If the connotation of risk is an intertwined concept and is difficult to quantify, how does a Risk Officer look at it?
Is there any way other than using copula models to determine systemic risk with long tails or a black swan event?
@CQFInstitute @GARP_Risk @SOActuaries
•75- 80% of the loss given events are classified as Operational #LGE - (LOSS GIVEN EVENTS),
•Only 15%- 20% of the LGEs are driven by Market or Credit or both
#Risk managers can use #scenario #analysis based on an expert judgement, that can be more helpful, instead of applying #VaR models blindly.
The Financial Markets outcomes are not Normal or i.i.d in any sense.
Gaussian Copula model assumes that correlation (strength of association between x and y variables) is Linear and hence presents the symmetric perspective of market-driven loss events.
@BIS_org
But that didn't work out well using symmetric event modelling assumptions!
A #Poisson Probability Distribution Model to measure frequency, whereas stochastic simulation can be used to measure severity for each single event loss.
The most common assumption used is that loss severity is independent of loss frequency.
This Loss distribution model for e.g. in the context of a Hedge Fund?
Can we induce randomness into the experiment to better capture heavy loss incurring tailed events aka Black Swan Events (having high severity and low frequency)?
2. Sample nnn times from the loss severity distribution to determine the loss experienced for each loss event (L1, L2,…,Ln)
Kindly refer to the same BASEL II - ORM Taxonomy as laid down in Basel II literature to better understand the vertical dependencies between various risk types/ across various lines
The following lists the seven official Basel II event types with some examples for each category:
1.Internal Fraud – misappropriation of assets, tax evasion, intentional mismarking of positions, bribery
3.Employment Practices and Workplace Safety – discrimination, workers compensation, employee health and safety
5.Damage to Physical Assets – natural disasters, terrorism, vandalism
7.Execution, Delivery, and Process Management – data entry errors, accounting errors, failed mandatory reporting, negligent loss of client assets
To better comprehend hedge fund business complexity you need to have a proper FMEA (Failure Modes and Effect Analysis) ....
Management that is a classic problem observed in the #FRM Profession, just because it is difficult to do quantitative modelling.
More from Finance
Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.
He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...
... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.
Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9
Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."
I wonder why...
Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x
Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.
Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...
... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:
Ivor Cummins BE (Chem) is a former R&D Manager at HP (sourcre: https://t.co/Wbf5scf7gn), turned Content Creator/Podcast Host/YouTube personality. (Call it what you will.)
— Steve (@braidedmanga) November 17, 2020
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.
Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9
Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."
I wonder why...
Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x
Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.
Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.