FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Credit Value Adjustment
A bank and a counterparty each have independent default times with constant hazard rates. The bank is exposed to the counterparty on a single forward whose exposure is positive for the bank in some scenarios and negative in others. Which statement about bilateral CVA calculation with first-to-default considerations is correct?
The CVA term must be weighted by the bank's survival probability and the DVA term by the counterparty's survival probability, because the contract terminates at the first default. Ignoring this double counts, and bilateral adjustment is generally smaller than unilateral CVA.
- AThe counterparty's CVA term should be weighted by the probability that the bank has not defaulted earlier, and the DVA term by the probability the counterparty has not defaulted earlierCorrect
- BCVA and DVA can be computed independently and simply summed without any survival adjustment
- CDVA should be computed using only the counterparty's survival probability
- DBilateral CVA is always larger than unilateral CVA
Explanation
Because the contract ends at the first default, the loss from the counterparty's default only matters if the bank has survived to that time, and similarly for DVA. Ignoring this double counts. Bilateral CVA (net of DVA) is typically smaller than unilateral CVA, so the last option is wrong.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Credit Value Adjustment shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Credit Value Adjustment questions
- A risk committee objects to counting DVA in regulatory capital. Which is the most appropriate rationale for the Basel framework's treatment …
- A risk manager computes CVA for a portfolio assuming exposure and default are independent. Which statement is correct about moving to a mode…
- A bank's independent CVA on a netting set is computed as the sum over three annual periods of (discounted expected exposure x marginal defau…
- A bank estimates a counterparty's 97.5% potential future exposure at 25 million and its expected positive exposure at 9 million for a deriva…
- A bank trades an uncollateralized derivative with a corporate (asset position, expected positive exposure USD 20 million, constant over 3 ye…
- A bank nets two trades with one counterparty under an enforceable netting agreement. Trade A has a current value of +30 million and Trade B …