Free CFA Institute CFA-Level-III Exam Questions

Eugene Price, CFA, a portfolio manager for the American Universal Fund (AUF), has been directed to pursue acontingent immunization strategy for a portfolio with a current market value of $100 million. AUF's trustees arenot willing to accept a rate of return less than 6% over the next five years. The trustees have also stated thatthey believe an immunization rate of 8% is attainable in today's market. Price has decided to implement thisstrategy by initially purchasing $100 million in 10-year bonds with an annual coupon rate of 8.0%, paidsemiannuallyPrice forecasts that the prevailing immunization rate and market rate for the bonds will both rise from 8% to 9%in one year.While Price is conducting his immunization strategy he is approached by April Banks, a newly hired junioranalyst at AUF. Banks is wondering what steps need to be taken to immunize a portfolio with multiple liabilities.Price states that the concept of single liability immunization can fortunately be extended to address the issue ofimmunizing a portfolio with multiple liabilities. He further states that there are two methods for managingmultiple liabilities. The first method is cash flow matching which involves finding a bond with a maturity dateequal to the liability payment date, buying enough in par value of that bond so that the principal and final couponfully fund the last liability, and continuing this process until all liabilities are matched. The second method ishorizon matching which ensures that the assets and liabilities have the same present values and durations.Price warns Banks about the dangers of immunization risk. He states that it is impossible to have a portfoliowith zero immunization risk, because reinvestment risk will always be present. Price tells Banks, "Be cognizantof the dispersion of cash flows when conducting an immunization strategy. When there is a high dispersion ofcash flows about the horizon date, immunization risk is high. It is better to have cash flows concentrated aroundthe investment horizon, since immunization risk is reduced."Regarding Price's statements on the two methods for managing multiple liabilities, determine whether hisdescriptions of cash flow matching and horizon matching are correct.

Jack Higgins, CFA, and Tim Tyler, CFA, are analysts for Integrated Analytics (LA), a U.S.-based investmentanalysis firm. JA provides bond analysis for both individual and institutional portfolio managers throughout theworld. The firm specializes in the valuation of international bonds, with consideration of currency risk. IAtypically uses forward contracts to hedge currency risk.Higgins and Tyler are considering the purchase of a bond issued by a Norwegian petroleum products firm,Bergen Petroleum. They have concerns, however, regarding the strength of the Norwegian krone currency(NKr) in the near term, and they want to investigate the potential return from hedged strategies. Higginssuggests that they consider forward contracts with the same maturity as the investment holding period, which isestimated at one year. He states that if IA expects the Norwegian NKr to depreciate and that the Swedish krona(Sk) to appreciate, then IA should enter into a hedge where they sell Norwegian NKr and buy Swedish Sk via aone-year forward contract. The Swedish Sk could then be converted to dollars at the spot rate in one year.Tyler states that if an investor cannot obtain a forward contract denominated in Norwegian NKr and if theNorwegian NKr and euro are positively correlated, then a forward contract should be entered into where euroswill be exchanged for dollars in one year. Tyler then provides Higgins the following data on risk-free rates andspot rates in Norway and the U.S., as well as the expected return on the Bergen Petroleum bond.Return on Bergen Petroleum bond in Norwegian NKr 7.00%Risk-free rate in Norway 4.80%Expected change in the NKr relative to the U.S. dollar -0.40%Risk-free rate in United States 2.50%Higgins and Tyler discuss the relationship between spot rates and forward rates and comment as follows.• Higgins: "The relationship between spot rates and forward rates is referred to as interest rate parity, wherehigher forward rates imply that a country's spot rate will increase in the future."• Tyler: "Interest rate parity depends on covered interest arbitrage which works as follows. Suppose the 1-yearU.K. interest rate is 5.5%, the 1-year Japanese interest rate is 2.3%, the Japanese yen is at a one-year forwardpremium of 4.1%, and transactions costs are minimal. In this case, the international trader should borrow yen.Invest in pound denominated bonds, and use a yen-pound forward contract to pay back the yen loan."The following day, Higgins and Tyler discuss various emerging market bond strategies and make the followingstatements.• Higgins: "Over time, the quality in emerging market sovereign bonds has declined, due in part to contagionand the competitive devaluations that often accompany crises in emerging markets. When one countrydevalues their currency, others often quickly follow and as a result the countries default on their external debt,which is usually denominated in a hard currency."• Tyler: "Investing outside the index can provide excess returns. Because the most common emerging marketbond index is concentrated in Latin America, the portfolio manager can earn an alpha by investing in emergingcountry bonds outside of this region."Turning their attention to specific issues of bonds, Higgins and Tyler examine the characteristics of two bonds:a six-year maturity bond issued by the Midlothian Corporation and a twelve-year maturity bond issued by theHorgen Corporation. The Midlothian bond is a U.S. issue and the Horgen bond was issued by a firm based inSwitzerland. The characteristics of each bond are shown in the table below. Higgins and Tyler discuss therelative attractiveness of each bond and, using a total return approach, which bond should be invested in,assuming a 1-year time horizon.Which of the following statements provides the best description of the advantage of using breakeven spread analysis? Breakeven spread analysis: 

Joan Nicholson, CFA, and Kim Fluellen, CFA, sit on the risk management committee for Thomasville AssetManagement. Although Thomasville manages the majority of its investable assets, it also utilizes outside firmsfor special situations such as market neutral and convertible arbitrage strategies. Thomasville has hired ahedge fund, Boston Advisors, for both of these strategies. The managers for the Boston Advisors funds areFrank Amato, CFA, and Joseph Garvin, CFA. Amato uses a market neutral strategy and has generated a returnof S20 million this year on the $100 million Thomasville has invested with him. Garvin uses a convertiblearbitrage strategy and has lost $15 million this year on the $200 million Thomasville has invested with him, withmost of the loss coming in the last quarter of the year. Thomasville pays each outside manager an incentive feeof 20% on profits. During the risk management committee meeting Nicholson evaluates the characteristics ofthe arrangement with Boston Advisors. Nicholson states that the asymmetric nature of Thomasville's contractwith Boston Advisors creates adverse consequences for Thomasville's net profits and that the compensationcontract resembles a put option owned by Boston Advisors.Upon request, Fluellen provides a risk assessment for the firm's large cap growth portfolio using a monthlydollar VAR. To do so, Fluellen obtains the following statistics from the fund manager. The value of the fund is$80 million and has an annual expected return of 14.4%. The annual standard deviation of returns is 21.50%.Assuming a standard normal distribution, 5% of the potential portfolio values are 1.65 standard deviationsbelow the expected return.Thomasville periodically engages in options trading for hedging purposes or when they believe that options aremispriced. One of their positions is a long position in a call option for Moffett Corporation. The option is aEuropean option with a 3-month maturity. The underlying stock price is $27 and the strike price of the option is$25. The option sells for S2.86. Thomasville has also sold a put on the stock of the McNeill Corporation. Theoption is an American option with a 2-month maturity. The underlying stock price is $52 and the strike price ofthe option is $55. The option sells for $3.82. Fluellen assesses the credit risk of these options to Thomasvilleand states that the current credit risk of the Moffett option is $2.86 and the current credit risk of the McNeilloption is $3.82.Thomasville also uses options quite heavily in their Special Strategies Portfolio. This portfolio seeks to exploitmispriced assets using the leverage provided by options contracts. Although this fund has achieved somespectacular returns, it has also produced some rather large losses on days of high market volatility. Nicholsonhas calculated a 5% VAR for the fund at $13.9 million. In most years, the fund has produced losses exceeding$13.9 million in 13 of the 250 trading days in a year, on average. Nicholson is concerned about the accuracy ofthe estimated VAR because when the losses exceed $13.9 million, they are typically much greater than $13.9million.In addition to using options, Thomasville also uses swap contracts for hedging interest rate risk and currencyexposures. Fluellen has been assigned the task of evaluating the credit risk of these contracts. Thecharacteristics of the swap contracts Thomasville uses are shown in Figure 1.Fluellen later is asked to describe credit risk in general to the risk management committee. She states thatcross-default provisions generally protect a creditor because they prevent a debtor from declaring immediatedefault on the obligation owed to the creditor when the debtor defaults on other obligations. Fluellen also statesthat credit risk and credit VAR can be quickly calculated because bond rating firms provide extensive data onthe defaults for investment grade and junk grade corporate debt at reasonable prices.Which of the following best describes the accuracy of the VAR measure calculated for the Special StrategiesPortfolio?

Security analysts Andrew Tian, CFA, and Cameron Wong, CFA, are attending an investment symposium at theSingapore Investment Analyst Society. The focus of the symposium is capital market expectations and relativeasset valuations across markets. Many highly-respected practitioners and academics from across the AsiaPacific region are on hand to make presentations and participate in panel discussions.The first presenter, Lillian So, President of the Society, speaks on market expectations and tools for estimatingintrinsic valuations. She notes that analysts attempting to gauge expectations are often subject to variouspitfalls that subjectively skew their estimates. She also points out that there are potential problems relating to achoice of models, not all of which describe risk the same way. She then provides the following data to illustratehow analysts might go about estimating expectations and intrinsic values.The next speaker, Clive Smyth, is a member of the exchange rate committee at the Bank of New Zealand. Hispresentation concerns the links between spot currency rates and forecasted exchange rates. He states thatforeign exchange rates are linked by several forces including purchasing power parity (PPP) and interest rateparity (IRP). He tells his audience that the relationship between exchange rates and PPP is strongest in theshort run, while the relationship between exchange rates and IRP is strongest in the long run. Smyth goes on tosay that when a country's economy becomes more integrated with the larger world economy, this can have aprofound impact on the cost of capital and asset valuations in that country.The final speaker in the session directed his discussion toward emerging market investments. This discussion,by Hector Ruiz, head of emerging market investment for the Chilean Investment Board, was primarilyconcerned with how emerging market risk differs from that in developed markets and how to evaluate thepotential of emerging market investments. He noted that sometimes an economic crisis in one country canspread to other countries in the area, and that asset returns often exhibit a greater degree of non-normality thanin developed markets.Ruiz concluded his presentation with the data in the tables below to illustrate factors that should be consideredduring the decision-making process for portfolio managers who are evaluating investments in emergingmarkets.Determine which of the following characteristics of emerging market debt investing presents the global fixedincome portfolio manager with the best potential to generate enhanced returns.

Jack Mercer and June Seagram are investment advisors for Northern Advisors. Mercer graduated from aprestigious university in London eight years ago, whereas Seagram is newly graduated from a mid-westernuniversity in the United States. Northern provides investment advice for pension funds, foundations,endowments, and trusts. As part of their services, they evaluate the performance of outside portfolio managers.They are currently scrutinizing the performance of several portfolio managers who work for the ThompsonUniversity endowment.Over the most recent month, the record of the largest manager. Bison Management, is as follows. On March 1,the endowment account with Bison stood at $ 11,200,000. On March 16, the university contributed $4,000,000that they received from a wealthy alumnus. After receiving that contribution, the account was valued at $17,800,000. On March 31, the account was valued at $16,100,000. Using this information, Mercer andSeagram calculated the time-weighted and money-weighted returns for Bison during March. Mercer states thatthe advantage of the time-weighted return is that it is easy to calculate and administer. Seagram states that themoney-weighted return is, however, a better measure of the manager's performance.Mercer and Seagram are also evaluating the performance of Lunar Management. Risk and return data for themost recent fiscal year are shown below for both Bison and Lunar. The minimum acceptable return (MAR) forThompson is the 4.5% spending rate on the endowment, which the endowment has determined using ageometric spending rule. The T-bill return over the same fiscal year was 3.5%. The return on the MSCI WorldIndex was used as the market index. The World index had a return of 9% in dollar terms with a standarddeviation of 23% and a beta of 1.0.The next day at lunch, Mercer and Seagram discuss alternatives for benchmarks in assessing the performanceof managers. The alternatives discussed that day are manager universes, broad market indices, style indices,factor models, and custom benchmarks. Mercer states that manager universes have the advantage of beingmeasurable but they are subject to survivor bias. Seagram states that manager universes possess only onequality of a valid benchmark.Mercer and Seagram also provide investment advice for a hedge fund, Jaguar Investors. Jaguar specializes inexploiting mispricing in equities and over-the-counter derivatives in emerging markets. They periodically engagein providing foreign currency hedges to small firms in emerging markets when deemed profitable. This mostcommonly occurs when no other provider of these contracts is available to these firms. Jaguar is selling a largeposition in Mexican pesos in the spot market. Furthermore, they have just provided a forward contract to a firmin Russia that allows that firm to sell Swiss francs for Russian rubles in 90 days. Jaguar has also entered into acurrency swap that allows a firm to receive Japanese yen in exchange for paying the Russian ruble.Regarding their statements about manager universes, determine whether Mercer and Seagram are correct orincorrect.