Explanation
Incremental capital (or incremental VaR, depending upon the context), is a measure of the change in the capital (or VaR) requirements if a certain change is made to a portfolio. It uses the 'before' and 'after' approach, ie find out what the capital requirement or VaR will be without the change, and what it will be after the change. The difference is the incremental capital or incremental VaR. It helps measure the change in risk as a result of a particular action, eg a change in a position.
Marginal capital or VaR on the other hand is a method to break down the capital requirement or the VaR so that it can be assigned to individual positions within the portfolio. The total of marginal capital or marginal VaR for all the positions in a portfolio adds up to the total capital requirements or total VaR. Note that marginal VaR is also called component VaR.
Therefore incremental capital is the correct answer to this question. The other choices are incorrect. In the exam, the question may be phrased differently, so try to keep in mind the different between incremental and marginal capital, which can be a bit confusing given what these terms mean in plain English.

Explanation
The first order approximation of the VaR of an option position is nothing but the VaR of the underlying multiplied by the option's delta. This is intuitive because the delta is the sensitivity of the option price to changes in the prices of the underlying, and in this case since the delta is 0.3 and the underlying's VaR is $100, the VaR of the options position is 0.3 x $100 = $30. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.
(Note that the second order approximation of the VaR of an options position considers the option gamma too, and VaR reduces if gamma increases.)

Explanation
Since the business units are perfectly correlated, we can get the combined EC as equal to the sum of the individual EC estimates. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Explanation
A recap would be in order here: calculating operational risk capital is a multi-step process.
First, we fit curves to estimate the parameters to our chosen distribution types for frequency (eg, Poisson), and severity (eg, lognormal). Note that these curves are fitted at the UoM level - which is the lowest level of granularity at which modeling is carried out. Since there are many UoMs, there are are many frequency and severity distributions. However what we are interested in is the loss distribution for the entire bank from which the 99.9th percentile loss can be calculated. From the multiple frequency and severity distributions we have calculated, this becomes a two step process:
- Step 1: Calculate the aggregate loss distribution for each UoM. Each loss distribution is based upon and underlying frequency and severity distribution.
- Step 2: Combine the multiple loss distributions after considering the dependence between the different UoMs. The 'dependence' recognizes that the various UoMs are not completely independent, ie the loss distributions are not additive, and that there is a sort of diversification benefit in the sense that not all types of losses can occur at once and the joint probabilities of the different losses make the sum less than the sum of the parts.
Step 1 requires simulating a number, say n, of the number of losses that occur in a given year from a frequency distribution. Then n losses are picked from the severity distribution, and the total loss for the year is a summation of these losses. This becomes one data point. This process of simulating the number of losses and then identifying that number of losses is carried out a large number of times to get the aggregate loss distribution for a UoM.
Step 2 requires taking the different loss distributions from Step 1 and combining them considering the dependence between the events. The correlations between the losses are described by a 'copula', and combined together mathematically to get a single loss distribution for the entire bank. This allows the 99.9th percentile loss to be calculated.

Explanation
The term 'group risk' has been defined in the FSA document 08/24 on stress testing as the risk that a firm may be adversely affected by an occurrence (financial or non-financial) in another group entity or an occurrence that affects ther group as a whole. These risks may occur through:
- reputational contagion,
- financial contagion,
- leveraging,
- double or multiple gearing,
- concentrations and large exposures (particularly intra-group).
Thus, the insurance sector may be considered a group, and a firm may suffer just because another group firm has had losses or reputational issues.
The FSA statement goes on to identify some elements of group risk as follows:
- intra-group exposures (credit or operational exposures through outsourcing or service arrangements, as well as more standard business exposures);
- concentration risks (from credit, market or insurance risks which could put a strain on capital resources across entities simultaneously);
- contagion (reputational damage, operational or financial pressures); and
- complex group structures (with dependencies, complex split of responsibilities and accountabilities).
Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer and the rest of the choices are incorrect.