How is the Default Risk Charge calculated under FRTB, and how does it differ from the old incremental risk charge?
I'm reviewing the FRTB DRC for FRM Part II. The Default Risk Charge replaces the IRC from Basel 2.5. I know it captures jump-to-default risk, but I'm unclear on the simulation methodology, the 1-year horizon, and how correlations between issuers are modeled. How does the calculation actually work?
The Default Risk Charge (DRC) under FRTB captures the jump-to-default (JTD) risk of traded credit instruments — the sudden loss when an issuer defaults. It replaces the Incremental Risk Charge (IRC) from Basel 2.5 with a more comprehensive framework.\n\nKey Differences from IRC:\n\n| Feature | IRC (Basel 2.5) | DRC (FRTB) |\n|---|---|---|\n| Scope | Bonds, CDS | All instruments with default risk |\n| Horizon | 1 year, constant level of risk | 1 year, constant positions |\n| Confidence level | 99.9% | 99.9% |\n| Migration risk | Included | Excluded (captured in ES) |\n| Equity default | Not covered | Covered via equity JTD |\n| Hedging recognition | Full | Constrained by maturity mismatch |\n\nDRC Simulation Steps:\n\n1. Compute JTD amounts for each position:\n - Long bond: JTD = Notional x LGD (loss given default)\n - Short CDS protection: JTD = -Notional x LGD (hedge)\n - Equity: JTD = Market Value (total loss in default)\n\n2. Assign default probabilities based on credit rating:\n\n| Rating | 1-Year PD |\n|---|---|\n| AAA | 0.03% |\n| AA | 0.06% |\n| A | 0.10% |\n| BBB | 0.30% |\n| BB | 1.20% |\n| B | 3.50% |\n| CCC | 10.0% |\n\n3. Simulate correlated defaults using a multi-factor Gaussian copula with:\n - Systematic risk factor loadings based on industry and region\n - Idiosyncratic risk component per issuer\n - Default occurs when the latent variable falls below the PD threshold\n\n4. Calculate portfolio loss for each simulation trial\n5. Determine 99.9% quantile of the loss distribution over 10,000+ simulations\n\nWorked Example:\nHedgeworth Securities holds:\n- Long $20M Hartland Corp bond (BBB, LGD 60%): JTD = $20M x 0.60 = $12M\n- Short $15M Hartland CDS protection: JTD = -$15M x 0.60 = -$9M\n- Long $8M Eastwick Inc bond (BB, LGD 65%): JTD = $8M x 0.65 = $5.2M\n\nNet JTD on Hartland: $12M - $9M = $3M (partially hedged)\nNet JTD on Eastwick: $5.2M (unhedged)\n\nAfter simulation (10,000 trials, asset correlation 0.25):\n- Mean loss: $0.18M\n- 99.9% loss: $8.9M (both issuers default in stress scenario)\n\nDRC = $8.9M\n\nHedging Recognition Constraints:\n- Long/short positions on the same obligor may offset\n- Maturity mismatches between bond and CDS reduce hedge effectiveness\n- Index hedges provide only partial offset against single-name positions\n- Systematic hedges (shorting an index) are recognized at a reduced correlation-based benefit\n\nDeepen your understanding of credit risk capital in our FRM Part II course.
Master Part II with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
Why is DV01 so much smaller than dollar duration if both are supposed to measure rate risk?
When should I stop using modified duration and switch to effective duration?
How should I think about the relationship between Macaulay duration and modified duration instead of memorizing two separate definitions?
Why do hedge calculations often use dollar duration or DV01 instead of just modified duration?
When should I prefer historical simulation VaR over delta-normal VaR?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.