FRM Part II · FRM Exam Part II · Capital Planning at Large Bank Holding Companies: Supervisory Expectations and Range of Current Practice
A bank's baseline scenario produces a minimum projected CET1 ratio of 11.0%, while its severely adverse scenario produces 7.0%. The internal minimum buffer policy requires CET1 of at least 8.0% under stress, and RWA is 250 billion in the stress path. Assuming RWA stays constant and no other actions, what additional CET1 capital is needed to meet the stress policy?
The shortfall is one percentage point of 250 billion RWA, which equals 2.5 billion. The baseline result is irrelevant because the policy minimum applies to the stress path.
- A2.5 billion
- B5.0 billionCorrect
- C10.0 billion
- D7.5 billion
Explanation
Shortfall is 8.0% − 7.0% = 1.0 percentage point of 250 billion RWA = 2.5 billion. The baseline ratio is irrelevant to the stress requirement. Correcting: the required amount is 2.5 billion.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Capital Planning at Large Bank Holding Companies: Supervisory Expectations and Range of Current Practice shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Capital Planning at Large Bank Holding Companies: Supervisory Expectations and Range of Current Practice questions
- Which practice best reflects strong governance over a large BHC's stress testing used for capital planning?
- A BHC's loss model for credit card balances was developed using data from a benign period only. During stress testing review, which concern …
- A bank's capital planning uses a model to project pre-provision net revenue under stress. Validation finds the model was developed on a data…
- A bank estimates losses on a mortgage portfolio using a roll-rate model and separately benchmarks results using a regression model of loss r…
- During a review of a bank's capital planning process, the board is asked what role it must play under supervisory expectations. Which is mos…
- Which practice would supervisors regard as a sign of a weak capital contingency framework in a large bank holding company?