8006 Practice Exam Questions with Answers Exam I: Finance Theory Financial Instruments Financial Markets - 2015 Edition Certification

The coupon payments can be considered an annuity which can be valued using the formula for the PV of annuities= annuity . Therefore the value of the five coupon payments is 5 * ((1-1/(1.06^5))/0.06) = $21.06

Similarly the principal payment at the end of 5 years can be valued as 100/1.065 = $74.73

Therefore the total value of the bond today is $95.79

When forward prices are greater than the spot prices, the market is said to be in contango. When forward prices are lower than spot prices, the market is said to be backwarded. A short squeeze may contribute to backwardation as shorts try to buy in the spot market to cover their short positions. Similarly, expectations of oversupply in the future, for example due to a bumper harvest may create situations where the forward prices fall below spot prices. Convenience yield is the benefit from having access to the commodity - and if the convenience yield is very high, for example in a market where manufacturers must never run out of a particular raw material, then these can switch the costs of carry (which include interest and storage costs, less convenience yields) to being negative.

Since all these factors can contribute to backwardation in the market, Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Credit derivatives can indeed be used for reducing credit exposures, earning credit risk premiums and getting market exposure without taking cash market positions. They cannot be used for reducing interest rate risks, as they pay out only when agreed 'credit events' take place. Changes in interest rates are not a credit event. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A zero coupon bond has a Macaulay duration equal to its maturity, ie in this case 5 years. We can calculate modified duration from Macaulay duration by using the following relationship:

Modified duration = Macaulay duration/(1 + y) where y is the yield.

Therefore the correct answer is 5 / (1.05) = 4.76.

Or intuitively, all the other answers appear clearly incorrect: 5 and 5.25 are too high, and 4 is too low. Therefore the only reasonable choice is 4.76.

This question touches upon a couple of issues that relate to hedging foreign exchange exposures using futures contracts. Firstly, many futures contracts on exchanges are available only at specific maturity dates, for example, the IMM dates. They may or may not coincide with actual liabilities for a running business. Also, futures contracts are standardized, ie their notional amounts are fixed rounded sums, and they can only be traded in whole numbers. This often means business using futures for hedging end up having a close enough, but not perfect hedge.

For our importer in the question, clearly he has to buy USDs so he can make his payment. Since each contract gives him USD 100k, he should buy 11 contracts that will get him very close to the amount he finally needs. Also, the contract expires a month later than his liability is due. This means he should offset the contract by closing it out in August soon as he has made his payment. This will allow him to stay hedged till August. If he does not sell out of the contracts, he will become exposed to a long position for one month till the contract settles, a risk which is unnecessary for him.

Therefore Choice 'b' is the best answer.

When hedging one fixed income security with another, the question as to how much of the hedge to buy (or sell) (ie the hedge ratio) for a given primary position is determined by their respective basis point values, which in turn are determined by their duration. Therefore, when hedging a long maturity bond with a PV01 of $3 with a short maturity bond that has a PV of $1, we will need to buy 3 times the notional value of the short maturity bond to achieve the same sensitivity to interest rates as the longer maturity bond.

Additionally, we may also expect the interest rates on the hedge to move differently from the interest rates on the primary instrument being hedged, and this needs to be accounted for as well as part of the hedge ratio calculation. This is called the yield beta and is calculated as change in yield for primary position/change in yield for the hedge security.

The hedge ratio is determined both by the yield beta and the BPVs of the two securities. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The swap can be valued by using the new swap rate of 5%. The investor is paying fixed and receiving LIBOR, and can effectively get out of his position by entering into a swap to receive 5% and pay LIBOR. This will leave him/her with a net cash flow of 1% for two years, ie $1m for 2 years that can be discounted to the present using the rates provided, ie =(1/1.05 + 1/(1.05^2)) = $1,859,410.

Detailed explanation:

An Interest Rate Swap exchanges fixed interest flows for floating rate flows. The floating rate leg is tied to some reference rate, such as LIBOR. The parties exchange net cash flows periodically. Conceptually, an interest rate swap is the combination of a fixed coupon bond and a floating rate note. The party receiving the fixed rate is long the fixed coupon bond and short the FRN, and the party receiving the floating rate is long the FRN and short the fixed coupon bond.

An interest rate swap can be valued as the difference between the two hypothetical bonds. FRNs sell for par at issue time as they pay whatever the current rate is, subject to periodic resets. Therefore immediately after a payment is made on a swap, the value of the FRN component is equal to its par value. The bond can be valued by discounting its cash flows. The difference between the two represents the value of the swap. When the swap is entered into, the fixed rate leg is set in such a way that the value of the hypothetical bond is equal to that of the FRN, and the swap is valued at zero. The rate at which the fixed rate leg is set is called the swap rate. Over its life, market rates change and the value of the fixed coupon bond equivalent in our swap diverges from par (whereas the FRN stays at par - at least right after payments are exchanged and the new floating rate is set for the next period). Thus the swap acquires a non-zero value.

There are two ways to value a swap. If interest rates for the future are known, the bond and the FRN can be valued and their difference will be equal to the value of the swap. Sometimes, the current swap rates are known. In such a case, the swap can be valued by imagining entering into an opposite swap at the new swap rate, which will leave a residual fixed cash flow for the remaining life of the swap. This residual cash flow can be valued and that represents the value of the swap. For example, if a 4 year swap was entered into exchanging an annual fixed 5% payment on a notional of $100m for a floating payment equal to LIBOR, and at the end of year 1 the swap rate is 6%, then the party paying fixed can choose to enter into a new swap to receive 6% and pay LIBOR. All cash flows between the old and the new swap will offset each other except a net receipt of 1% for the next 3 years. This cash flow can be valued using the current yield curve and represents the value of the swap.

The correct answer is Choice 'b', as this question is merely asking for the forward rate based on known spot rates. The forward rate applicable to the three month period commencing in 3 months time is given by [(1 + 6%*6/12)/(1 + 5%*3/12) - 1]*4 = 6.91%. Thus Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Here is a step by step way to think about it: $1 invested now at 6% for 6 months grows to (1 + 6%*6/12)=1.03. At the same time, using the 3 month rate, $1 invested now at 5% for 3 months grows to (1 + 5%*3/12)=1.0125. Effectively, this means that the 1.0125 at the end of 3 months grow to 1.03 at the end of 6 months, implying the rate of interest during the 3 months from 3 to 6 months is (1.03/1.0125 - 1)*4 = 6.91%.

Explanation:

The correct answer is the index value times the contract size, in this case 1500 x 50.

One way to think about index futures is this: Consider equity index trading as trading in the shares of a company whose share price is equal to a number of dollars which is the same as the index. If the 'contract multiplier' for a index futures contract is 50, that means the futures contract is for 50 shares of such a fictitious company. Therefore the notional value of the contract will be 15000 x 50, and Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

As a bond approaches maturity, its value will be driven less by the time value of money or its coupons, and more by its redemption value, ie the par. Therefore as maturity approaches, its value converges to its par value and this phenomenon is called pull to par.

Backwardation is said to occur when futures prices are lower than the current spot prices. This would happen only when carrying costs are negative. Carrying costs are equal to interest, plus storage costs and less any 'convenience yield'. The existence of large convenience yields may explain backwardation in commodity futures prices. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Contango is the 'normal' market situation where forward prices are higher than spot prices. Storage costs explain contango, not backwardation. Risk free rates, or the cost of funding for the futures position, are always positive and do not explain backwardation.

All the statements are correct, and represent the relationships between the values of the Greek variables for calls and puts for the same option. It is important to know why as the PRM exam often asks tough questions about the Greeks.

Statement I is correct because of the put-call parity. According to the put-call parity,

Value of call - Value of put = Spot price - Exercise price discounted to the present

Now the delta of the spot is 1, and that of the discounted price is zero. Therefore

Delta of Call - Delta of Put = 1 - 0, or by rearranging we get the equation in statement I.

Statements II and III are correct as the gamma and vega of both the spot price and the discounted price are zero. Therefore using the put-call parity, we can say

Gamma of Call - Gamma of Put = 0 - 0, and

Vega of Call - Vega of Put = 0 - 0

Rearranging, we get statements II and III.

Statement IV is correct because of the following relationship between theta of call and theta of put:

Theta of Put = Theta of Call + rKe^(-rt).

Since rKe^(-rt) can only be a positive number, theta of put can only exceed the theta of a call. However, since theta is generally negative, it often implies that the theta of a call is the larger absolute number.

Additional explanation for the last point: Assume rKe^(-rt) =+1 and theta of a put is -5 (completely hypothetical)

Now Theta of Put = Theta of Call + rKe^(-rt)

Ie -5 = -6 + 1

Now -5 is the larger number than -6. In other words, theta of put exceeds that of the call in a pure mathematical sense, which is what I mean when I say “theta of put can only exceed the theta of call”. But if you ignore the sign, then theta of call is larger at 6 when compared to 5. Therefore the theta of the put is greater than the theta of the call – which is what the answer says.

The buyer of the FRA gets to borrow $100m at 10% per annum for 6 months at the end of 6 months from the contract date. Thus, the interest due is $100m * 10% * 6/12 = $5m. However, at the end of the 6 months (when the notional borrowing period begins), the spot rate is 12%. The interest due on a borrowing at the spot rate would be $100m * 12% * 6/12 = $6m. Since the buyer gets to borrow cheaper than the going rate, he or she has made a gain of $1m on the FRA. However, this amount is not due immediately, it is due at the end of the 6 month borrowing period (ie, 12 months from the date the contract was entered into). The seller of the FRA can make the buyer whole by paying the buyer the present value of $1m due in 6 months time, which is $1m/(1 + 12%*6/12) = $1m/1.06 = $943,396.

Thus, Choice 'd' is the correct answer. Remember that the FRA gets settled at the beginning of the notional borrowing period as all future cash flows, and the applicable discount rates are known with certainty. The buyer and the seller do not need to wait for the entire period to get over first. The cash settlement allows the buyer to borrow at the market rate and still have the same net borrowing cost as he or she had initially contracted for in the FRA.

Contingent premium options are options where no premiums are due upfront, and are due only at expiry and only if the option finishes in the money. (If this sounds too good to be true, remember that at expiry it is possible that the premiums due exceed the payoffs from the option. So there is no free lunch.) For this reason they are also called pay-later options.

They are simple combinations of a vanilla option and the 'right' number of cash-or-nothing options. The buyer of a contingent premium option has effectively purchased a vanilla option and sold enough number of cash-or-nothing options so that the net premium due at inception is zero.

Therefore statement I, II and III are correct and Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

An option on a futures contract is like any other option contract, and only the option premium is due upfront. If the option is exercised, then the futures contract comes into existence and futures margins become due in the normal way. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

According to the dividend discount model, the spot share prices represent the present value of all the future cash flows from the stock. If held till perpetuity, this becomes an annuity equal to the dividend, growing at its expected growth rate. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Choice 'c' would represent the total market cap, and not the value per share that the question asks.

In this case, we need a portfolio that is "dollar duration" neutral, ie the net effect of any change in interest rates creates offsetting gains and losses in the asset and liability portfolios. The $125m asset portfolio with a duration of 15 years has a dollar-duration of $125*15/100=$18.75m, implying that a 1% change in interest rates will create a $18.75m change in the value of the asset portfolio. Similarly, the liabilities of $100m with a duration of 20 years mean that a 1% change in interest rates will lead to a $20m change in their value. Since $18.75m<$20m, the pension fund is short duration, and needs a strategy that will give it more duration. It can do so by buying more bonds, or swapping out some of its shorter duration bonds with longer duration bonds, or doing other things that will increase the duration of the portfolio so it becomes duration neutral.

Entering into an interest rate swap to receive fixed and pay floating is like a long position in a bond, which will increase duration. Thus Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A swap to pay fixed and receive floating will have the opposite effect, and so will selling bond futures. Choice 'c' and Choice 'a' are therefore incorrect. As we have seen, Choice 'd' is incorrect as the fund does have interest rate exposure.

The stock has a beta of 1.2, therefore intuitively it can be expected to earn more than the broad market index. It will earn the risk free rate, ie 3%, and 1.2 times the equity risk premium of 5% (8% - 3%). The expected returns from the stock therefore are 3% + (8% - 3%)*1.2 = 9%

The riskiest tranche of a structured product is called the equity tranche. All other choices are incorrect.

Since the 10 year rate has stayed the same, but the curve has gone from being flat to upward sloping, it means the shorter term interest rates have gone down. Recall that Macaulay duration is the PV of the payments received on a bond over its life weighted by the year each payment is received in. Also remember that a bond's current price is nothing but the summation of the different PVs of its various payments. It effectively gives the real average life of the bond - for example if a hypothetical (and impossible) bond derives half of its value from a payment today and the other half from a payment in 10 years, the investor can look at the average as being 5 years (0*50% + 10*50%). That is what is what we are calculating when deriving Macaulay duration.

In this case, a reduction in the near term interest rates increases the PV of the payments received prior to the payment at 10 years. This increases the value of the bond, and also increases the weightage of the earlier payments, decreasing the Macaulay duration (by shifting it closer to now and further behind from the maturity date).

The crack spread is the difference between the price of refined products and crude oil. An option on the crack spread can protect a refiner from both a fall in the price of its output and a rise in the price of its inputs. Calendar spreads are options with different maturities. Crude oil futures and swaps only protect against an adverse change in the price of crude, and not that of refined products. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Statement I is true as standard deviation is the root of the squared deviations, and is always positive, and identical regardless of the positions being long or short.Statement II is false as the expected return of a long position is exactly the negative of the expected return of the short position.Statement III is correct as a correlation of +1 between two long positions implies a correlation of -1 between one long and one short position. This is the basis of hedging, for example, of spot positions with futures.Statement IV is inaccurate. The weight of an asset in a portfolio does not change the correlation of the asset with the portfolio, or with other assets.Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The Sharpe ratio is the ratio of the excess returns of a portfolio to its volatility. It provides an intuitive measure of a portfolio's excess return over the risk free rate. The Sharpe ratio is calculated as [(Portfolio return - Risk free return)/Portfolio standard deviation]. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The Treynor ratio is similar to the Sharpe ratio, but instead of using volatility in the denominator, it uses the portfolio's beta. Therefore the Treynor Ratio is calculated as [(Portfolio return - Risk free return)/Portfolio's beta].

Jensen's alpha is another risk adjusted performance measure. It considers only the 'alpha', or the return attributable to a portfolio manager's skill. It is the difference between the return of the portfolio, and what the portfolio should theoretically have earned. Any portfolio can be expected to earn the risk free rate (rf), plus the market risk premium (which is given by [Beta x (Market portfolio's return - Risk free rate)]. Jensen's alpha is therefore the actual return earned less the risk free rate and the beta return.

Refer to the tutorial on risk adjusted performance measures for more details.

Swaps rates are calculated such that the swap's value at inception is zero. Therefore statement I is correct and statement II is incorrect. OTC swaps are not standardized, in fact they are customized by the parties to suit their needs, which is why they are over-the-counter. Therefore statement III is incorrect. It is correct that interest rate and commodity swaps are the most traded, and statement IV is correct.

Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Price quotes for futures where one of the currencies is the US dollar follow the convention of using the number of US dollars one unit of the foreign currency can buy. (For JPY, 100 Yen is used.)

In the forward market, the same convention as is used in the spot market is used.

In the spot market, prices are expressed as the number of units of the foreign currency that 1 USD can buy, except for GBP, EUR, AUD and NZD where it is the other way round (ie, number of USDs that 1 of each of these currencies can buy).

The effectiveness of the hedge is solely determined by the correlation between the position being hedged, and the position being used as the hedge. A hedge can be perfect when correlation is 1, and will be less than perfect when it is anything other than 1.The effectiveness of the optimal hedge is given by the formula ?(1-?2), where ? is the correlation between the two. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer. Standard deviations affect the hedge ratio, not the effectiveness of the hedge.

To answer this question, we need to look at the put-call parity, which can be expressed as:

Value of call - Value of put = Spot price - Exercise price discounted to the present

or, Value of call - Value of put = Stock - Bond with a future value equal to exercise price

Therefore, a long call and a short put is equivalent to a long stock position and a short bond.

Choice 'a' is therefore the correct answer. (Alternatively, we could also have constructed a graph of the payoff profiles to arrive at the same answer).

Remember the four basic axioms underlying the principal of maximum expected utility:

- Transitivity, ie if A is preferred over B, and B is preferred over C, then A must be preferred over C;

- Continuity, ie if A is preferred over B, and B is preferred over C, then B is on a continuum between A and C such that we can be indifferent between receiving B, or a lottery offering either A or C with probabilities p & 1-p respectively.

- Independence, ie choices are not affected by the way they are presented

- Stochastic dominance, ie a gamble that offers a greater probability of a preferred out come will be preferred.

In this case, the first axiom is being violated. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Forward premium or discount can be easily calculated as {(Forward rate - Spot rate) / Spot rate x 365/number of days]. In this case, it can be calculated as =((1.1652 - 1.1763) / 1.1763 ) * 365/91 = 3.785%, which is a discount as it is a negative number. It can also be interpreted as a discount as the forward price is lower than the spot price.

The mean can be calculated quite easily as a weighted average, and in this case it is 0.6*5% + 0.4*3% = 4.2%.

The variance can be calculated with the formula for portfolio variance as = (0.6^2)*(20%^2) + (0.4^2)*(5%^2) + 2*(-0.6)*0.6*0.4*20%*5%=0.01192. Therefore the volatility of this portfolio is SQRT(0.01192)=10.92%

When using a futures contract to hedge a position, the correct way to determine the number of futures contracts to use is to use the following formula. This adjusts for the 'tailing the hedge' adjustment required as a result of the daily settlement feature of futures contracts.

Minimum Variance Hedge Ratio x Dollar Value of Position / Dollar Value of Single Futures Contract

When using forward contracts to hedge a position, no adjustment to tail the hedge is required (as settlement happens only at the end), and the number of units of the exposure when compared to the number of units per contract should be used. The formula in the case of forward contracts is:

Minimum Variance Hedge Ratio x Units in Position Held / Units in Single Futures Contract

In practice however, the difference between the above two formulae is de-minimis; and for the exam you should be okay to use either of the above two to determine the number of contracts - unless the question is directed to testing your knowledge of the 'tailing the hedge' adjustment.

Remember that:

- American options can be exercised at any time up to expiry

- European options can only be exercised at expiry

- Bermudan options can be exercised prior to expiry but only at certain dates or during certain specified periods, and not otherwise

- Since an American option can be exercised at any time prior to expiry while a European option can only be exercised at expiry, an American option will always be worth more than a European option

Therefore the first three statements are incorrect and Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Statement I is correct - since forward prices are determined as (Spot - PV of dividends)*e^(rt), an increase in dividends will reduce forward prices.

Statement II is incorrect as forward prices will be determined by near term interest rates, specifically by the borrowing rate for the period of the contract, and will stay unchanged if near term interest rates do not change.

Statement III is incorrect. Futures exchanges require both buyers and sellers to deposit initial margins as prices can move adversely for either of them.

Statement IV is incorrect, as the margin deposited when a contract is entered into is called initial margin. Margin calls thereafter resulting from movements in prices are called variation margin.

Statement V is incorrect. Most futures exchanges distinguish between hedgers and speculators and require different margins from each.

Statement VI is incorrect. Interest rate futures behave almost identically to their bond counterparts, and carry both duration and convexity.

The operating free cash flows can be considered a perpetual annuity with a given growth rate.

The value of a perpetuity of a periodic cash flow of 'c', with a discount rate 'r' and growth rate 'g' is given by c/(r - g). In the given case, the company can be considered as providing a perpetual annuity which provides an annual cash flow of $100 which are growing at 2.5% (equal to the GDP's growth rate, as given), and whose cost of capital, or the discount rate to use, is 7.5%

Therefore the value of the firm in this case is given by $100/(7.5% - 2.5%) = $2,000. Recall that the value of the firm is equal to the Operating Free Cash Flow/Weighted Average Cost of Capital (OFCF/WACC). Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Interest rate caps are effectively call options on an underlying interest rate that protect the buyer of the cap against a rise in interest rates over the agreed exercise rate. As with options, the premium on the cap depends upon the volatility of the underlying rates as one of its variables. A floor is the exact opposite of a cap, ie it is effectively a put option on an underlying interest rate that protects the buyer of the floor against a fall in interest rates below the agreed exercise rate.

A cap protects a borrower against a rise in interest rates beyond a point, and a floor protects a lender against a fall in interest rates below a point.

A collar is a combination of a long cap and a short floor, the idea being that the premium due on the cap is offset partly by the premium earned on the short floor position. Therefore a collar is less expensive than a cap or a floor.

When rates are continuously compounded, we can calculate the marginal rate for year 5 as (5*5% - 4*4%) = 9%. (Note that things would be different if the rates were not continuously compounded, and they were annually compounded. In that case we would need to do a calculation of (1.05^5 / 1.04^4) - 1)

This question highlights the difference between zero rates, yield-to-maturity and forward rates. Forward rates are from one point in time to another, for example say from year 4 to 5 in the future. A zero rate is from time 0, or now, to a point in time in the future. The zero rate is dependent on the forward rates for all the different periods from now to the future. The yield curve represents the various zero rates at different points in time, and if it is upward sloping it means forward rates for years further out are greater than the years prior. That is what causes the zero rate yields to increase over time and the curve to slope upwards. So the forward rate from year 9 to 10 will certainly be higher than the 10 year zero rate.

The yield-to-maturity for a bond is the rate at which the payments on the bond discount to be equal to the current bond price. It is therefore the average rate that applies to the bond. This average is based upon the different zero rates for the years in which bond holders receive payments. Since coupons are smaller than the payment at maturity, the zero rate that applies to the payment at maturity will have the most impact on the numerical value of the bond's yield-to-maturity. Also affecting the yield-to-maturity will be the values of the coupon payments, which will be discounted at lower rates when the yield curve is upward sloping. So the yield-to-maturity will be an average lower than the 10 year zero. Since the 10 year zero will be lower than the forward rate from t=9-10, the yield-to-maturity will be the lowest rate of the three.

Statement I is correct. If daily returns are not independent, variances cannot simply be added up over the period, and the square root of time rule is not appropriate to use to scale volatility.Statement II is incorrect. Statement III is correct. If daily returns are positively correlated, it means that a high return on one day will likely cause a higher return the next day, and likewise for low or negative returns. Intuitively, it means that a 'trend' will be created and volatility will be higher than in a case where daily returns were not correlated. Therefore statement II is not correct. By the same logic, negative correlation between daily returns would mean a higher return on one day would likely be followed by lower returns the next day, ie a reversion to mean will result causing the volatility to be lower than the case when the returns are uncorrelated. (The correlation between the daily returns is called the 'autocorrelation coefficient'.)Statement IV is false because while the random walk of prices does imply independence, it says nothing about the expected value of returns. It does not imply that the returns will have an expected value of zero (or any other value).Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer and the rest are incorrect.

Selling July corn futures would be the cheapest and most appropriate risk management strategy for this corn farmer trying to hedge his risk against falling prices. When June comes, he can close out the futures contracts and any loss or gain on the futures contract would be approximately equal to the change in the spot price of corn from January to June.

Buying corn futures is a bad idea because that would require the farmer to buy corn, which would only add to his expected stock of corn expected from the harvest. The same applies to buying a call option on corn. In the same way, selling a put option would be inappropriate because the buyer of the this put would have the right to sell corn to the farmer at the exercise price, which is not what we want. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Systematic risk refers to market risk that cannot be diversified away. Specific risk relates to the unique risk from the securities selected in the portfolio, and these can be diversified away by adding other securities to the portfolio. Diversifiable risk is risk that can be diversified away, ie the same as specific risk. Portfolio risk is the total risk of the portfolio that includes both specific and systematic risk.

The implied volatility for a call and a put is identical if the two have the same strike and expiry. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer and the remaining choices are incorrect.

The bond equivalent yield for a treasury bill can be calculated as [(Future value - Present value)/Present value x 365/days to maturity]. In this case this works out to ($100-$98)/$98 * 365/90 = 8.28%

[Why do we use 365 days and not 360? And is there a different way to calculate treasury bill yields?

The answer to this question is that there are alternate ways to calculate these yields. For the exam, I would suggest that you calculate according to one method, see if you get an answer that matches, and pick that. I found the below on the NY Fed's website - a very clear example: (http://newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed28.html)

The Discount Yield Method

The following formula is used to determine the discount yield for T-bills that have three- or six-month maturities:

Discount yield = [(FV - PP)/FV] * [360/M]

FV = face value

PP = purchase price

M = maturity of bill. For a three-month T-bill (13 weeks) use 91, and for a six-month T-bill (26 weeks) use 182

360 = the number of days used by banks to determine short-term interest rates (the investment yield method is based on a calendar year: 365 days, or 366 in leap years).

Example

What is the discount yield for a 182-day T-bill, auctioned at an average price of $9,659.30 per $10,000 face value?

Discount yield = [(FV - PP)/FV] * [360/M]

FV = $10,000 PP = $9,659.30 M = 182

Discount yield = [(10,000) - (9,659.30)] / (10,000) * [360/182]

Discount yield = [340.7 / 10,000] * [1.978022]

Discount yield = .0673912 = 6.74%

For the 13-week bill, the same formula would be used, dividing 360 by a maturity of 91 days rather than 182 days.

The Investment Yield Method

When comparing the return on investment in T-bills to other short-term investment options, the investment yield method can be used. This yield is alternatively called the bond equivalent yield, the coupon equivalent rate, the effective yield and the interest yield.

The following formula is used to calculate the investment yield for T-bills that have three- or six-month maturities:

Investment yield = [(FV - PP)/PP] * [365 or 366/M]

Example

What is the investment yield of a 182-day T-bill, auctioned at an average price of $9,659.30 per $10,000 face value?

Investment yield = [(FV - PP)/PP] * [365/M]

FV = $10,000 PP = $9,659.30 M = 182

Investment yield = [(10,000 - 9,659.30) / (9,659.30)] * [365/182]

Investment yield = [340.70] / 9,659.30] * [2.0054945]

Investment yield = .0707372 = 7.07%

For the 13-week bill, the same formula can be used, dividing 365 (or 366) by a maturity of 91 days.

We know from the put-call parity that:

Call - Put = Stock - Deposit

In the given situation,

Stock price = 100

call = 35

Put = ?

Exercise price = 100

However, we cannot use the stock price as-is, we need to adjust it for dividends that will be received during the period for which the option is valid. Dividends are $1, which need to be discounted to the present. In financial theory, dividends are often assumed to be continuously paid, though in reality they are single discrete payments at points in time. In this situation, for simplicity we assume that the dividend is paid at the end of the year, and needs to be discounted to the present and deducted from the spot price.

Therefore:

Stock price adjusted for dividends = $100 - ($1/1.05) = $100 - $0.95 = $99.05

Similarly, the bank deposit amount, which is the PV of the exercise price, can be calculated as $100/1.05 = $95.24

We can now calculate the price of the put by plugging the numbers above in the put-call parity:

35 - Put = $99.05 - $95.24

Therefore the value of the put = 31.19, which is closest to 31.20 which therefore is the correct answer.

Kappa indices, which include the Sortino ratio and the Omega statistic, consider semi-variance, ie variance calculated only in respect of the downside risk instead of variance (which includes both upside and downside). This is because one criticism of other risk adjusted performance measures is that they take both upside and downside risk into account, even though a portfolio manager or investor is only concerned with managing the downside. The Kappa indices consider returns that are below a threshold to measure performance by. Therefore statement I is correct.

The Treynor ratio is calculated as [(Portfolio return - Risk free return)/Portfolio's beta]. It therefore calculates the excess return per unit of systematic risk and not specific risk. Therefore statement II is not correct.

Increasing portfolio leverage, ie borrowing to invest more in the portfolio, will increase the excess return of the portfolio in a linear fashion. However, it will also increase the volatility of such a portfolio in an identical linear way. Since Sharpe ratio is the ratio of 'excess returns' to standard deviation, the Sharpe ratio will stay constant. In other words, leverage does not impact Sharpe ratio, which is an attribute of this measure that allows us to compare performance across managers and funds regardless of leverage used. Statement III is not correct.

Jensen's alpha results from security selection, ie from specific risk the manager has taken. In a market portfolio, all specific risk is diversified away and only systematic risk remains. Therefore, statement IV is correct.

Explanation:

The return on an asset is a function of the covariance of the asset's return to the returns of the market portfolio. They do not depend upon the standard deviation of the asset itself. Therefore Choice 'b' is correct and Choice 'c' is incorrect.

The expected returns on an asset are equal to the risk free rate plus the beta times the market risk premium, therefore Choice 'a' is correct.

Portfolios on the efficient frontier will all have a different Sharpe ratio, which is the ratio of excess returns to portfolio volatility.

Choice 'c' is the correct answer (note that the question is asking for an identification of the INCORRECT statement).

From the put-call parity, we know that Call - Put = Stock - Bank deposit. Since the bank deposit has a zero delta, and the delta of the Stock itself is 1, we get the relationship Delta of Call - Delta of Put = 1. Therefore, if the delta of a call option is 0.3, the delta of the corresponding put option is 0.3 - 1 = -0.7

Choice 'd' represents the mean-variance function to be maximized for selecting between mutually exclusive gambles. The other choices are incorrect.

(The mean-variance criterion is a fairly complex subject, and this question is only intended to make sure that you know, and can identify the function that is being maximized. A complete explanation/derivation of the mean-variance criterion, that links together expected returns, volatility and the risk tolerance of the investor to arrive at the efficient frontier is beyond the scope of the PRM syllabus.)

A short squeeze results when short sellers are trying to cover their short positions by buying in the spot markets, which do not have adequate supply. This results in sharp spikes in spot prices, which further forces any other shorts to try cut their losses. The result is a sharp rise in spot prices.

Choice 'a' is the correct answer, the other choices do not describe a short squeeze.

The basis point value is equal to $102 x 5 /10000 = $0.051. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The basis point value, also called the PV01, is the dollar value change in the price of a bond as a result of a 1 basis point (=1/10000) change in interest rates. Since the modified duration is 5, it means a 1% change in interest rates produces a 5% change in the price of the bond, and a 1 bps change will therefore produce a 0.05% change in the value of the bond. Since the bond is currently valued at $102, the change works out to $102 x 0.05% = $0.051.

Explanation:

Straddles and strangles are strategies that would benefit from sharp movement in option prices, regardless of direction. These comprise a long call and a long put, which would benefit regardless of whether prices rise or fall. The only time they would lose money would be when prices stay constant.

A collar would gain when stock prices fall, and not when they rise. Since our investor does not have a view on the direction of the movement, this strategy will not work for him.

A butterfly spread or a condor would gain when prices stay range-bound, so that cannot be a useful strategy.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Each of the choices describes various scenarios related to the issue of bonds. A when-issued market is a market in government securities where securities are traded as forward contracts prior to their issue. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Choice 'd' refers to a 'bought deal'. Choice 'b' refers to the 'grey market', usually in corporate bonds. Choice 'a' refers to a fixed price re-offer mechanism.

The beta of a risky asset is determined solely by the covariance between the asset and the variance of the market portfolio. Recall that ? = covariancex, y / variancex, where x is the market portfolio and y is the risky asset. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The swap can be valued by valuing the two individual components of the swap.

The fixed rate bond equivalent in the swap is valued at =4/1.05 + 104/(1.06^2) = $96,369,154.

The FRN component will be valued at par as we are at a point where the rate has just been reset, ie $100m.

The investor is paying the fixed rate, and is therefore short the bond. He/she is receiving LIBOR, and is therefore long the FRN. The value of the swap to the investor therefore is +$100,000,000-$96,369,154 = $3,630,846

Detailed explanation:

An Interest Rate Swap exchanges fixed interest flows for floating rate flows. The floating rate leg is tied to some reference rate, such as LIBOR. The parties exchange net cash flows periodically. Conceptually, an interest rate swap is the combination of a fixed coupon bond and a floating rate note. The party receiving the fixed rate is long the fixed coupon bond and short the FRN, and the party receiving the floating rate is long the FRN and short the fixed coupon bond.

An interest rate swap can be valued as the difference between the two hypothetical bonds. FRNs sell for par at issue time as they pay whatever the current rate is, subject to periodic resets. Therefore immediately after a payment is made on a swap, the value of the FRN component is equal to its par value. The bond can be valued by discounting its cash flows. The difference between the two represents the value of the swap. When the swap is entered into, the fixed rate leg is set in such a way that the value of the hypothetical bond is equal to that of the FRN, and therefore the swap is valued at zero. The rate at which the fixed rate leg is set is called the swap rate. Over its life, market rates change and the value of the fixed coupon bond equivalent in our swap diverges from par (whereas the FRN stays at par - at least right after payments are exchanged and the new floating rate is set for the next period). Thus the swap acquires a non-zero value.

There are two ways to value a swap. If interest rates for the future are known, the bond and the FRN can be valued and their difference will be equal to the value of the swap. Sometimes, the current swap rates are known. In such a case, the swap can be valued by imagining entering into an opposite swap at the new swap rate, which will leave a residual fixed cash flow for the remaining life of the swap. This residual cash flow can be valued and that represents the value of the swap. For example, if a 4 year swap was entered into exchanging an annual fixed 5% payment on a notional of $100m for a floating payment equal to LIBOR, and at the end of year 1 the swap rate is 6%, then the party paying fixed can choose to enter into a new swap to receive 6% and pay LIBOR. All cash flows between the old and the new swap will offset each other except a net receipt of 1% for the next 3 years. This cash flow can be valued using the current yield curve and represents the value of the swap.

The all in price would be equal to the clean price plus accrued interest. The accrued interest for the 60 days that have passed since the last coupon payment is $5 x 60/360 = $0.83. Therefore the dirty price, or the all in price, will be $98.83. (Note that the $5 is the annual 5% coupon on the $100 face.)

The minimum variance hedge ratio answers the question of how much of the hedge to buy to hedge a given position. It minimizes the combined volatility of the primary and the hedge position. The minimum variance hedge ratio is given by the expression [ ?(x) / ?(y) ] * ?(x,y)]. Effectively, this is the same as the beta of the primary position with respect to the hedge.

In this case, the hedge ratio is = 10%/9% * 0.9 = 1

An increase in coupon brings the 'average' cash flows closer, thereby decreasing duration. The higher the coupon, the lower the duration.

An increase in yield discounts the cash flows that are further away more than it does the closer cash flows, so an increase in yield decreases duration.

An increase in coupon frequency brings the bond's cash flows closer, thereby decreasing duration. Decreasing the coupon frequency has the opposite effect.

An increase in maturity pushes the payments further out, thereby increasing duration.

A forward contract is a derivative contract, and has a delta of 1. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. This is because the value of a forward contract is given by S - Ke^(-rt), where S is the current spot price, r the risk free rate, K the forward price, and t the time to maturity. As S changes from S to (S + ?S), the value changes to (S + ?S) - Ke^(-rt), ie the change in value is exactly ?S in response to a change in the price of the underlying by ?S. Therefore the forward contract has a delta of 1.

All other choices are incorrect.

Note that this is different from the delta of a futures contract which is different from 1, and equal to e^(rt), a number greater than 1.

Investors in CDOs bear credit risk. The SPV is merely a conduit that owns the underlying assets on which the sponsoring institution has bought protection. The investors have sold them this protection, and are on the hook for defaults or other credit events. The reference entity is relevant only to CDSs, not CDOs. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The Sharpe ratio does not require investors to be risk neutral, only that for a given level of returns they prefer less risk to more risk. (Risk neutral means that investors are indifferent to the level of risk, and are only driven by a desire to maximizing expected value, regardless of risk levels.)

The ability to borrow and lend any amounts of money at the risk free rate is a fundamental assumption for the rule that optimal portfolios will maximize the Sharpe ratio.

This rule also assumes that risk preferences are completely described by return and standard deviation of returns.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer as statements I and II are correct.

The day count convention used for US treasury bonds is Act/Act. The other choices are incorrect.

Equity futures are by far the most traded futures contracts in terms of value, followed by interest rate products. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Tailing the hedge refers to adjusting the number of futures contracts required to hedge a position given that futures contracts result in daily cash flows from daily P&L. In the case of forward contracts, P&L is not settled daily but at the end of the contract. Because margin payments (ie the daily P&L) for futures contracts create interest cost or income (depending upon the direction of the flows), the number of contracts required to hedge a given position can fluctuate. This effect is generally small for small positions, or where the time period under consideration is not very long. But it can get large for larger positions that are open for longer time periods, therefore requiring an adjustment to 'tail the hedge'. The adjustment is straightforward - the number of contracts required needs to be divided by (1+r)t, where r is the interest and t the time period (or by ert if continuously compounded rates are being used. Therefore statement I is true and statement II is false.

Statement III is not correct as counterparty risk is certainly an issue for forward contracts, while futures contracts are guaranteed by the exchange, besides having margin requirements and daily P&L movement in place.

Statement IV is not correct as futures come in standardized contracts with standard amounts and a few standard expiry dates to pick, whereas forward contracts are customized and dates, amounts and other details of the contract can be negotiated.

Choice 'c' correctly describes a 'holder extendible option'. Choice 'd' describes a 'writer extendible option'. Choice 'a' describes a 'shout option'. Choice 'b' describes a 'knock in' option.

The change in the price of the bond will be equal to $100* (-11*0.1% + 0.5* 80 *(0.1%)^2) = -1.096. Therefore the new price will be $100 - 1.096 = $98.904. Thus Choice 'd' is the correct answer, the rest are incorrect.

Note that the change in the price of a bond if you are given modified duration is convexity is given by the formula P * (-Duration*?i + 0.5*Convexity*(?i)^2); where ?i is the change in interest rates. 10 basis points equal 0.1%, or 0.001.

T-bill futures and fed futures are very short term futures contracts, and unlikely to provide much of a hedge against a rise in interest rates. FRAs however are customized and would be the right instrument for the borrower to hedge his interest rate risk. A long FRA position gives him the right to borrow at an agreed rate in the future. This rate will not change regardless of the changes in interest rates, and therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A high beta does not necessarily imply a high correlation with the market. The relationship

between beta and correlation can be expressed as 103.04.e2103.04.e2, where x is the market portfolio and y is the asset under consideration.

103.04.e

This means that a high market beta could be due to high volatility of the asset in question, and not because of a high correlation. Therefore statement I is not correct.Statement II is correct as correlation and covariance have the same sign. This is because correlation = covariance/product of standard deviations. Since standard deviation is always positive, correlation and covariance will have the same sign.A correlation of zero indicates the absence of a linear relationship between two variables - therefore statement III is correct.Statement IV is correct as well, because unless correlation is +1, diversification always reduces total portfolio risk.

Over the counter and electronic communication networks match buyers and sellers. However, there is no market making function, ie, in periods of stress liquidity may completely disappear from these markets. Exchanges normally have market makers that are required to present two way quotes on the securities they are making the market for. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

This is a straightforward case of basic portfolio math - the only thing being that we are not explicitly given the correlation between the two assets, nor are we given the volatility of the risk free asset. But since the other asset in the portfolio is the risk free asset, it has no risk, ie its volatility is zero, and its correlation with the fund run by the hedge fund manager is also zero. Portfolio returns will be the average returns of the two assets, and portfolio variance will be given by the formula portfolio_vol. Its square root will provide the portfolio volatility.

Therefore the expected returns are = 60%*12% + 40%*4% = 8.8%

The combined volatility of this portfolio will be given by (in Excel formula format) as =SQRT((60%*12%)^2 + (40%*0%)^2 + 2*0*60%*40%*12%*0%) = 7.2%

The efficient frontier is a two dimensional plot with volatility and returns on its axes. For a given level of return, it helps identify the portfolio with the lowest volatility. From the other axis, it helps identify the portfolio with the highest return for a given level of volatility.

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Note that in the exam you may be asked the question slightly differently.

Repos are collateralized borrowing arrangements. They are used for providing short term funding. They are not used for managing credit risk exposures. They are also used by central banks as part of their money market operations. They are also useful for facilitating short positions, for example, in corporate bonds where the party desirous of shorting the bond may 'borrow' the bond on repo in order to be able to sell it short.

Theta measures time decay, ie the change in value of the option with the passage of time. When the option is close to expiry, theta is very low as the value of the option is driven by intrinsic value rather than the time value. Therefore theta approaches zero as the option comes closer to expiry.

When the forward prices are greater than the spot prices, the market is said to be in contango. When forward prices are lower than spot prices, the market is said to be backwarded. A short squeeze may contribute to backwardation. Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

The price of a treasury bill can be calculated as [Future value / (1 + yield x days-to-maturity/365)] = 100/(1+5%*90/365) = $98.78.

The delta of an at-the-money call option is close to 0.5. It is close to 1 when it is deep in the money. It is close to 0 when it is deep out of the money. It is never negative. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The square root of time rule can be used to convert, say a 1-day volatility to a 10-day volatility, by multiplying the known volatility number by the square root of time to get the volatility over a different time horizon. However, there are key assumptions that underlie the application of this rule, and statements I to III correctly state those assumptions. If serial correlations (whether negative or positive) exist, then asset returns are not independent as they are affected by the prior day or prior period's returns, and we cannot use the square root of time rule. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

In order to use the 'square root of time' rule, asset returns should be iid, volatility should stay constant (ie there should be no volatility clustering), and no serial correlations (ie the returns of one day should not be affected by the returns of the prior periods). Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

We can calculate the duration of the bond as follows:

PV of 1st coupon payment: $5/(1 + 5%/2) = $4.878

PV of final payment: $105/(1 + 5%) = $100

Weighted average of the two = (0.5*$4.878 + 1*$100)/($4.878 + $100) = 0.9767, ie this is the Macaulay duration.

Thus the modified duration is 0.9767/(1 + 5%/2) = 0.9529

(Note that Modified Duration = Macaulay Duration/(1 + y/n), where n is the compounding frequency)

In addition to this calculation, in this particular question we can intuitively arrive at the correct answer by eliminating the incorrect choices. Since the bond matures in a year, its modified duration will be less than a year. Therefore Choice 'a' and Choice 'b' cannot be correct. Similarly, 0.700 appears too low as the coupons are not so heavily weighted towards earlier in the year. Therefore only Choice 'c' can be the correct answer.

A hedge based on portfolio duration alone makes the assumption that the price/yield relationship is linear, and ignores the convexity or non-linearity of the price/yield relationship. As prices change beyond small changes, the non-linear effect kicks in, which can be offset by making a convexity adjustment to the hedge. Therefore statements I and II are correct.

Statement III is incorrect - negative convexity has an adverse effect on bond prices regardless of whether prices rise or fall.

Statement IV is correct, a bond hedge based on duration alone may be mismatched along the yield curve (eg, hedging a 10 year maturity bond with a 3 year futures contract, even though of identical total durations), which is based upon the implicit assumption that all rates will move together (ie parallel shifts).

The Sharpe ratio is the ratio of the excess returns of a portfolio to its volatility. It provides an intuitive measure of a portfolio's excess return over the risk free rate. The Sharpe ratio is calculated as [(Portfolio return - Risk free return)/Portfolio standard deviation].

The Treynor ratio is similar to the Sharpe ratio, but instead of using volatility in the denominator, it uses the portfolio's beta. Therefore the Treynor Ratio is calculated as [(Portfolio return - Risk free return)/Portfolio's beta]. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Jensen's alpha is another risk adjusted performance measure. It considers only the 'alpha', or the return attributable to a portfolio manager's skill. It is the difference between the return of the portfolio, and what the portfolio should theoretically have earned. Any portfolio can be expected to earn the risk free rate (rf), plus the market risk premium (which is given by [Beta x (Market portfolio's return - Risk free rate)]. Jensen's alpha is therefore the actual return earned less the risk free rate and the beta return.

Refer to the tutorial on risk adjusted performance measures for more details

According to the mean variance criterion, an investor would always:

- prefer less risk to more risk given a certain level of returns,

- prefer more returns to less returns given a certain level of risk,

- if two portfolios are such that one provides higher returns at a higher risk, and the other provides a lower return at a lower risk, then we cannot say which of the portfolios the investor would prefer as that would depend upon the investor's risk preference.

The implication of the above is that an investor will always prefer a portfolio on the efficient frontier (the first two points above), as the portfolios on the efficient frontier always represent the maximum return for any given level of risk (or lowest risk given a certain level of desired return). As between two portfolios both of which are on the efficient frontier (last point above), the investor will pick based upon his or her level of risk tolerance.

Therefore statement II and III are correct, and Choice 'd' is the correct answer. The reference to drawdowns and risk neutrality in statements I and IV are meaningless in the context and are incorrect.

Given volatility, weights and correlation, we do not need any additional information on covariances - and therefore statement I is incorrect.

To evaluate the other statements, consider the formula for portfolio variance (recalling that standard deviation is just the square root of the variance)

portfolio_var_diff_corr

Statement II is incorrect because this statement describes what the standard deviation of the portfolio would be if the assets were to be perfectly positively correlated (here they are negatively correlated).

Statement III is incorrect. When the two assets are uncorrelated (ie correlation = 0), the combined standard deviation is the square root of the weighted sum of variances, where the squares of the asset weights are used as weights (see formula above).

Statement IV is correct. When the assets are perfectly positively correlated, they are effectively the same asset and the combined standard deviation of a portfolio of such assets is nothing but the sum of their weighted standard deviations.

Also refer to the tutorial (and the Excel model - you will find it under Exam 2) for portfolio variances to see how portfolio volatility behaves when correlations are -1, 0 or +1.

A covered call is an attempt to earn premium income by selling calls while protecting against the downside by holding long the underlying. In case prices rise, the holder of the covered call can give away the held underlying. In case prices fall or stay below the strike price of the sold call, the holder of the covered call gets to keep the premium.

The holder of the covered call will suffer a loss if the price of the underlying declines due to the long position held in the underlying. However, these losses will be partly offset by the premiums earned on the calls sold.

Choice 'd' does not represent a correct statement as in the event of a rise in the price of the underlying the holder of the covered call will lose any upside, but will not have unlimited losses. In the event of a decline in stock prices, his losses will be equal to the loss on the underlying, minus the premium earned.