Free CFA Institute CFA-Level-III Exam Questions

Pace Insurance is a large, multi-line insurance company that also owns several proprietary mutual funds. Thefunds are managed individually, but Pace has an investment committee that oversees all of the funds. Thiscommittee is responsible for evaluating the performance of the funds relative to appropriate benchmarks andrelative to the stated investment objectives of each individual fund. During a recent investment committeemeeting, the poor performance of Pace's equity mutual funds was discussed. In particular, the inability of theportfolio managers to outperform their benchmarks was highlighted. The net conclusion of the committee wasto review the performance of the manager responsible for each fund and dismiss those managers whoseperformance had lagged substantially behind the appropriate benchmark.The fund with the worst relative performance is the Pace Mid-Cap Fund, which invests in stocks with acapitalization between S40 billion and $80 billion. A review of the operations of the fund found the following:• The turnover of the fund was almost double that of other similar style mutual funds.• The fund's portfolio manager solicited input from her entire staff prior to making any decision to sell an existingholding.• The beta of the Pace Mid-Cap Fund's portfolio was 60% higher than the beta of other similar style mutualfunds.• No stock is considered for purchase in the Mid-Cap Fund unless the portfolio manager has 15 years offinancial information on that company, plus independent research reports from at least three different analysts.• The portfolio manager refuses to increase her technology sector weighting because of past losses the fundincurred in the sector.• The portfolio manager sold all the fund's energy stocks as the price per barrel of oil rose above $80. Sheexpects oil prices to fall back to the $40 to S50 per barrel range.A committee member made the following two comments:Comment 1: "One reason for the poor recent performance of the Mid-Cap Mutual Fund is that the portfoliolacks recognizable companies. I believe that good companies make good investments."Comment 2: "The portfolio manager of the Mid-Cap Mutual Fund refuses to acknowledge her mistakes. Sheseems to sell stocks that appreciate, but hold stocks that have declined in value."The supervisor of the Mid-Cap Mutual Fund portfolio manager made the following statements:Statement 1: "The portfolio manager of the Mid-Cap Mutual Fund has engaged in quarter-end window dressingto make her portfolio look better to investors. The portfolio manager's action is a behavioral trait known as overreaction."Statement 2: "Each time the portfolio manager of the Mid-Cap Mutual fund trades a stock, she executes thetrade by buying or selling one-third of the position at a time, with the trades spread over three months. Theportfolio manager's action is a behavioral trait known as anchoring."Indicate whether Statement 1 and Statement 2 made by the supervisor are correct.

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.

Sue Gano and Tony Cismesia are performance analysts for the Barth Group. Barth provides consulting andcompliance verification for investment firms wishing to adhere to the Global Investment Performance Standards(GIPS ®). The firm also provides global performance evaluation and attribution services for portfolio managers.Barth recommends the use of GIPS to its clients due to its prominence as the standard for investmentperformance presentation.One of the Barth Group's clients, Nigel Investment Advisors, has a composite that specializes in exploiting theresults of academic research. This Contrarian composite goes long "loser" stocks and short "winner" stocks.The "loser' stocks are those that have experienced severe price declines over the past three years, while the"winner" stocks are those that have had a tremendous surge in price over the past three years. The Contrariancomposite has a mixed record of success and is rather small. It contains only four portfolios. Gano andCismesia debate the requirements for the Contrarian composite under the Global Investment PerformanceStandards.The Global Equity Growth composite of Nigel Investment Advisors invests in growth stocks internationally, andis tilted when appropriate to small cap stocks. One of Nigel's clients in the Global Equity Growth composite isCypress University. The university has recently decided that it would like to implement ethical investing criteriain its endowment holdings. Specifically, Cypress does not want to hold the stocks from any countries that aredeemed as human rights violators. Cypress has notified Nigel of the change, but Nigel does not hold any stocksin these countries. Gano is concerned that this restriction may limit investment manager freedom going forward.Gano and Cismesia are discussing the valuation and return calculation principles for both portfolios andcomposites, which they believe have changed over time. In order to standardize the manner in whichinvestment firms calculate and present performance to clients, Gano states that GIPS require the following:Statement 1: The valuation of portfolios must be based on market values and not book values or cost. Portfoliovaluations must be quarterly for all periods prior to January 1, 2001. Monthly portfolio valuations and returns arerequired for periods between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2010.Statement 2: Composites are groups of portfolios that represent a specific investment strategy or objective. Adefinition of them must be made available upon request. Because composites are based on portfolio valuation,the monthly requirement for return calculation also applies to composites for periods between January 1, 2001and January 1, 2010.The manager of the Global Equity Growth composite has a benchmark that is fully hedged against currencyrisk. Because the manager is confident in his forecasting of currency values, the manager does not hedge tothe extent that the benchmark does. In addition to the Global Equity Growth composite, Nigel InvestmentAdvisors has a second investment manager that specializes in global equity. The funds under her managementconstitute the Emerging Markets Equity composite. The benchmark for the Emerging Markets Equity compositeis not hedged against currency risk. The manager of the Emerging Markets Equity composite does not hedgedue to the difficulty in finding currency hedges for thinly traded emerging market currencies. The managerfocuses on security selection in these markets and does not try to time the country markets differently from thebenchmark.The manager of the Emerging Markets Equity composite would like to add frontier markets such as Bulgaria,Kenya, Oman, and Vietnam to their composite, with a 20% weight- The manager is attracted to frontier marketsbecause, compared to emerging markets, frontier markets have much higher expected returns and lowercorrelations. Frontier markets, however, also have lower liquidity and higher risk. As a result, the managerproposes that the benchmark be changed from one reflecting only emerging markets to one that reflects bothemerging and frontier markets. The date of the change and the reason for the change will be provided in thefootnotes to the performance presentation. The manager reasons that by doing so, the potential investor canaccurately assess the relative performance of the composite over time.Cismesia would like to explore the performance of the Emerging Markets Equity composite over the past twoyears. To do so, he determines the excess return each period and then compounds the excess return over thetwo years to arrive at a total two-year excess return. For the attribution analysis, he calculates the securityselection effect, the market allocation effect, and the currency allocation effect each year. He then adds all theyearly security selection effects together to arrive at the total security selection effect. He repeats this processfor the market allocation effect and the currency allocation effect.What are the GIPS requirements for the Contrarian composite of Nigel Investment Advisors?

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.