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.

Albert Wulf, CFA, is a portfolio manager with Upsala Asset Management, a regional financial services firm thathandles investments for small businesses in Northern Germany. For the most part, Wulf has been handlinglocally concentrated investments in European securities. Due to a lack of expertise in currency management heworks closely with James Bauer, a foreign exchange expert who manages international exposure in some ofUpsala's portfolios. Both individuals are committed to managing portfolio assets within the guidelines of clientinvestment policy statements.To achieve global diversification, Wulf's portfolio invests in securities from developed nations including theUnited States, Japan, and Great Britain. Due to recent currency market turmoil, translation risk has become ahuge concern for Upsala's managers. The U.S. dollar has recently plummeted relative to the euro, while theJapanese yen and British pound have appreciated slightly relative to the euro. Wulf and Bauer meet to discusshedging strategies that will hopefully mitigate some of the concerns regarding future currency fluctuations.Wulf currently has a $1,000,000 investment in a U.S. oil and gas corporation. This position was taken with theexpectation that demand for oil in the U.S. would increase sharply over the short-run. Wulf plans to exit thisposition 125 days from today. In order to hedge the currency exposure to the U.S. dollar, Bauer enters into a90-day U.S. dollar futures contract, expiring in September. Bauer comments to Wulf that this futures contractguarantees that the portfolio will not take any unjustified risk in the volatile dollar.Wulf recently started investing in securities from Japan. He has been particularly interested in the growth oftechnology firms in that country. Wulf decides to make an investment of ¥25,000,000 in a small technologyenterprise that is in need of start-up capital. The spot exchange rate for the Japanese yen at the time of theinvestment is ¥135/€. The expected spot rate in 90 days is ¥132/€. Given the expected appreciation of the yen,Bauer purchases put options that provide insurance against any deprecation of the euro. While delta-hedgingthis position, Bauer discovers that current at-the-money yen put options sell for €1 with a delta of -0.85. Hementions to Wulf that, in general, put options will provide a cheaper alternative to hedging than with futuressince put options are only exercised if the local currency depreciates.The exposure of Wulf’s portfolio to the British pound results from a 180-day pound-denominated investment of£5,000,000. The spot exchange rate for the British pound is £0.78/€. The value of the investment is expected toincrease to £5,100,000 at the end of the 180 day period. Bauer informs Wulf that due to the minimal expectedexchange rate movement, it would be in the best interest of their clients, from a cost-benefit standpoint, tohedge only the principal of this investment.Before entering into currency futures and options contracts, Wulf and Bauer discuss the possibility of alsohedging market risk due to changes in the value of the assets. Bauer suggests that in order to hedge against apossible loss in the value of an asset Wulf should short a given foreign market index. Wulf is interested inexecuting index hedging strategies that are perfectly correlated with foreign investments. Bauer, however,cautions Wulf regarding the increase in trading costs that would result from these additional hedging activities.Regarding the Japanese investment in the technology company, determine the appropriate transaction in putoptions to adjust the current delta hedge, given that the delta changes to -0.92. Assume that each yen putallows the right to self ¥1,000,000.

Paul Dennon is senior manager at Apple Markets Associates, an investment advisory firm. Dennon has beenexamining portfolio risk using traditional methods such as the portfolio variance and beta. He has rankedportfolios from least risky to most risky using traditional methods.Recently, Dennon has become more interested in employing value at risk (VAR) to determine the amount ofmoney clients could potentially lose under various scenarios. To examine VAR, Paul selects a fund run solelyfor Apple's largest client, the Jude Fund. The client has $100 million invested in the portfolio. Using thevariance-covariance method, the mean return on the portfolio is expected to be 10% and the standard deviationis expected to be 10%. Over the past 100 days, daily losses to the Jude Fund on its 10 worst days were (inmillions): 20, 18, 16, 15, 12, 11, 10, 9, 6, and 5. Dennon also ran a Monte Carlo simulation (over 10,000scenarios). The following table provides the results of the simulation:Figure 1: Monte Carlo Simulation DataThe top row (Percentile) of the table reports the percentage of simulations that had returns below thosereported in the second row (Return). For example, 95% of the simulations provided a return of 15% or less, and97.5% of the simulations provided a return of 20% or less.Dennon's supervisor, Peggy Lane, has become concerned that Dennon's use of VAR in his portfoliomanagement practice is inappropriate and has called for a meeting with him. Lane begins by asking Dennon tojustify his use of VAR methodology and explain why the estimated VAR varies depending on the method usedto calculate it. Dennon presents Lane with the following table detailing VAR estimates for another Apple client,the York Pension Plan.To round out the analytical process. Lane suggests that Dennon also incorporate a system for evaluatingportfolio performance. Dennon agrees to the suggestion and computes several performance ratios on the YorkPension Plan portfolio to discuss with Lane. The performance figures are included in the following table. Notethat the minimum acceptable return is the risk-free rate.Figure 3: Performance Ratios for the York Pension PlanUsing the historical data over the past 100 days, the 1-day, 5% VAR for the Jude Fund is closest to:

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%, paidsemiannually.Price 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."Assuming an immediate (today) increase in the immunized rate to 11%, the portfolio required return that wouldmost likely make Price turn to an immunization strategy is closest to:

Joan Weaver, CFA and Kim McNally, CFA are analysts for Cardinal Fixed Income Management. Cardinalprovides investment advisory services to pension funds, endowments, and other institutions in the U.S. andCanada. Cardinal recommends positions in investment-grade corporate and government bonds.Cardinal has largely advocated the use of passive approaches to bond investments, where the predominantholding consists of an indexed or enhanced indexed bond portfolio. They are exploring, however, the possibilityof using a greater degree of active management to increase excess returns. The analysts have made thefollowing statements.• Weaver: "An advantage of both enhanced indexing by matching primary risk factors and enhanced indexingby minor risk factor mismatching is that there is the potential for excess returns, but the duration of the portfoliois matched with that of the index, thereby limiting the portion of tracking error resulting from interest rate risk."• McNally: "The use of active management by larger risk factor mismatches typically involves large durationmismatches from the index, in an effort to capitalize on interest rate forecasts."As part of their increased emphasis on active bond management, Cardinal has retained the services of aneconomic consultant to provide expectations input on factors such as interest rate levels, interest rate volatility,and credit spreads. During his presentation, the economist states that he believes long-term interest ratesshould fall over the next year, but that short-term rates should gradually increase. Weaver and McNally arecurrently advising an institutional client that wishes to maintain the duration of its bond portfolio at 6.7. In light ofthe economic forecast, they are considering three portfolios that combine the following three bonds in varyingamounts.Weaver and McNally next examine an investment in a semiannual coupon bond newly issued by the ManixCorporation, a firm with a credit rating of AA by Moody's. The specifics of the bond purchase are providedbelow given Weaver's projections. It is Cardinal's policy that bonds be evaluated for purchase on a total returnbasis.One of Cardinal's clients, the Johnson Investment Fund (JIF), has instructed Weaver and McNally torecommend the appropriate debt investment for $125,000,000 in funds. JIF is willing to invest an additional15% of the portfolio using leverage. JIF requires that the portfolio duration not exceed 5.5. Weaverrecommends that JIF invest in bonds with a duration of 5.2. The maximum allowable leverage will be used andthe borrowed funds will have a duration of 0.8. JIF is considering investing in bonds with options and has askedMcNally to provide insight into these investments. McNally makes the following comments:"Due to the increasing sophistication of bond issuers, the amount of bonds with put options is increasing, andthese bonds sell at a discount relative to comparable bullets. Putables are quite attractive when interest ratesrise, but, we should be careful if with them, because valuation models often fail to account for the credit risk ofthe issuer."Another client, Blair Portfolio Managers, has asked Cardinal to provide advice on duration management. Oneyear ago, their portfolio had a market value of $3,010,444 and a dollar duration of $108,000; current figures areprovided below:The expected bond equivalent yield for the Manix Bond, using total return analysis, is closest to: