Scenario Analysis. If Counterparty is not a Regulated Swap Entity, prior to any Swap Transaction Event with respect to any Swap that is not “available for trading” (as such term is defined in CFTC Regulations) on a DCM or SEF, Counterparty can request, and consult on the design of, a scenario analysis to allow Counterparty to assess its potential exposure in connection with such Swap.
Scenario Analysis. Three groups of scenarios were devised for the purpose of evaluating the performance and capability of FLSWM. The first group involves three future development scenarios to assess the sensitivity of FLSWM with respect to prediction of long distance travel within the state. The second group involves a typical highway project in a rural county to demonstrate how FLSWM can be used for counties not covered by regional travel demand models. The third group examines the potential for FLSWM to be used for forecasting the traffic impacts of ACES vehicle adoption.
Scenario Analysis. In order to evaluate the pros and cons of each scenario, it will be necessary to develop evaluation criteria. These criteria needs to evaluate the “what if” questions proposed and the project’s goals and objectives. The goals and objectives must also be converted to quantitative and qualitative measurements for evaluating each alternative. These measurements may include mobility measures, such as lane miles by level of service or congestion delay reductions; quality of life measures; efficiency criteria; accessibility; economic factors, such as infrastructure capital and maintenance costs; and others. LSA will develop a list of potential evaluation criteria and coordinate their definition and applicability with MPO staff and the Advisory Committee. A base model run will be conducted for each scenario to determine deficiencies and needs. Transportation solutions to address these needs will be developed for each scenario. Utilizing the traffic model’s performance report, a standardized report of key criteria such as VMT, hours of congestion, mobility access, fuel consumption and green house gas emissions will be reported for each alternative. Pros and Cons will be developed for each alternative in a Matrix form for presentation at the second round of public meetings – the Round Tables and the Public Officials Workshop.
Scenario Analysis. This section puts an effort to illustrate how the ridership analysis can provide inputs to transit service planning, through comparing the cost and revenue for different scenarios. From a general point of view, transit project costs include capital (fixed) costs and operational/maintenance (variable) costs. Capital costs mainly covers the infrastructure, e.g. buses, stations, stops, buildings, and rolling stock, etc. Variable costs are comprised by driver wages, fuel costs, maintenance and operation, etc. The literature indicates several approaches to estimate variable costs. The methods either focus on cost per unit of service revenue hours, service revenue miles, or a combination of both (FAMPO 2007, Xxxxxxxxx 2008, TMSR 2009, AVTA 2012, APTA 2016, TCRP 78 2012). Literature shows that the average total cost per unite of service revenue hours ranges from $85 to $130 in different projects. Most of the literature agrees to a total cost per service revenue miles of $10-11. Some other methods use combinations of service revenue hours and miles. It is assumed that a portion of the variable costs, including driver salaries and wages, and fringe benefits, etc. are better estimated on an hourly basis while some other costs such as services, materials and supplies, fuel, utilities and liabilities are more accurately estimated thorough a mileage basis. Table 6 below presents the detailed estimates of different types of costs that was applied in this analysis.
Scenario Analysis. This entails the use of varying interest rate scenarios (increasing, decreasing, stable, etc.) to see how the total return projections are affected. A one-year holding period will be the normal time frame used in this type of analysis.
Scenario Analysis. Problem Solution
(i) Asset quality questionable – possibility of default becomes a concern Remove questionable asset from portfolio.
(ii) Portfolio rate falls below indicated rate Honor target rate indicated. Reduce target returns for new customers. Xxxxxx Xxxxx’ah Supervisory Board.
(iii) Portfolio size is not sufficient to cover total nominal value of deposits Either (a) allocate sufficient assets to portfolio; or (b) do not renew maturing Wakalah deposits. The proposed operational process, subject to further development, is key element of making the unrestricted Wakalah as on-balance sheet product. The collective investment scheme may be taken as a reference.
Scenario Analysis landfill
Scenario Analysis. Prior to any Swap Transaction Event with respect to any Swap that is not “made available for trading” (as that phrase is used in the CFTC Regulations) on a designated contract market or swap execution facility, Party B may request, and consult on the design of, a scenario analysis to allow Party B to assess its potential exposure in connection with such Swap. Upon such request by Party B (which if made orally will be confirmed by Party B in a written notice given to Party A in accordance with the Notice Procedures), Party A will provide to Party B a scenario analysis, which will be designed in consultation with Party B and done over a range of assumptions, including severe downside stress scenarios that would result in a significant loss. Party A will disclose all material assumptions and explain the calculation methodologies used to perform the requested scenario analysis; provided, however, that Party A is not required to disclose confidential, proprietary information about any model it may use to prepare such scenario analysis. In designing any requested scenario analysis, Party A will consider any relevant analysis that it undertakes for its own risk management purposes. Unless Party B makes a request for a scenario analysis prior to a Swap Transaction Event, Party B shall not be entitled to any scenario analysis with respect to such Swap Transaction Event unless Party A otherwise agrees.
