What's new

# Errors Found in Study Materials P2.T7. Operational & Integrated Risk

##### Active Member
Hi David, hi Nicole,

I think there are several typos in the chapter 15 "Basel I, II, and Solvency II". On p. 14 there is a table which shows risk weights for different ratings. However in the examples under the table I cannot understand why different weights are used than those in the table:

Also on the same page in the Example 3 a risk weight of 50% is used for the rating AAA. I think the corresponding rating should be A+, A or A-:

Thank you for clarifying this.

Best regards!

#### David Harper CFA FRM

##### David Harper CFA FRM
Staff member
Subscriber
Hi @RaDi7 Thank you. The two paragraphs below the table are meant to alternatives to the table so they don't match, but nonetheless, it's obviously not clearly explained to what situations and how exactly they are applied. The solution given does contain a typo, exactly as you highlighted, and should be Rating = A (to correspond to the 50% risk weight). Apologies for such a confusing table. We actually currently are editing the note for a revision (cc @Nicole Seaman ) so we will improve this section especially. Thank you!

##### Active Member
Hi @RaDi7 Thank you. The two paragraphs below the table are meant to alternatives to the table so they don't match, but nonetheless, it's obviously not clearly explained to what situations and how exactly they are applied. The solution given does contain a typo, exactly as you highlighted, and should be Rating = A (to correspond to the 50% risk weight). Apologies for such a confusing table. We actually currently are editing the note for a revision (cc @Nicole Seaman ) so we will improve this section especially. Thank you!
Hi David,
thank you for your reply. Sorry, I misunderstood the text in the study notes. I should have read it more carefully where you talk about the alternative to the table above. Thank you for the explanation!
Best regards!

#### Karim_B

##### Active Member
Subscriber
hi @Roopam
1. The notes look correct here. It is a difference between BIA and SA: BIA excludes a negative year (from numerator and denominator) such that dividing by 2 is correct; but SA converts the negative into zero (such that dividing by 3 is correct). If there is a negative, as in the example, there is a different outcome
2. I agree, the text description is incorrect, sorry, but the calculated Example 2 is correct: first, the weighted gross income (GI) for "Year 1" is computed by summing the product of each business lines' [GI_Yr1(1...8) * β(1...8)]; i.e., aggregation of all LOB across year 1; second, the weighted gross income (GI) for "Year 2" is computed by summing the product of each business lines' [GI_Yr2(1...8) * β(1...8)]; i.e., aggregation of all LOB across year 2; finally, same for year 3. Finally, if any of the totals for the year (year 1, year 2, year 3) are negative they are converted to zero and the denominator remains equal to 3. Sorry for the confusion, we will fix this is the next update. Thank you!
Hi @David Harper CFA FRM @Nicole Seaman
It looks like the fix mentioned in point 2 above hasn't been made yet.

R55.P2.T7 Girling Study Note page 7.

Screenshot:

Thanks
Karim

#### Karim_B

##### Active Member
Subscriber
Hi David,

In your study notes for this (page 103) you have GEV down as needing a threshold (u) parameter. I think this should be removed.

Thanks
Hi @David Harper CFA FRM
I don't think this has been fixed yet.

R57.P2.T7.Dowd Study Note page 7 still shows "Plus select threshold (u)" under GEV, which confused me when the POT disadvantage below says the threshold isn't a problem with GEV.

Screenshot:

Thanks
Karim

#### David Harper CFA FRM

##### David Harper CFA FRM
Staff member
Subscriber
@Karim_B Yes, re the EVT, it's my mistake (the GEV should not refer to any threshold as it does not have a threshold.) Again, thank you for your attention to detail!

#### Karim_B

##### Active Member
Subscriber
Hi @David Harper CFA FRM @Nicole Seaman
R68-P2-T7 Hull Study Note page 25 - I think a closing parenthesis is missing in the market risk capital charge formula as highlighted in red below.

Screenshot:

Thanks
Karim

#### Karenly

##### New Member
Hi David, in your study notes for Malz, page 19, you calculated ROE = Income , instead of Income / Equity. Am I missing something? Thanks.

#### David Harper CFA FRM

##### David Harper CFA FRM
Staff member
Subscriber
@Karenly Yes, you are correct, but I don't see ROE = income on page 19, sorry. I see Profit/Equity per Malz Example 12.1. And equivalently ROE = ROA - [D * r(d)]. I don't see the typo but ROE is Income/Equity (either pretax or after-tax income).

Last edited:

#### Karenly

##### New Member
On Page 19, I see ROE = A * r(a) - D * r(d) = 0.15 (as an example) where r(a) = return on asset, and r(d) = cost of debt. My confusion is that I thought ROE = [A * r(a) - D * r(d)] / E and [A * r(a) - D * r(d)] = income?

@Karim_B You are correct, but I don't see ROE = income on page 19, sorry. I see Profit/Equity per Malz Example 12.1. And equivalently ROE = ROA - [D * r(d)]. I don't see the typo but ROE is Income/Equity (either pretax or after-tax income).

#### David Harper CFA FRM

##### David Harper CFA FRM
Staff member
Subscriber
@Karenly Oh, I see now ... Yes, we do have a mistake in the note. As we are following Malz, it actually should use the prior formula on page 18: L*r(a) - (L-1)*r(d); i.e., in this case where Leverage = A/E = 2.0, r(a) = 10.0% and cost of debt r(d) = 5.0%, ROE = 2.0*10.0% - (2-1)*5.0% = 15.0%. Or, equivalently, just as you say ROE = [A * r(a) - D * r(d)]/E. Apologies for the confusion. (cc @Nicole Seaman). Thanks,

#### Ashok_Kothavle

##### Member
Hi

Not sure if I can mention here. If not, do apologize for the same.

The Basel in its document "Review of the Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk" has listed 11 Principles. However in the study material "https://www.bionicturtle.com/topic/study-notes-principles-for-sound-management/", you have omitted Principle nos 7, 8, 10 and 11. Is there any reason behind it?

Regards

Ashok

#### David Harper CFA FRM

##### David Harper CFA FRM
Staff member
Subscriber
Hi @Ashok_Kothavle Right, but those Principles do not appear to be explicated in the Learning Objectives, which I have listed below, plus brief annotation:

Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk,” (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Publication, June 2011). [OR–1]
• Describe the three “lines of defense” in the Basel model for operational risk governance. --> Preface/preamble
• Summarize the fundamental principles of operational risk management as suggested by the Basel Committee. --> Principles 1 & 2
• Explain guidelines for strong governance of operational risk, and evaluate the role of the board of directors and senior management in implementing an effective operational risk framework. --> Principles 3 to 5
• Describe tools and processes that can be used to identify and assess operational risk. --> Principle 6
• Describe features of an effective control environment and identify specific controls that should be in place to address operational risk. --> Principle 9, 9.47 to 9.4X
• Explain the Basel Committee’s suggestions for managing technology risk and outsourcing risk. --> Principle 9.51-53 (technology) and Principle 9.54-9.56
Let me know if you disagree? Thanks!

#### Ashok_Kothavle

##### Member
Dear Mr David,

Thanks a lot for your explanation. I try to read the original chapter / paper before I start reading BT or any other resource. Hence, the confusion occurred. Thanks again.

Regards

Ashok

#### Ashok_Kothavle

##### Member
Hi Mr David

Please refer to the study notes under "Revisions to the Basel II Market Risk Framework" page no 5.

You have rightly mentioned that the specific risk charge is 8%, however, the last column is misleading as the Capital Charge under both the long and short positions have been computed at 4% and not at 8%. You have already mentioned as a footnote that revised framework has updated the charges to 8%, however, I feel may be you can think of changing the last column also, as values w.r.t specific risk charges otherwise are misleading.

(Also, sorry as I am not sure if this can be posted as a new thread. May be Ms Nicole can shift it to the appropriate thread if the need be.)

Regards

Ashok

#### chivinny

##### New Member
The study notes pertaining to" FRM Part 1 - Foundations of Risk management - Principles for Effective Data Aggregation and Risk Reporting" is wrongly uploaded under "FRM Part 2 - Operation Risk & Integrated Risk management - Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk"

Please correct the anomaly and have the "Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk " of OR & IM of Part 2 restored.

#### Nicole Seaman

##### Director of FRM Operations
Staff member
Subscriber
The study notes pertaining to" FRM Part 1 - Foundations of Risk management - Principles for Effective Data Aggregation and Risk Reporting" is wrongly uploaded under "FRM Part 2 - Operation Risk & Integrated Risk management - Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk"

Please correct the anomaly and have the "Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk " of OR & IM of Part 2 restored.
Hello @chivinny

Thank you for pointing this out. This was human error on my part and I apologize for the confusion. It has been fixed in the study planner.

Nicole

#### JulioFRM

##### Member
In the study notes it says on pg 16 "internal ratings basel" instead of based.

Fixed and republished in Study Planner.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Merlinius

##### New Member
In the finalizing Basel III chapter (R69):

According to the Basel paper:

NOTE: Fixed and updated in the study planner

Last edited by a moderator:

Same chapter:

Should be 2.25%.

Replies
1
Views
135
Replies
2
Views
194
Replies
0
Views
110
Replies
3
Views
214
Replies
7
Views
257