hard · FRM Part 1
An analyst computes the 99% 1-day Value at Risk (VaR) for a $100 million equity portfolio using two different methods. The Delta-Normal approach yields a VaR of $4.65 million based on a 2% daily volatility. However, the Historical Simulation (HS) approach using the last 500 days of data yields a VaR of $6.48 million.
Which of the following is the most likely reason for this discrepancy, and what does it imply about the underlying return distribution?
- The returns are positively skewed; the Delta-Normal method overstates risk by assuming the distribution is symmetric when the historical tail is actually shorter.
- The look-back window used for HS is too long; as the sample size increases, the HS VaR must mathematically converge to the parametric normal VaR by the Central Limit Theorem.
- The portfolio contains deep out-of-the-money options; the Delta-Normal method uses full revaluation and captures the convexity that HS ignores through its linear approximation.
- The returns exhibit positive excess kurtosis; the Delta-Normal method understates risk because it fails to account for the fatter tails present in the historical sample.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More FRM Part 1 practice
- According to the CAPM, which type of risk are investors compensated for bearing?
- What specific variety of liquidity risk is being described?
- How is 'Risk Capacity' distinguished from 'Risk Appetite' in a standard risk governance fr
- If a loan has a Probability of Default (PD) of 2.0%, an Exposure at Default (EAD) of $1,00
- If two portfolios have the same Sharpe ratio but one has positive skewness and the other h
- In a 'Liquidity Spiral', what is the primary channel by which market liquidity risk and fu
- In the context of the CAPM, what is the definition of 'Alpha' (α)?
- In the risk decomposition formula σ^2_i = β^2_i σ^2_M + σ^2_ε, what does σ^2_ε represent?