Free CFA Institute CFA-Level-III Exam Questions

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.

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?

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.

John Rawlins is a bond portfolio manager for Waimea Management, a U.S.-based portfolio management firm. Waimea specializes in the management of equity and fixed income portfolios for large institutional investors such as pension funds, insurance companies, and endowments. Rawlins uses bond futures contracts for both hedging and speculative positions. He frequently uses futures contracts for tactical asset allocation because, relative to cash instruments, futures have lower transactions costs and margin requirements. They also allow for short positions and longer duration positions not available with cash market instruments. Rawlins has a total of approximately $750 million of assets under management. In one of his client portfolios, Rawlins currently holds the following positions:The dollar duration of the cheapest to deliver bond (CTD) is $10,596.40 and the conversion factor is 1.3698.In a discussion of this bond hedge, Rawlins confers with John Tejada, his assistant. Tejada states that he hasregressed the corporate bond's yield against the yield for the CTD and has found that the slope coefficient forthis regression is 1.0. He states his results confirm the assumptions made by Rawlins for his hedgingcalculations. Rawlins states that had Tejada found a slope coefficient greater than one, the number of futurescontracts needed to hedge a position would decrease (relative to the regression coefficient being equal to one).In addition to hedging specific bond positions, Rawlins tends to be quite active in individual bond managementby moving in and out of specific issues to take advantage of temporary mispricing. Although the turnover in hisportfolio is sometimes quite high, he believes that by using his gut instincts he can outperform a buy-and-holdstrategy. Tejada on the other hand prefers using statistical software and simulation to help him find undervaluedbond issues. Although Tejada has recently graduated from a prestigious university with a master's degree infinance, Rawlins has not given Tejada full rein in decision-making because he believes that Tejada's approachneeds further evaluation over a period of both falling and rising interest rates, as well as in different creditenvironments.Rawlins and Tejada are evaluating two individual bonds for purchase. The first bond was issued by Dynacom, aU.S. telecommunications firm. This bond is denominated in dollars. The second bond was issued by BergamoMetals, an Italian based mining and metal fabrication firm. The Bergamo bond is denominated in euros. Theholding period for either bond is three months.The characteristics of the bonds are as follows:3-month cash interest rates are 1% in the United States and 2.5% in the European Union. Rawlins and Tejadawill hedge the receipt of euro interest and principal from the Bergamo bond using a forward contract on euros.Rawlins evaluates these two bonds and decides that over the next three months, he will invest in the Dynacombond. He notes that although (he Bergamo bond has a yield advantage of 1% over the next quarter, the euro isat a three month forward discount of approximately 1.5%. Therefore, he favors the Dynacom bond because thenet return advantage for the Dynacom bond is 0.5% over the next three months.Tejada does his own analysis and states that, although he agrees with Rawlins that the Dynacom bond has ayield advantage, he is concerned about the credit quality of the Dynacom bond. Specifically, he has heardrumors that the chief executive and the chairman of the board at Dynacom are both being investigated by theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for possible manipulation of Dynacom's stock price, just prior to theexercise of their options in the firm's stock. He believes that the resulting fallout from this alleged incident couldbe damaging to Dynacom's bond price.Tejada analyzes the potential impact on Dynacom's bond price using breakeven analysis. He believes thatnews of the incident could increase the yield on Dynacom's bond by 0.75%. Under this scenario, he states thathe would favor the Bergamo bond over the next three months, assuming that the yield on the Bergamo bondstays constant. Rawlins reviews Tejada's breakeven analysis and states that though he is appreciative ofTejada's efforts, the analysis relies on an approximation.Suppose that the original dollar duration for a 100 basis point change in interest rates was $4,901,106 and thatthe bond prices remain constant during the year. Based upon the durations one year from today, and assuminga proportionate investment in each of the three bonds, the amount of cash that will need to be invested torestore the average dollar duration to the original level 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: