What is P&L attribution, and how does the risk-theoretical P&L compare to actual P&L?
I'm studying model validation for FRM Part II and P&L attribution seems like a key tool. How does it work, and why would the risk model's predicted P&L differ from what the desk actually made or lost?
P&L attribution decomposes the daily profit or loss of a trading desk into components that can be explained by risk factor movements. It's both a risk management tool and a model validation technique.
The Basic Framework:
Actual P&L: What the desk actually earned or lost (from the accounting system)
Risk-Theoretical P&L (RTPL): What the risk model PREDICTS the desk should have earned/lost, based on:
- The desk's risk sensitivities (Greeks, durations, betas)
- Observed market moves in risk factors
RTPL = Sum of [Sensitivity_i x Delta(Risk Factor_i)]
For a simple equity portfolio:
RTPL = Delta x Delta(S) + 0.5 x Gamma x Delta(S)^2 + Vega x Delta(sigma) + Theta x Delta(t)
Example — Pinnacle Securities equity options desk:
| Risk Factor | Sensitivity | Market Move | P&L Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| S&P 500 level | Delta = +$500K/pt | +12 pts | +$6.0M |
| S&P 500 convexity | Gamma = +$15K/pt^2 | 12^2 = 144 | +$1.08M |
| Implied vol | Vega = -$200K/vol pt | -0.3 pts | +$0.06M |
| Time decay | Theta = -$150K/day | 1 day | -$0.15M |
| Risk-Theoretical P&L | +$6.99M | ||
| Actual P&L | +$7.45M | ||
| Unexplained P&L | +$0.46M |
Sources of the Unexplained P&L:
- Missing risk factors: The model doesn't capture all drivers (e.g., skew, term structure)
- Cross-gamma: Interaction effects between risk factors
- Intraday trading: Risk sensitivities change as the desk trades during the day
- Bid-ask capture: Actual trading at better prices than mid-market
- Model approximation: Greeks are local linear/quadratic approximations
- New deal P&L: Trades booked after risk was computed
Why Unexplained P&L Matters:
- Model validation: Large, persistent unexplained P&L suggests the risk model is missing important factors
- Basel FRTB P&L Attribution Test: Desks must pass a statistical test comparing RTPL to actual P&L. Failing desks are moved to the standardized approach (higher capital)
- The Spearman correlation between RTPL and actual P&L and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the difference are used as metrics
FRM Key Points:
- Unexplained P&L should be small relative to actual P&L (typically < 10-15%)
- Systematic bias in RTPL indicates a model deficiency
- P&L attribution is forward-looking model validation (unlike backtesting, which is backward-looking)
- FRTB requires desks to pass P&L attribution tests to use internal models
Study P&L attribution and model validation 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.