Free PRMIA 8006 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 4

The value of Bond 1 is $900,000 and the value of Bond 2 is $1,100,000, or their respective weights in the portfolio are 45% and 55% respectively. The combined duration is the weighted average of their individual durations, ie (45% x 5) + (55% x 10) = 7.75 years

The investor would benefit from the risk reversal and the bull spread as both these strategies have a payoff profile that benefit from rising prices of the underlying. The collar is the opposite of risk reversal, and benefits during a bear market, and the butterfly spread benefits when prices remain range bound. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

A traditional collateralized debt obligation (CDO) involves the complete transfer of securities to an SPV, which then issues notes or securities to investors. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

A synthetic CDO achieves the same result as a traditional CDO, but uses credit derivatives to synthetically create the same economic effect as a traditional CDO.

A credit default swap is a derivative instrument that pays in the event of the occurrence of agreed credit events. The arrangement described in the question is not a credit default swap purchase. n-th to default swap arrangements are similar to CDSs, but on a portfolio with the first 'n' losses being covered by the swap.

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.

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

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

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).

Security A 'dominates' security B, ie it offers the most return per unit of volatility. However, because it is less volatile, its returns are likely to be more concentrated around its mean compared to Security B which will have 'fatter tails' compared to Security A. Therefore Security B will offer a much better chance of making the desired 25% return. Of course, this also means that Security B is much more likely to lose a lot more money than Security A. However, if the portfolio manager is only interested in maximizing his chances of making a 25% or greater return, he should select Security B. The answer can be verified using Excel's Normdist formula, and probability of exceeding 25% will be given by [=1-NORMDIST(0.25,0.1,0.1,TRUE)] for Security A and =1-NORMDIST(0.25,0.1,0.2,TRUE)] for Security B. A combined portfolio of the two will have a return of 10% and variance less than that of Security B (or at the most equal to the weighted average of the two variances, even if their correlation is 1), which means a combined portfolio will also have a lower probability of exceeding a 25% return.

This question reflects how portfolio managers may be tempted to make sub-optimum decisions for their investors by swinging for the fences by taking large bets, for example, when they have had a big drawdown and have to make it up to the high water mark levels before they earn performance fees.

Analytical methods are more 'efficient' than numerical methods in terms of computing power required, consistency of results and providing clarity on the inputs driving the results. Therefore 'efficient valuation' is not a reason to adopt numerical pricing methods over analytical methods.

It is much easier to incorporate changing stochastic volatility, discontinuous asset prices or other complex payoffs using numerical pricing methods. So these certainly represent good reasons to use numerical pricing methods for valuing exotics.

Therefore Choice 'b' is 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 modified duration of a perpetual bond is given by 1/i, where i is the yield. Since I is a positive number greater than zero, it means the modified duration of a perpetual bond is not infinity. Also note that this formula makes no reference to the coupon rate at all - in other words, the modified duration of a perpetual bond is independent of the coupon. The Macaulay duration of a perpetual bond is given by (1+i)/i, again a formula devoid of any references to the coupon. The price of a perpetual bond can be calculated as Coupon/i, which means that a 15% coupon perpetual bond will be priced at exactly 3x the price of a 5% coupon bond.

Based on the above, statement I is incorrect, but statement II is correct. Statement III is incorrect because Bond A will be priced at exactly 1/3rd the price of Bond B, and not less than that. Similarly, statement IV is incorrect as well.

Intuitively, a perpetual bond is nothing but a perpetual annuity, which will have a present value equal to 1/i * cash flow (which in this case is the coupon). The coupon rate only sets the cash flow dollar amount - there is really no difference between the two bonds described in the question except that buying one of Bond B is economically identical to buying three of Bond A.

All the statements given are true, except that standard deviations cannot be averaged to get the portfolio standard deviation unless the assets are perfectly positively correlated. Therefore Choice 'd' is the false statement, and the correct answer.

For a portfolio of uncorrelated assets, ie correlations being equal to zero, variances can be added together to get portfolio variance. Also, regardless of correlations, portfolio returns are always the weighted average of asset returns, and just averages will do in this case as the portfolio is said to be equally weighted across the assets. A correlation of zero produces a risk level less than that possible with positive correlations.