Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze different behaviors between long-term options’ implied volatilities and realized volatilities.

This paper uses a widely adopted short interest rate model that describes a stochastic process of the short interest rate to capture interest rate risk. Price a long-term option by a system of two stochastic processes to capture both underlying asset and interest rate volatilities. Model capital charges according to the Basel III regulatory specified approach. S&P 500 index and relevant data are used to illustrate how the proposed model works. Coup with the low interest rate scenario by first choosing an optimal time segment obtained by a multiple change-point detection method, and then using the data from the chosen time segment to estimate the CIR model parameters, and finally obtaining the final option price by incorporating the capital charge costs.

Monotonic increase in long-term option implied volatility can be explained mainly by interest rate risk, and the level of implied volatility can be explained by various valuation adjustments, particularly risk capital costs, which differ from existing published literatures that typically explained the differences in behaviors of long-term implied volatilities by the volatility of volatility or risk premium. The empirical results well explain long-term volatility behaviors.

The authors only consider the market risk capital in this paper for demonstration purpose. Dealers may price the long-term options with the credit risk. It appears that other than the market risks such as underlying asset volatility and interest rate volatility, the market risk capital is a main nonmarket risk factor that significantly affects the long-term option prices.

Analysis helps readers and/or users of long-term options to understand why long-term option implied equity volatilities are much higher than observed. The framework offered in the paper provides some guidance if one would like to check if a long-term option is priced reasonable.

It is the first time to analyze mathematically long-term options’ volatility behavior in comparison with historically observed volatility.

This paper aims to provide a methodology for designing and conducting solvency stress tests, under the standardised approach as per IFSB-15, including the establishment of macro-financial links, running scenarios with variation of assumptions and stress scenario parameters; apply and illustrate this methodology by providing a stylised numerical example through a tractable Excel-based framework, through which Islamic Commercial Banks (ICBs) can introduce additional regulatory requirements and show that they would remain in compliance with all capital requirements after a moderate to severe shock; and identify the potential remedial actions that can be envisaged by an ICB.

The paper uses the data of the one of the groups to which certain amendments and related assumptions are applied to develop a stylised numerical example for solvency stress-testing purposes. The example uses a Stress Testing Matrix (STeM; a step-by-step approach) to illustrate the stress-testing process. The methodology of the paper uses a two-stage process. The first stage consists of calculating the capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of the ICB using the IFSB formulae, depending on how the profit sharing investment account (PSIA) are treated in the respective jurisdiction. The second stage is the application of the stress scenarios and shocks.

Taking into account the specificities of ICBs such as their use of PSIA, the results highlighted the sensitivity of the CAR of an ICB with respect to the changes in the values of alpha and the proportion of unrestricted PSIA on the funding side. The simulation also indicated that an ICB operating above the minimum CAR could be vulnerable to shocks of various degrees of gravity, thus bringing the CAR below the minimum regulatory requirement and necessitating appropriate remedial actions.

The paper highlights various implications and relationships arising out of stress testing for ICBs, including the vulnerability of an ICB under defined scenarios, demanding appropriate immediate remedial actions on future capital resources and capital needs. The findings of the paper provide a preliminary discussion on developing a comprehensive toolkit for the ICBs similar to what is developed by the International Monetary Fund Financial Sector Assessment Programme.

This paper focuses on the gap with respect to the stress testing of capital adequacy. The main contribution of the paper is twofold. The first is the development of an STeM – a step-by-step approach, which provides a method for simulating solvency (i.e. capital adequacy) stress tests for ICBs; the second is the demonstration of the potentially crucial impact of profit-sharing investment accounts and the way they are managed by ICBs (notably the smoothing of profit payouts) in assessing the capital adequacy of the ICBs.

The purpose of this paper is to outline how banks are coping with the new regulatory challenges posed by stressed value at risk (SVaR). The Basel Committee has introduced three measures of capital charges for market risk: incremental risk charge (IRC), SVaR and comprehensive risk measure (CRM). This paper is designed to analyse the methodologies for SVaR deployed at different banks to highlight the SVaR-related challenges stemming from complying with Basel 2.5. This revised market risk framework comes into force in Europe in 2012. Among the wide range of changes is the requirement for banks to calculate SVaR at a 99 per cent confidence interval over a period of significant stress.

The current research project is based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with nine universal banks and one financial services company to explore the strides major banks are taking to implement SVaR methodologies while complying with Basel 2.5.

This paper focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the SVaR approach while reviewing peer practices of implementing SVaR modelling. Interestingly, the surveyed banks have not indicated significant challenges associated with implementation of SVaR, and the reported problems boil down to dealing with the poor quality of market data and, as in cases of IRC and CRM, the lack of regulatory guidance. As far as peer practices of implementing SVaR modelling are concerned, the majority of the surveyed banks utilise historical simulations and apply both the absolute and relative measures of volatility for different risk factors.

The academic studies that explicitly analyse challenges associated with implementing the stressed version of VaR are scarce. Filling in the gap in the existing academic literature, this paper aims to shed some explanatory light on the issues major banks are facing when calculating SVaR. In doing so, this study adequately bridges theory and practice by contributing to the fierce debate on compliance with Basel 2.5.

The purpose of this paper is to aid understanding of the changes in Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) regulatory strategies after the global financial crisis.

The author uses the credit valuation adjustment (CVA) charge reform as a test case for inquiring whether BCBS has departed from its pre-crisis facilitative regulatory strategy path. The regulatory strategy of the CVA charge is discussed.

The charge exhibits a new regulatory strategy that BCBS has adopted. It seeks to manipulate market structures by imposing risk-insensitive capital charge methodologies.

The paper offers a new heuristic to analyse regulatory initiatives and their significance. The CVA charge has not been subject to a regulatory theory-based analysis in prior literature.

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.

The paper analyses the current two main initiatives in capital adequacy regulation for banks: the EC Capital Adequacy Directive (CAD) and the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision market risk proposals. The main elements of the CAD are reviewed, problem areas are identified and differences with the Basle proposals are noted. Finally, the paper sets out the likely impact of the CAD and the Basle proposals on UK banks.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the gradual evolution of the supervisory policy adopted by the Basel Committee for the regulatory treatment of asset securitisation. The pathology of the new “securitisation framework” is carefully highlighted to facilitate a general understanding of what constitutes the current state of computing adequate capital requirements for securitised credit exposures. Although a simplified sensitivity analysis of the varying levels of capital charges depending on the security design of asset securitisation transactions is incorporated, the author does not engage in a profound analysis of the benefits and drawbacks implicated in the new securitisation framework.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.