Ultimate access to all questions.
Answer-first summary for fast verification
Answer: This model is underestimating risk.
## Explanation At a 95% confidence interval, we expect VaR exceedances to occur only 5% of the time. Over 100 days, this translates to: - **Expected exceedances**: 100 days × 5% = 5 exceedances - **Actual exceedances**: 9 exceedances Since the actual number of exceedances (9) is significantly higher than the expected number (5), this indicates that: - The model is **underestimating risk** because losses exceeding the VaR threshold are occurring more frequently than predicted - The VaR of $10 million is too low for the actual risk level - The model is not accurately capturing the portfolio's true risk exposure **Key Insight**: When actual exceedances exceed expected exceedances, the VaR model is underestimating risk, suggesting the need for model recalibration or a more conservative risk assessment approach.
Author: Tanishq Prabhu
No comments yet.
At a 95% confidence interval, the value at risk (VaR) of a portfolio is approximately $10 million. During 100 days, the VaR was exceeded on 9 different occasions. Based on this information:
A
This model is overestimating risk.
B
This model is underestimating risk.
C
This model is appropriate for estimating the risk.
D
The model is accurate.