Free PRMIA 8006 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

The arbitrage pricing theory is a multifactor model for explaining asset returns as it can be used to incorporate multiple factors, for example inflation, GDP growth rate, employment, interest rates etc to explain asset returns. Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

The single index model, as the name implies, uses only a single factor, and so does the CAPM which uses excess returns to explain an individual security's returns. Neither of these are multi-factor models.

This is a two step problem:

First, calculate the bond price using the yield information, then

Second, once you know the bond price, calculate the 18 month zero rate using the bootstrap method.

Step 1: Bond valuation: All variables required for pricing the bond are known. The coupon payments will be $1.50 in 6 months and 1 year from now, and a final paymento of $101.50 will be received in an year's time. This can be discounted at the yield provided as follows, and summed together to get the bond price of $97.14.

Step 2: Boot strapping: Discount the 6 month and 12 month coupons at the zero rates for those periods, and subtract the total of these PVs from the bond price. These work out to 1.5/(1+2%/2) = 1.485, and 1.5/(1+3%/2)^2=1.456. That gives us the present value, $97.14 - $1.485 - 1.456 = $94.203, which grows to the final payment of $101.50 at the end of 18 months. The zero rate inherent in this price can then be worked out as we know that (1+r/2)^3 = 101.5/94.203, or r = 5.03%.

We need to calculate the total dollar duration of the bond portfolio, which is =100*7.5 - 65*12 + 120*6 = $690m. This means a 10 basis point change in interest rates changes the value of the portfolio by $690m*10bps = $0.69m, or $690,000. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

[Here is an alternate step-by-step way of thinking about it. Let us consider changes to each position separately.a. A long position worth $100m in a bond with a modified duration of 7.5A 1% increase reduces the value of the bond by 7.5%. Therefore a 10bps = 0.1% change in interest rates will change the position by 0.75% = $100m*0.75% = $750,000 decrease.b. A short position worth $65m in a bond with a modified duration of 12A 1% increase increases the value of the position by 12% (remember this is a short position). Therefore a 10bps = 0.1% change in interest rates will change the position by 1.2% = $65m*1.2% = $780,000 increase.c. A long position worth $120m in a bond with a modified duration of 6A 1% increase reduces the value of the bond by 6%. Therefore a 10bps = 0.1% change in interest rates will change the position by 0.6% = $120m*0.6% = $720,000 decrease.The net change in the value of the porfolio is therefore:-750,000 + 780,000 - 720,000 = $690,000]

[Here is an alternate step-by-step way of thinking about it. Let us consider changes to each position separately.

a. A long position worth $100m in a bond with a modified duration of 7.5

A 1% increase reduces the value of the bond by 7.5%. Therefore a 10bps = 0.1% change in interest rates will change the position by 0.75% = $100m*0.75% = $750,000 decrease.

b. A short position worth $65m in a bond with a modified duration of 12

A 1% increase increases the value of the position by 12% (remember this is a short position). Therefore a 10bps = 0.1% change in interest rates will change the position by 1.2% = $65m*1.2% = $780,000 increase.

c. A long position worth $120m in a bond with a modified duration of 6

A 1% increase reduces the value of the bond by 6%. Therefore a 10bps = 0.1% change in interest rates will change the position by 0.6% = $120m*0.6% = $720,000 decrease.

The net change in the value of the porfolio is therefore:

-750,000 + 780,000 - 720,000 = $690,000]

Choice 'a' correctly describes a holder extendible option. Choice 'd' describes a writer extendible option. The other choices are meaningless.

On-the-run bonds yield less, and therefore are priced higher than similar off-the-run bonds. The difference in their pricing reflects the fact that on-the-run bonds are more liquid than off-the-run bonds. Therefore statements I and II are correct. Bonds are on-the-run when they are issued, and change hands frequently, and over time as they become 'seasoned', newer bonds take their place as on-the-run bonds making them off-the-run.

Strips are zero coupon instruments, and do not carry any coupon. Therefore statement III is not correct.

A lower bid-ask or bid-offer spread indicates lower transaction costs and is a result of greater liquidity. A higher bid-ask spread results for less liquid securities. Therefore statement IV is not correct.

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.

All the choices list inputs into the determination of futures prices. Therefore volatility in any of them affects the volatility of futures prices. Of course, the largest contributor to the volatility is the volatility of the spot price of the underlying. Choice 'd' is the correct 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.

In this case, the yield beta is 1 (as the question speaks of a parallel shift in the yield curve, ie all rates rise or fall together), and the ratio of the BPVs is 5/8. Therefore she should sell 5/8 x 1,000,000 = $625,000 of the 30 year bond.

Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A portfolio loses its delta neutrality if the delta of the portfolio changes but the underlying hedge is unchanged. The portfolio that will require the most rebalancing will be one whose delta changes by larger amounts in response to a given change in the price of the underlying. The sensitivity of the changes in delta in response to changes in the price of the underlying is measured by gamma. The higher the gamma, the more the portfolio will go out of delta neutrality given a change in the price of the underlying. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A portfolio with a low gamma will maintain its delta over a larger price range for the underlying, and is therefore likely to require less frequent rebalancing. The absolute level of the delta itself does not matter, what matters is the gamma. Vega is irrelevant to the delta hedging decision. Therefore the other choices are incorrect.

According to ISDA, a credit event is an event linked to the deteriorating credit worthiness of an underlying reference entity in a credit derivative. The occurrence of a credit event usually triggers full or partial termination of the transaction and a payment from protection seller to protection buyer. Credit events include

- bankruptcy,

- failure to pay,

- restructuring,

- obligation acceleration,

- obligation default and

- repudiation/moratorium.

Therefore all four events listed are credit events and Choice 'b' is the correct answer.