PRMIA 8008 Dumps Questions Answers

As part of a reverse stress test, a firm has to identify and assess the scenarios most likely to cause it to fail, or in other words using the language used by the FSA in the UK, for its current business plan to become unviable. A firm's business plan should be considered to become unviable at the point that crystallizing risks cause the market to lose confidence it it, with the consequence that counterparties and other stakeholders are unwilling to transact with it or provide capital to the firm and, where releant, that existing counterparties may seek to terminate their contracts. Recent experience suggests that this point is reached well before a firm's regulatory capital is exhausted.

Large known losses, or negative EBITDA (earnings before interest , tax, depreciation and amortization) may be indicators or contribute to the loss of confidence, but do not of themselves make the current business plan unviable. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

With the passage of time, the range of possible values the FX contract can take increases. Therefore the maximum value of the contract, which is when the credit risk would be maximum, would be at maturity. (Note that this is different than an interest rate swap whose value at maturity approaches zero.) Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer and the others are incorrect.

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.)