Which measure for PFE? The Risk Appetite Measure, A

Potential Future Exposure (PFE) is a standard risk metric for managing business unit counterparty credit risk but there is debate on how it should be calculated. The debate has been whether to use one of many historical ("physical") measures (one per calibration setup), or one of many risk...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:arXiv.org 2015-12
Hauptverfasser: Kenyon, Chris, Green, Andrew, Berrahoui, Mourad
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title arXiv.org
container_volume
creator Kenyon, Chris
Green, Andrew
Berrahoui, Mourad
description Potential Future Exposure (PFE) is a standard risk metric for managing business unit counterparty credit risk but there is debate on how it should be calculated. The debate has been whether to use one of many historical ("physical") measures (one per calibration setup), or one of many risk-neutral measures (one per numeraire). However, we argue that limits should be based on the bank's own risk appetite provided that this is consistent with regulatory backtesting and that whichever measure is used it should behave (in a sense made precise) like a historical measure. Backtesting is only required by regulators for banks with IMM approval but we expect that similar methods are part of limit maintenance generally. We provide three methods for computing the bank price of risk from readily available business unit data, i.e. business unit budgets (rate of return) and limits (e.g. exposure percentiles). Hence we define and propose a Risk Appetite Measure, A, for PFE and suggest that this is uniquely consistent with the bank's Risk Appetite Framework as required by sound governance.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2083828658</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2083828658</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20838286583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0MjY21LUwMTLiYOAtLs4yMDAwMjM3MjU15mQwDs_ITM5QyE1NLC4tSlVIyy9SCHBztVcIyUhVCMoszlZwLChILcksSVXwhSjRUXDkYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMym6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8Vn5pUV5QKl4IwMLYwsjCzNTC2PiVAEAW9Eylw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2083828658</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Which measure for PFE? The Risk Appetite Measure, A</title><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Kenyon, Chris ; Green, Andrew ; Berrahoui, Mourad</creator><creatorcontrib>Kenyon, Chris ; Green, Andrew ; Berrahoui, Mourad</creatorcontrib><description>Potential Future Exposure (PFE) is a standard risk metric for managing business unit counterparty credit risk but there is debate on how it should be calculated. The debate has been whether to use one of many historical ("physical") measures (one per calibration setup), or one of many risk-neutral measures (one per numeraire). However, we argue that limits should be based on the bank's own risk appetite provided that this is consistent with regulatory backtesting and that whichever measure is used it should behave (in a sense made precise) like a historical measure. Backtesting is only required by regulators for banks with IMM approval but we expect that similar methods are part of limit maintenance generally. We provide three methods for computing the bank price of risk from readily available business unit data, i.e. business unit budgets (rate of return) and limits (e.g. exposure percentiles). Hence we define and propose a Risk Appetite Measure, A, for PFE and suggest that this is uniquely consistent with the bank's Risk Appetite Framework as required by sound governance.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Business ; Regulators ; Risk management</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2015-12</ispartof><rights>2015. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kenyon, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berrahoui, Mourad</creatorcontrib><title>Which measure for PFE? The Risk Appetite Measure, A</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>Potential Future Exposure (PFE) is a standard risk metric for managing business unit counterparty credit risk but there is debate on how it should be calculated. The debate has been whether to use one of many historical ("physical") measures (one per calibration setup), or one of many risk-neutral measures (one per numeraire). However, we argue that limits should be based on the bank's own risk appetite provided that this is consistent with regulatory backtesting and that whichever measure is used it should behave (in a sense made precise) like a historical measure. Backtesting is only required by regulators for banks with IMM approval but we expect that similar methods are part of limit maintenance generally. We provide three methods for computing the bank price of risk from readily available business unit data, i.e. business unit budgets (rate of return) and limits (e.g. exposure percentiles). Hence we define and propose a Risk Appetite Measure, A, for PFE and suggest that this is uniquely consistent with the bank's Risk Appetite Framework as required by sound governance.</description><subject>Business</subject><subject>Regulators</subject><subject>Risk management</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYuA0MjY21LUwMTLiYOAtLs4yMDAwMjM3MjU15mQwDs_ITM5QyE1NLC4tSlVIyy9SCHBztVcIyUhVCMoszlZwLChILcksSVXwhSjRUXDkYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMym6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8Vn5pUV5QKl4IwMLYwsjCzNTC2PiVAEAW9Eylw</recordid><startdate>20151219</startdate><enddate>20151219</enddate><creator>Kenyon, Chris</creator><creator>Green, Andrew</creator><creator>Berrahoui, Mourad</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151219</creationdate><title>Which measure for PFE? The Risk Appetite Measure, A</title><author>Kenyon, Chris ; Green, Andrew ; Berrahoui, Mourad</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20838286583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Business</topic><topic>Regulators</topic><topic>Risk management</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kenyon, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berrahoui, Mourad</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kenyon, Chris</au><au>Green, Andrew</au><au>Berrahoui, Mourad</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Which measure for PFE? The Risk Appetite Measure, A</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2015-12-19</date><risdate>2015</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>Potential Future Exposure (PFE) is a standard risk metric for managing business unit counterparty credit risk but there is debate on how it should be calculated. The debate has been whether to use one of many historical ("physical") measures (one per calibration setup), or one of many risk-neutral measures (one per numeraire). However, we argue that limits should be based on the bank's own risk appetite provided that this is consistent with regulatory backtesting and that whichever measure is used it should behave (in a sense made precise) like a historical measure. Backtesting is only required by regulators for banks with IMM approval but we expect that similar methods are part of limit maintenance generally. We provide three methods for computing the bank price of risk from readily available business unit data, i.e. business unit budgets (rate of return) and limits (e.g. exposure percentiles). Hence we define and propose a Risk Appetite Measure, A, for PFE and suggest that this is uniquely consistent with the bank's Risk Appetite Framework as required by sound governance.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2331-8422
ispartof arXiv.org, 2015-12
issn 2331-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2083828658
source Free E- Journals
subjects Business
Regulators
Risk management
title Which measure for PFE? The Risk Appetite Measure, A
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T09%3A16%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=Which%20measure%20for%20PFE?%20The%20Risk%20Appetite%20Measure,%20A&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Kenyon,%20Chris&rft.date=2015-12-19&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2083828658%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2083828658&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true