IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/6512636.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The implicit constraints of Fundamental Review of the Trading Book profit-and-loss-attribution testing and a possible alternative framework

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro Pogliani
  • Federico Paganini
  • Marilena Rata

Abstract

The;Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) is a relatively new regulatory framework, proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and dedicated to market risk. Its major innovation is the profit-and-loss-attribution (PLA) test, a tool designed to verify the alignment between theoretical changes in a trading desk portfolio’s value, based on an institution’s risk-measurement model (risk theoretical profit-and-loss (RTPL)), and hypothetical changes in a trading desk portfolio’s value, based on an institution’s accounting/front-office pricing model (hypothetical profit-and-loss (HPL)). The theoretical and numerical results presented in this paper highlight the very strong, implicit constraints embedded in PLA and the generally low probability of conducting a successful PLA test; these results support industry concerns related to the proposed regulatory requirements. Moreover, numerical tests aimed at assessing whether RTPL and HPL are sufficiently close show that the proposed alternative framework based on statistical hypothesis testing, together with the imposition of a minimum correlation level between RTPL and HPL, appears to be a robust approach in terms of statistical discriminatory power, reactivity and sensitivity to outliers.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:6512636
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2019-04/The_implicit_constraints_of_FRTB_PLA_testing.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:6512636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.