Explanation:
A significant drawback of the correlation-based credit portfolio framework is that relying heavily on default correlation can obscure idiosyncratic risk (single-name concentration risk). A low default correlation metric implies low systemic dependency or joint default likelihood between assets, which might provide a false sense of security. It does not eliminate the risk of a single, severe idiosyncratic default causing a massive loss (e.g., if the portfolio is not perfectly granular and exposure to a single name is large).
Additionally, historical linear correlation is often a flawed measure for capturing the dependence structure of binary variables like defaults. It can fail to adequately capture tail dependencies (clustering of defaults during crises), which exposes the bank to substantial risks missed by the metric. Option A best illustrates how relying on low default correlation can still leave a bank vulnerable to significant individual defaults.
Ultimate access to all questions.
24.11.2. Imagine a bank that has a diversified portfolio of corporate bonds. They use historical default correlation data among different sectors to assess the overall risk of their portfolio. Which of the following BEST illustrates the drawback of using the correlation-based credit portfolio framework?
A
The bank experiences a significant loss due to a sudden default in one of its bond holdings, despite having low default correlation with the rest of the portfolio.
B
The bank's portfolio performs exceptionally well during a period of economic downturn, contradicting the correlation-based risk assessment.
C
Despite having high default correlation among certain sectors, the bank's portfolio experiences minimal losses during a financial crisis.
D
The bank reallocates its investments based solely on historical default correlation data, leading to increased exposure to individual asset risks.
No comments yet.