2013
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-036x.2013.12015.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

IRC and CRM: Modelling Framework for the ‘Basel 2.5’ Risk Measures

Abstract: This paper presents a modelling framework for the Incremental Risk Charge (IRC) and Comprehensive Risk Measure (CRM) as the new capital requirements for market risks in a bank's trading book (‘Basel 2.5’). Both are Value‐at‐Risk‐type measures projecting losses over a one‐year capital horizon at a 99.9% confidence level and are applicable to credit flow and credit correlation instruments, respectively. With no consensus on industry standards for suitable internal models as yet, the article discusses selected ri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 27 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors also find that majority of the banks utilize historical simulations, the same method used in this study. Driven by the lack of industry consensus on the Internal Models approach for Basel 2.5, Wilkens et al (2013) provide a working example of VaR calculations using two alternate methods: Incremental Risk Charge and Comprehensive Risk Measure. Unfortunately, their use of selected risk factor models to derive simulation-based loss distributions may be biased since they lack uniformity across banks.…”
Section: Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors also find that majority of the banks utilize historical simulations, the same method used in this study. Driven by the lack of industry consensus on the Internal Models approach for Basel 2.5, Wilkens et al (2013) provide a working example of VaR calculations using two alternate methods: Incremental Risk Charge and Comprehensive Risk Measure. Unfortunately, their use of selected risk factor models to derive simulation-based loss distributions may be biased since they lack uniformity across banks.…”
Section: Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%