Explanation
The total variance of the system is 100^2 + 40^2 + 30^2 = 12500 (as variance = volatility squared). The first factor alone has a variance of 10,000, or 80%. Therefore only the first factor will be included in the final analysis, and the rest will be ignored.
Interestingly, this example highlights one of the limitations of PCA. Obviously, the second and third factors are material when considering volatility, though the effect of squaring them to get the variance makes them appear less important than they are.

Explanation
Under the contingent claims approach, credit risk is evaluated as the value of the put on the firm's assets with a strike price equal to the face value of the debt and maturity equal to the maturity of the obligation. The Black Scholes model can then be used to value the put, and therefore an increase in volatility and the time to expiry (ie maturity) will increase the value of the debt. An increase in the risk free rate will actually reduce the value of the put, therefore statements I and III are correct and Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Explanation
Stress events rarely play out in a well defined period of time, and looking back it is always difficult to put exact start and end dates on historical stress events. Even after that is done, the question arises as to what magnitude of a change in a particular risk factor (for example interest rates, spreads, or exchange rates) are reasonable to consider for the purposes of the stress test.
Statements I and III correctly identify the two approaches that are acceptable and used in practice - the risk manager can either take the maximum adverse move - from peak to trough - in the risk factor, or alternatively he or she could consider the change in the risk factor from the start of the event to the end as defined for the purposes of the stress test. Between the two, the approach mentioned in statement III is considered slightly superior as it produces more believable shocks.
Statement II is incorrect because we never want to consider the minimum, and statement IV is not correct as it is likely to generate a shock of a magnitude that is not plausible. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Explanation
High frequency and low severity risks, for example the risks of fraud losses for a credit card issuer, may have high expected losses, but low unexpected losses. In other words, we can generally expect these losses to stay within a small expected and known range. The capital requirement will be the worst case losses at a given confidence level less expected losses, and in such cases this can be expected to be low.
On the other hand, medium severity medium frequency risks, such as the risks of unexpected legal claims,
'fat-finger' trading errors, will have low expected losses but a high level of unexpected losses. Thus the capital requirement for such risks will be high.
It is also worthwhile mentioning high severity and low frequency risks - for example a rogue trader circumventing all controls and bringing the bank down, or a terrorist strike or natural disaster creating other losses - will probably have zero expected losses & high unexpected losses but only at very high levels of confidence. In other words, operational risk capital is unlikely to provide for such events and these would lie in the part of the tail that is not covered by most levels of confidence when calculating operational risk capital.
Note that risk capital is required for only unexpected losses as expected losses are to be borne by P&L reserves. Therefore the operational risk capital requirements for a low severity high frequency risk is likely to be low when compared to other risks that are lower frequency but higher severity.
Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Explanation
A non-financial firm such as a manufacturing company faces market risks similar to those faced by financial firms, except perhaps for not being exposed to risks from the equity markets. Non financial firms commonly face interest rate risks in respect of their debts, commodity price risks in respect of their inputs and products, and foreign currency risks in respect of their overseas operations. It is therefore not correct to say that the manufacturing firm does not face market risk because it does not take proprietary positions. While decisions on positions may not be actively taken, positions in foreign exchange (eg, through overseas debtors owing foreign currency, or liabilities in foreign currencies to overseas suppliers), commodities (through exposure to the need for raw material and inventory of finished goods) and interest rates (through debt financed, whether at fixed or floating rates) exist and create market risk much in the same way as they would for a proprietary position. Therefore statement I is incorrect.
While the firm faces market risks as an externality (as do financial firms for that matter, though often they seek such exposure to profit from their view on which way the externality will express itself), it is incorrect to say that these risks must be borne. They can be measured and hedged. Therefore statement II is incorrect.
The results of a manufacturing firm will include gains and losses arising from exposure to market risk, and will cloud the true profitability of the business. A firm with significant unhedged overseas sales may show vastly different results across time periods due to the FX gains and losses, making comparative assessment of profitability difficult. Therefore statement III is correct.
Market risks for a manufacturing firm may be directionally biased in terms of exposure, ie there may be a consistent 'long' position in a particular commodity that the firm produces, and a consistent 'short' position in the commodities consumed. In the same way, directional biases may exist in FX or interest rate exposures too.
Regardless of the bias, the existence of market risk exposures increase the volatility of the income stream and make the firm more risky, even though the long term expected returns from such exposures is zero (ie, returns may be zero but standard deviation is not). Therefore statement IV is not correct as market risks form non financial firms do increase the overall risk of the firm.