this, say X~f(x), I am unsure how to define X as the solution does it differently to me. I see it as follows:

    Let X be the losses on default, Paa be the default probability on bond A and Pbb be the default probability on bond B, then the distribution of losses is:
    • X = 0 with P = (1-Paa)*(1-Pbb) = 0.94479
    • X = -53 with P = (Paa)*(1-Pbb) = 0.01817
    • X = -54 with P = (1-Paa)*(Pbb) = 0.03634
    • X = -107 with P = (Paa)*(Pbb) = 0.0007
    Here I find that 95% VaR(X) = £53 since we are 95% confident the losses are no greater than this amount.

    Moving on to TailVaR is where I am really struggling. I am working with E[L-X | X<L] and doing the following:
    [SIGMA_{X<L} (L-X)] / P[X<L)
    where L is the 95% VaR = -53.
    The answer should be £55, but I am getting nowhere near this. Can someone please help me figure this out as I think I am missing something fundamental here?

    Thanks in advanced.
     
  2. Joe Hook

    Joe Hook ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    Hi,

    Unfortunately with VaR questions there are often a number of ways to express your VaR, so it's not unreasonable to take your approach above and express your VaR relative to the full amount assuming no default.

    On your tailVar it's the sumproduct of (t-X)*p(X=x) for returns in the tail so you'd get with your numbers (t=-53%):

    [(-53)-(-54)]*0.03634+[(-53)-(-107)]*0.0007=0.07414

    That would be a perfectly legitimate answer to this question and would score full marks.

    Do watch out in the exam, however, in case they ask for VaR in specific terms.

    Hope this helps
    Joe
     
  3. Nandan

    Nandan Member

    Hi,

    For the same question part i) (100 invested in company A), the 95% VaR is given to be zero in the report. I don't understand where that figure comes from (no explanation is given). Can anyone please try and explain?
    However, for the same question in the revision notes a different answer is given.

    I solved using the below approach -
    At the end of the year, the 100 invested in company A; either becomes
    106 --- if no default (0.9811)
    0 --- if default (0.0189)
    Using the formula --> t = max{x: P(X<x) <= p} where p = 0.05; I get t = 106
    Hence, VaR = 100 - 106 = -6. Is this answer wrong? (this answer is given as one of the right answers in the revision notes solutions)

    Thanks in advance!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2020
  4. Joe Hook

    Joe Hook ActEd Tutor Staff Member

    Hi,

    Your approach is fine. Again it all comes down to how you define your VaR. As long as you take a consistent (correct) approach you should receive full credit. Your t is relative to the initial investment of 100. If instead, as the examiners report does, you had set your VaR relative to the no default scenario of receiving 106 you would have set VaR to be 106-106=0.

    The idea here, I would guess, is that your overwhelming expectation (not of course in a mathematical sense) is to have 106 in a years time. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to set your VaR relative to this "expectation" and say you have greater than 95% confidence that you'll receive the full amount and hence make no loss relative to this value.

    This question has caused issues with students for many years because there are so many different ways of answering it. They key is to show enough explanation of the approach that you have taken so that you can be credited with full marks, even if it's a different interpretation to the examiners.

    Joe
     
    Nandan likes this.
  5. VSA_88

    VSA_88 Active Member

    Hi Joe,

    Thanks for confirming all of the details. They were very helpful (panic over!). :)
     

Share This Page