COMPARING STRESS TEST METHODS AND RESULTS

Một phần của tài liệu FRM schweser part 2 book 4 2013 (2of 2) (Trang 54 - 57)

AIM67-4:Contrastthestresstestmethodsof theFinancialSupervisory Authority (FME)andSedlabanki,and compare their resultsto the resultant funding gapat Sedlabankifrom the actual shocks.

Comparison ofStress Tests Methods

Theoriginal liquiditystress test,asconducted hythe Financial SupervisoryAuthority

(FME),didnotgiveashockto dieliabilitysideof the balance sheet.However, replicated FMEstress testsdidinjectliabilityshocks,exceptfordepositsfrom customers,whichare

consideredastablesourceoffunding.

Onthe other hand,aliquiditystress testconductedby thecentral bank (Sedlabanki) gaveshocks toshort-term assetsaswellasshort-term liabilities. The recreated stressrest

combinedthe shocksapplied bytheFMEand the central hankinto asingle test.Incaseof the overlapping ofshocks, thelargershockwasapplied.

Another majordifferencein thestress testmethodsof the FMEandthe central bankwas

related totheweights(i.e., magnitudeofshocks).Shocks bodomestic andforeignstock prices, net provision forlosses, and thecurrencyvalue (krona) werethesamein bothstress tests.However,thereisasubstantial differenceintermsof shocktobond prices. The shock given to thebondpricesinthecombinedtestwas seven timeslarger than die shockgivenin the FME test.Another differencewasdie absenceofashock todomestic andforeign loans and advancesin theFMEstresstest,whereas thecomhined testdid inject shocksto these items.

Page194 ©2013 Kaplan,Inc.

CrossReferencetoGARPAssignedReading-OngandCihak

Comparison ofStressTestResults

hi thissection, we presentresultsofstress testson dieliquidityposition ofalargeIcelandic bank.Allnumbers usedin thisexampleareagain hypothetical (inmillionsof krona), however, theexampleshighlight thepercentageof thedifferencesin the resultsof various

stresstests.

BaseCase

LShort-termassets(total) = 4,000

Short-term liabilities (total) - 4,580

Fundinggap

Fundinggapratio

-580 0.87 Short-termliquidassets(total)= 1,710

Short-term liabilities (total) -4,580

Fundinggap Fundinggapratio

-2,870 0.37

Professor'sNote:funding gapratio =short-term assetslshort-term liabilities. The basecase(originalliquidityposition before thecrisis)showsaliquidity shortagewhich intensifieswhen thefocusis ononly liquidassets.Thatis, the banksability tosatisfy depositors7and borrowers1 short-term claims (current liabilities)byredemptionof shortơ

termliquidassets (whichcan be sold relatively easilycompared toothershort-termassets)

deteriorates significantly(Le.,from 0.87 to 0.37).Thatis, the bankcan pay off87aurar (cents) for1 kronaofliabilitywhen all short-termassetsareincluded.However, whenonly liquidassetsareincluded, the bank'sabilityto pay off theliabilityof1 kronafalls toonly 37Icelandaurar.

FMEStress Test

Asdiscussedearlier,the FME testassumed nowithdrawalofcustomerdeposits.Therefore, thefollowingexampleisbasedon tire no-withdrawal assumption.

Short-termassets(total) LShort-termliabilities(total)

Fundinggap Fundinggapratio

= 4,370

=* 1.000 +3,370

4.37 Short-termliquidassets(total) -1,700

LShort-term liabilities(total)

Fundinggap Fundinggap ratio

= 1,000

+700 1.70

hibothcases,thereisan excessofassetsoverliabilities.However,when thefocusisonly

onliquidassets,thefundinggap ratiofallsfrom4.37to1.70,showinga much reduced

©2013Kaplan,Inc. Page 145

Topic67

Cross ReferencetoGARPAssigned Reading—Ongand CLhak

ability (thoughstillexcessofassetsoverliabilities) of the hankto payoffitsobligations by disposingitsassets.

Combined.StressTest

Asdiscussedearlier, thecombined test used both FMEandcentral bankweights(for shocks), butin diecaseofoverlap, thelargershockwasemployed*

Short-termassets (total) Short-term liability(total)

Fundinggap

Fundinggapratio

- = 5,6402.000

+ 3,640 2.82 Short-termliquidassets(total)=2,040

Short-term liabilities (total} =JL!>Q0 +-40 1.02

Fundinggap Fundinggapratio

Thefundinggap, in thecaseof thecombinedtest, justlike theFMEtest,isstill positive;

however, the gap ratios aresignificantlylower (implying more severeshocksandno

assumptionofdeposit stability).

Actual Shocks with Deposit Freeze

Actual shocksgeneratedagiganticimpacton die economy and the financialsystemof Tceknd. There wasahankrun, andnearly40%of thedepositswerewithdrawn. The liquidityposition of die bankwas rapidlydeterioratingand, tocontrolfurther damage,die depositwithdrawalsatforeign branchesweresuspended. Resultsof diestresstestinvolving actual shocks with thedepositfreezearepresentedasfollows.

Short-termassets (total) Short-term liabilities (total}

Fundinggap Fundinggapratio

=3,586

=2.147

+1,439 1.67 Short-term liquidassets(total} = 1,459 Short-termliabilities (total}

Fundinggap Fundinggapratio

=2.147 -688 U.68

In thisexample,there isa liquidity shortage (excessof liabilitiesoverassets)when assessing liquidassets.Foreverykronaofcurrentliability,the bank hasonly68aurarworthof liquidatingassets.

Notice thatfundinggap ratiosarefallingineach successiveliquidity.stress test,indicating thedeterioratingliquidity posidon of the hank withincreasingshocksfrom the FMEstress testtoactual shocks(withadepositfreeze).

©2013Kaplan,Inc.

Page 196

CrossReferencetoGARPAssigned Reading—Ongand Cihak

Actual Shocks

Thefundinggap(excess) followingactual shocksis estimatedas follows:

Short-term assets (total) Short-term liabilities(total)

Fundinggap Fundinggapratio

= 2,884

-357 o.sy Short-term liquidassets(total) =1,167

Short-term liabilities(total) Fundinggap

Fundinggapratio

-2,074 0.36

In bothcases(ail short-termassetsand short-term liquidassets),there Isa fundinggap

(i.e.,liquidity shortage) and thefundinggapratio isless thanone.

Moreover,thefundinggapratioswith actual shocksscenarios are thelowestamongall thestress tests,indicatingdiat thestress testsdidnot takeintocoiisideration die severity andmagnitudeof the real shocks.Consequently,risk managementplansweredeficientin dealingwith theactual shocks.

Một phần của tài liệu FRM schweser part 2 book 4 2013 (2of 2) (Trang 54 - 57)

Tải bản đầy đủ (PDF)

(141 trang)