IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/5379051.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The profit-and-loss attribution test

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Thompson
  • Hayden Luo
  • Kevin Fergusson

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze the failure probabilities of the profit-and-loss attribution (PLA) test as defined in the final market risk standard published in January 2016 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. We calculate theoretical failure probabilities under the assumption that both the hypothetical and unexplained profit-and-loss (P&L) for an individual instrument are normally distributed random variables with zero mean and a prescribed ratio of their respective variances. In addition, we assume that the hypothetical P&Ls across different instruments in the same trading desk have a constant correlation, as do the unexplained P&Ls. We present results for the probabilities of failing the PLA test within different horizons and the steady-state proportion of desks that a bank might expect to maintain accreditation in order to use the internal model approach, assuming a minimum period of delay associated with the reaccreditation process subsequent to a desk failing the PLA test. Our analysis explains why the PLA test is likely to have a high failure probability, making it difficult to pass over a sustained period.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Thompson & Hayden Luo & Kevin Fergusson, . "The profit-and-loss attribution test," Journal of Risk Model Validation, Journal of Risk Model Validation.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:5379051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk-model-validation/5379051/the-profit-and-loss-attribution-test
    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:journ5:5379051. 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-model-validation .

    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.