Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FinQuiz.com
CFA Level II Mock Exam3
June, 2016
Revision 1
Django Limited (DL) is an investment management firm situated in the U.S. It provides
portfolio management as well as investment advisory services to private wealth and
institutional clients.
Ridley Jacob, CFA, is one of DL’s senior portfolio managers. Jacob has developed an
interest in foreign markets. A local Russian newsletter, published in multiple languages,
included a full-length article on the proposed merger between a Russian and German
steel manufacturer. The article included excerpts from several local research reports
strongly recommending the purchase of the Russian manufacturer’s stock. While the
news is still unheard of in the U.S. market, Jacob rushes to instruct DL’s broker to
purchase the Russian manufacturer’s stock for his U.S. clients’ portfolios.
Following the purchase, Jacob meets with his client, Travis Barnes. Barnes explains to
Jacob that he intends to construct a charity hospital and would like to liquidate $2 million
from his portfolio immediately. Jacob assures Barnes that he will sell Barnes’ corporate
bond holdings to generate the funds. Upon returning from his meeting, Jacob engages in a
discussion with DL’s fixed income portfolio manager. While careful not to reveal
Barnes’ identity, Jacob shares his bond strategy with the manager. The manager advises
Jacob to delay the sales until the announcement of the monetary policy, which is
expected shortly. He explains that by waiting Jacob can sell the bond holdings at
attractive prices. Jacob delays his disposal strategy accordingly.
Several of DL’s clients have expressed an interest in alternative investments. DL does not
have any experience with these asset classes and conducts a search for a potential
external advisor, with the selection criteria being primarily based on market popularity.
Camilla Jacob, Jacob’s sister resides in Brazil. She recently purchased the stock of
Energon-V, a local energy supplier, for her brother’s private account. A month later, the
supplier announces an IPO of its stock. Jacob allocates the supplier’s stock to the
accounts of clients expressing an interest; portfolio managers of those clients passing a
suitability test; and a senior manager’s private account paying the same fee rate as DL’s
clients.
Later that evening, Jacob attends an annual investment conference. At the conference
dinner he discusses his role at DL; the fact that he manages the accounts of private wealth
and institutional clients. When asked whether he manages Elaine Green’s account
(Jacob’s first cousin), he politely declines to share any further information.
All DL employees are required to sign a pre-clearance form prior to any personal trades.
Several of Jacob’s subordinates have purchased securities within thirty-six hours
following the dissemination of investment recommendations to clients from third party
research firms. Jacob has not taken any action in response to these trades.
1. By instructing DL’s broker to purchase the Russian stock, has Jacob violated any
CFA Standards of Professional Conduct?
A. No.
B. Yes, he failed to share the information with DL.
C. Yes, he acted on material nonpublic information.
2. With respect to his discussion with the fixed income manager, Jacob has most
likely violated the Standard related to:
A. fair dealing.
B. loyalty, prudence, and care.
C. preservation of client confidentiality.
3. In order to better comply with the CFA Institute Code and Standards, DL should
evaluate potential advisors based on their:
4. By purchasing Energon-V’s shares for client accounts, Jacob has least likely
violated the Standard related to:
A. priority of transactions.
B. disclosure of conflicts.
C. loyalty, prudence, and care.
A. No.
B. Yes, by sharing information with respect to client types.
C. Yes, by not sharing information with respect to his cousin’s account.
6. By not taking any action on the personal trades, has Jacob violated any Standards
of Professional Conduct?
A. No.
B. Yes, by not enforcing a sufficient blackout period.
C. Yes, by not adequately supervising his subordinates.
For pricing its projects, GC presently holds a contract agreement with a third party
valuation firm. The contract is near expiration and GC is contemplating the development
of its own project price-forecasting model. It has tasked Richards with building the
model.
To develop the model, Richards intends to use linear regression. Each project is expected
to be priced by multiplying a margin percentage to net construction costs and adding a
base price; the base price is the minimum project price. The regression model will be
based on several projects’ prices over the years 2005 to 2010. She justifies her data
selection technique with the following statement:
Statement 1: “Industry conditions were significantly different during the pre-2005 era.”
Two years following the implementation of her model, Richards conducts a variety of
tests. She gathers the following data for the purposes of analysis (Exhibits 1 and 2).
Exhibit 1
Regression Data and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Multiple R 0.8821
R-squared 0.7651
Standard Error of Estimate 0.6347
Observations 62
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Df (SS)
Regression 1 0.1856
Residual 60 0.0268
Total 61 0.2124
Exhibit 2
Significance levels
df p = 0.10 p= 0.05 p= 0.025
2 1.886 2.920 4.303
60 1.296 1.671 2.000
70 1.294 1.667 1.994
Richards would like to determine the ability of her model to generate price forecasts. She
identifies three factors, which may be useful in developing a prediction interval.
Factor 4: Correlation between mean construction costs and mean forecasted price =
0.75
Upon the completion of the regression tests, she engages in a discussion with fellow
manager Earl Matthews. The two employees arrive at the following conclusions with
respect to the regression analysis.
Conclusion 1: If the sample size is increased from 62 to 80 projects, the standard error of
estimate measure will increase. This will reduce the reliability of
regression results.
Conclusion 2: The standard error of estimate measures the standard deviation of the
residual term; its numerator is calculated as the difference between the
actual and predicted value of the independent variable.
A. panel data.
B. time series analysis.
C. cross-sectional analysis.
A. 114.44.
B. 415.52.
C. 885.00.
A. Factor 1
B. Factor 2
C. Factor 4
10. The standard deviation of the prediction error given independent variable equals
425 is closest to:
A. 5.063.
B. 25.636.
C. 41.093.
A. correct.
B. incorrect, the standard error of estimate should decrease.
C. incorrect, the standard error of estimate will remain constant.
A. correct.
B. incorrect, the standard error of estimate is the standard deviation of the
actual values of the independent variable.
C. incorrect, the numerator is calculated as the difference between the actual
and predicted value of the dependent variable.
Ian Joshlin, CFA is an economic analyst at a U.K. based research firm. Joshlin is
preparing an interactive presentation in which he will cover the following agenda:
• Explain how interest rate and inflation differentials determine exchange rates
• Demonstrate the return generated by a carry trade involving the GBP and AUD and
evaluate the sources of downside crash risk.
To achieve the first item on his agenda, Joshlin focuses on the domestic and foreign
Russian currency market. He collects LIBOR rates, inflation rates, current spot rate and
3-month forward rate data for the analysis (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1
Relevant RUB and GBP Economic Data
After collecting the necessary data, Joshlin poses the following questions to his team:
Question 1: “If the expected spot exchange rate in three months’ time is forecasted to
equal RUB/GBP 41.89, which parity conditions will be expected to hold?”
Question 2: “Based on interest rate parity conditions, for the investor to be indifferent
between owning a Russian and British Investment should the GBP
appreciate or depreciate and by how much?”
Question 3: “If the value of the GBP is expected to remain at its current level, will the
inflation differential influence the competitiveness of Russian and British
firms?”
At the conclusion of the presentation, Joshlin invites the participants to make comments.
Two of the comments, which he receives are:
Comment 1: “Keeping all else constant, if the RUB/GBP nominal exchange rate
increases, it will become less expensive for Russian consumers to
purchase U.K. products in real terms.”
Comment 2: “Absolute PPP will fail to hold in a country that imposes import quotas
and the same goods are consumed in different amounts in two countries.”
To achieve his second agenda, Joshlin demonstrates a carry trade, which involves
borrowing in GBP and investing in AUD at the 1-year LIBOR. Joshlin collects the
necessary data and would like to demonstrate the AUD yield level that would generate a
zero net return on the carry trade. He collects LIBOR rates and current and one-year spot
rates for the USD/AUD and GBP/USD currency pairs.
Exhibit 2
Data Relevant For Carry Trade
Today’s 1-Year Currency Pairs Spot Rate Today Spot Rate in One Year
LIBOR
AUD USD/AUD 1.0400 0.9956
5.0%
GBP GBP/USD 0.6611 0.7010
0.6%
Appreciate or Percentage
Depreciate? Change?
A. Appreciate 0.346%
B. Depreciate 0.161%
C. Depreciate 1.020%
A. Comment 1 only
B. Comment 2 only
C. Both of the comments
17. Assuming the GBP yield remains unchanged, the one year AUD LIBOR rate that
will produce a zero net return on the carry trade is closest to:
A. 0.99%.
B. 1.51%.
C. 2.12%.
18. Which of the following factors directly contributes to the downside risk of carry
trades?
Alpha & Beta Money Managers (A&B) is an investment management firm established by
a group of eminent portfolio managers with considerable experience in asset
management. David Knox is the chief portfolio manager at A&B and has played a pivotal
role in developing and enhancing the firm’s reputation. Due to high success in its
industry, A&B recently decided to provide its services not only to private wealth clients
but also to institutional investors. The institutional wing at A&B has hired a number of
professional investment analysts and portfolio managers. As part of their stock-picking
process, James Mazzola, the head of the institutional wing, invited Knox over to discuss
international differences in capital structures of companies. Knox made the following
comments:
Statement 1: “The legal system can have important implications on the capital structure
of firms in a country. Generally, the more efficient the legal system of a
country is the more protection debt providers get, and the higher the
leverage of companies operating in the country. Also, firms in such
countries tend to use more long-term debt in their capital structures.”
Statement 2: “Countries with a common law tradition have stronger shareholder rights
than civil-law countries. Hence, firms in common-law countries use less
debt and more equity in their capital structure. However, even though
common-law countries are more market-based than bank-based, firms
within such countries tend to use longer debt maturity structures compared
to their peers in civil-law countries.”
After their meeting, Mazzola approached Knox to have an informal discussion on the
various theories of capital structure. As their conversation continued, Mazzola mentioned
the Modigliani and Miller Propositions without taxes, and inquired how the theory is
modified with the introduction of taxes. Knox made the following comment:
“According to MM Propositions without taxes, the cost of equity is increased as the use
of debt financing is increased. However, with taxes, the cost of equity and WACC
decreases as debt increases in the capital structure. This is true if financial distress and
bankruptcy costs are not considered.”
“I believe that even if the costs of corporate taxes, financial distress and bankruptcy are
considered, it is possible in the Miller model for debt to add value, lower value or have
absolutely no effect on value.”
Mazzola is evaluating the expansion of Hexagon Enterprises (HXE), an all equity firm
with a current cost of capital of 15%. For the expansion, HXE would issue debt at a rate
of 11.5%, and doing so would increase it debt-to-equity ratio to 0.6. The corporate tax
rate is 35%. Mazzola is assessing how taxes would affect HXE’s cost of equity after the
issuance of debt.
After his evaluation of HXE’s expansion strategy, Mazzola proceeded with the regular
performance appraisal of a pension fund he manages. The fund invests 2% of its value in
the stock of Vivid Enterprises (VIE), a U.S. firm operating in the media industry. VIE
stock’s price has been fluctuating considerably over the past few quarters and Mazzola
believes that it is due to an ineffective corporate governance system at the firm. To assess
the quality of corporate governance at VIE, Mazzola gathered the following information:
To discuss his evaluation of VIE’s governance quality, Mazzola talked to Knox about the
management compensation at VIE. After a thorough examination of the compensation
structure at VIE, Knox instructed Mazzola to assess the ‘share overhang’ in order to
adequately measure the impact of the compensation structure on shareholder value.
VIE is considering expanding its operations in other states of the United States. In
assessing the expansion strategy, upper management at VIE is analyzing the individual
impact on firm value of expansion in each of the desired States. Management is using a
14% firm WACC to determine the attractiveness of each project.
A. Statement 1 only.
B. Statement 2 only.
C. both statements 1 and 2.
20. With respect to their comments regarding the MM Propositions, are Knox and
Mazzola most likely correct?
21. Compared to the cost of equity without the consideration of taxes, HXE’s cost of
equity with taxes will most likely be:
A. 0.74% lower.
B. 5.98% lower.
C. 6.67% lower.
22. Considering each independent of the others, which of the above points about
VIE’s corporate governance system most likely indicates high quality
governance?
23. Knox has suggested to assess the share overhang of VIE most likely because:
24. In assessing the impact of its expansion strategy on firm value, VIE will most
likely:
Exhibit 1
2012 2011
Years Ended 31 December
(in $ millions) (in $ millions)
Total Revenue 76,880 61,238
Cost of Goods Sold 47,920 38,339
Operating Profit 28,960 22,899
Net Profit 21,054 19,673
Exhibit 2
2012 2011
Years Ended 31 December
(in $ millions) (in $ millions)
Cash and short-term investments 5,898 4,983
Inventories 12,675 10,433
Total current assets 55,573 43,416
Total shareholder’s equity 23,569 18,875
Total liabilities 67,302 54,033
Further study of the financial statement notes by Gandy revealed the following:
• Prime-Cut values inventory on a LIFO basis and reports inventories at the lower of
cost or market on the balance sheet.
• The LIFO reserve equaled $7,819 for year 2012 and $7,106 for year 2011.
• The company paid taxes of 35% in the year 2012 and 30% for every year before that.
Statement 2: “If the company followed the FIFO method of inventory accounting it
would have reported total assets of $96,309 million in 2012 and its
cumulative gross profits would have been $7,819 higher as of the end of
the same year.”
Gandy is also assessing Crystal Enterprises (CE), a firm that produces optical equipment
since 2010. Exhibit 3 displays CE’s financial statement information under LIFO
inventory costing.
Exhibit 3
2010 2011 2012
Number of units purchased 15,000 15,000 15,000
Purchase cost per unit $60 $70 $85
Number of units sold 13,000 15,000 16,000
Sales price per unit $100 $115 $135
Cost of goods sold $780,000 $1,050,000 $1,335,000
After his evaluation, Westmore invited Gandy over for lunch to discuss his conclusions.
During their conversation Westmore made the following comments:
Statement 3: “Under IFRS, for held-to-maturity debt investments that become impaired,
the amount of loss is measured as the difference between the security
carrying value and the PV of future cash flows discounted at the security’s
current market effective interest rate.”
Statement 4: “Under IFRS, impairment losses on available for sale debt and equity
securities cannot be reversed.”
25. If Prime-Cut Manufacturers had used the FIFO method of inventory costing
instead of the LIFO method, by what amount would the firm’s 2012 net cash flow
from operations and retained earnings change?
A. Statement 1 only.
B. Statement 2 only.
C. neitherStatement 1 nor Statement 2.
27. The amount of CE’s 2012 gross profit due to LIFO liquidation is closest to:
A. $10,000.
B. $15,000.
C. $25,000.
28. If Perfect-Stitch Enterprises expensed the interest instead of capitalizing it, the
interest coverage ratio in 2011 would be closest to:
A. 6.60.
B. 6.73.
C. 7.25.
29. If Perfect-Stitch Enterprises expensed the interest instead of capitalizing it, the
change in operating cash flow from the year 2011-2012 would be:
A. positive.
B. less negative.
C. more negative.
A. Statement 3 only.
B. Statement 4 only.
C. neither Statement 3 nor Statement 4.
Ché Enterprises is a U.S. based locomotive manufacturer with subsidiaries situated across
the world. KamlaRahul, CFA, is an equity analyst following the manufacturer. She is
particularly interested in one of its Asian subsidiaries, Chrome Ltd. The subsidiary is
situated in China and accounts for its inventory using the FIFO method and the lower of
cost or market rule.
Rahul has collected selected balance sheet and income statement information on the
subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2011 (Exhibit 1). Chrome uses the Chinese
Yuan (CNY) to compile its financial statements. She has also collected relevant exchange
rate data (Exhibit 2). Ché uses the current method for translating Chrome’s financial
statements.
Exhibit 1
Selected Financial Information for Chrome Ltd
For the Year Ending December 31, 2011
CNY (‘000)
Cash 800
Inventory, measured at historical cost 300
Inventory, measured at market value 400
Accounts receivable 2,000
Noncurrent assets 4,500
Total assets 8,000
Total liabilities 2,200
Common Stock 2,600
Retained Earnings 3,200
Revenue 2,700
EBIT 1,989
Net Income 1,005
Exhibit 2
Exchange rate data (US$ per CNY)
January 1, 2010 0.146
Rate when fixed assets were acquired 0.122
Rate when 2010 inventory was acquired 0.125
Rate when 2011 inventory was acquired 0.129
Average rate, 2010 0.148
December 31, 2011 0.150
A. 97.
B. 105.
C. 4,667.
32. If the CNY had depreciated from 0.150 ($ per CNY) to 0.146 rather than
appreciated, total translated assets (in $’000s) would have been:
A. 32 higher.
B. 32 lower.
C. 1,200 lower.
33. Based on the data provided in Exhibits 1 and 2, upon translating Chrome's
financial statements, Ché will report a cumulative:
34. If Ché uses the temporal method, Chrome's interest coverage will most likely be:
A. higher.
B. lower.
C. the same.
35. When translating Chrome's financial statements, Ché will most likely translate the:
36. Which of the following will most likely be higher under the temporal method?
A. Quick ratio
B. Common stock
C. Fixed asset turnover
Matt Tonne is an equity specialist at a leading investment bank with considerable know-
how of financial modeling and financial statements analysis. Tonne specializes in the
automobile sector of the U.S. economy and is considered one of the most prestigious
research analysts for the sector. Recently, Fast-Tires Automobiles (FTA), a U.S. car
manufacturer, captured Tonne’s attention. FTA builds its cars for and markets its cars to
the female community, with its cars specially designed and customized to meet unique
female needs. Exhibit 1 shows some details found in FTA’s financial statements. The tax
rate is 40%.
Exhibit 1
Details Concerning FTA’s Financial Statements
Year Ending 31 December
(in thousands of dollars)
2011 2012
Net Income 135.98 156.45
Depreciation 53.21 62.67
Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable (23) 43
Decrease (increase) in inventory (11) 7
(Decrease) increase in trade payables (45) (58)
(Decrease) increase in accrued expenses 12 24
(Decrease) increase in other creditors 50 57
Purchases of property, plant and equipment 67 96
Borrowing (repayment) 39.96 46.38
*Cash paid for interest was $23,985 in 2011 and $27,104 in 2012. Cash paid for
taxes was $47,800 in 2011 and $53,098 in 2012.
After his analysis of FTA’s financial statements, Tonne made the following comments in
his research report:
Statement 1: “After scrutinizing the firm’s financial statements, I believe that the
change in the depreciation account from year 2011 to 2012 is positive for
future cash flow from operations but negative for future net income.”
Statement 2: “The changes in the working capital accounts in 2012 will all have a
positive effect on the firm’s free cash flow to equity except for the change
in the trade payables account.”
Tonne is also reviewing the firm’s financial statements for the year 2010. Till 2010, FTA
followed the International Financial Reporting Standards (after which it followed the
U.S. GAAP) and classified its dividends received as an investing activity and interest
paid as a financing activity. Using the changes in the working capital accounts, Tonne
determined that FTA has a total CFO equal to $98,473. Interest expense for the year
equaled $18,900 and taxes paid equaled $41,009. The company paid a tax rate of 37.7%
during that year. Fixed capital expenditures equaled $59,000 for 2010 and depreciation
equaled $47,230. Tonne is determining the FCFF of FTA for 2010 and 2011.
Tonne’s investment bank has been hired by a large foundation for the management of its
equity portfolio. The foundation’s board is particularly interested in the stock of Haley
and Jones Incorporated (H&J), a well-established grocery chain in the U.S. Tonne’s
supervisor, Leesa Evans, has asked Tonne to research the company’s fundamentals for
the current year. After a few hours of thorough examination, Tonne determined that the
company spent $120,000 in cash on fixed capital. In addition, H&J incurred a cash
outflow of $78,000 for investments in working capital. Also, the financial statements
show a deferred tax liability of $34,569 due to different depreciation methods used for
financial reporting and for tax accounting. Tonne expects this amount to reverse in the
near future. H&J also shows a deferred tax asset of $15,209 formed due to restructuring
charges and H&J is expected to have these charges on a continual basis. Exhibit 2 shows
some other information related to H&J.
Exhibit 2
Information Relevant to H&J
Net Income $155,095
Depreciation $23,000
Amortization of long-term bond discounts $7,000
Loss on sale of equipment $12,000
Interest expense $23,957
Tax rate 35%
Evans has invested $200,000 in a manufacturing concern that just earned an EPS of
$3.45/share. Evans expects the future growth rate in dividends to equal 6.8%. After her
calculations, Evans estimated that the company’s value of growth equals $14.73/share.
The company has a beta of 1.4. The risk free rate is 5.5% and the market risk premium is
7.0%.
Evans is also evaluating Energy Chemicals Inc. (ENERC). She has gathered the
following information about ENERC:
Evans is valuing another firm, Eternal Enterprises (EE), using the FCFE approach. Evans
estimated the per share value of the firm using the single-stage H-model.
A. Statement 1 only.
B. Statement 2 only.
C. both statements 1 and 2.
38. Ignoring the accrued expenses and “other creditors” accounts, the FCFF of FTA
for the year 2010 and 2011 is closest to:
39. The FCFF of H&J for the current year is closest to:
A. –$541.95.
B. $34,027.05.
C. $20,027.05.
40. Assuming that prices reflect value, the price to earnings multiple of the
manufacturing firm is closest to:
A. 10.534.
B. 10.805.
C. 18.709.
A. $64.969.
B. $77.367.
C. $85.634.
A. growth phase.
B. transition phase.
C. mature phase.
Antoine Chaput, CFA, is an independent equity analyst following Tavos Ltd, a U.S.
based steel manufacturer with international subsidiaries. Chaput is particularly interested
in valuing Tavos using residual income approaches. Tavos compiles and presents its
financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Selective financial information
relevant to the manufacturer is summarized in the Exhibit 1. Chaput intends to use this
information to formulate residual income forecasts.
Exhibit 1
Selective Financial Information Relevant to Tavos Ltd.
Forecast Horizon 3 years
Current share price, 2010 $47.50
Return on equity – Year 1, 2, and 3 25%; 23%; and 21%, respectively
Book value of equity as of December 2010 $15.50 per share
Book value of debt as of December 2010 $32 million
Forecasted Earnings per share (Year 1) $14.50
Forecasted Earnings per share – Years 2-3 Increases by 5% per annum
Earnings retention rate 100%
Cost of equity 11%
Number of shares 2,000,000
Assumption 1: Return on equity will decay towards the cost of equity in 2014 and beyond
at a persistence factor of 0.66.
Assumption 2: Beginning January 1, 2010, Tavos will continue to earn earnings per share
of $14.50 indefinitely.
Laport and Davis Steel are two steel manufacturers operating in the same industry as
Tavos. Chaput is interested in determining the residual income persistence of the two
manufacturers. Information related to Laport, Davis Steel, and the steel industry is
summarized in the Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2
Analytical Information
Relevant to Laport, Davis Steel, and Industry Average
Laport Davis Steel Industry Average
Earnings Retention Rate 0.70 0.80 0.56
Average Net income
$45 million $122 million $80 million
(2006-2010)
Return on Equity Range
– 8% to +35% 16% to 20% 15% to 18%
(2006-2010)
Observation 1: Under Tavos’ sales policy, products are shipped to a third party
warehouse, which dispatches the orders to customers. Due to their limited
storage facilities, customers do not request orders to be shipped
immediately. Associated revenues are recognized two days following the
release of orders from Tavos’ factory site.
43. Using Exhibit 1, Tavos’ market value added (MVA) for the year 2010 is closest to
(in $ millions):
A. 32.
B. 63.
C. 95.
44. Using Assumption 1, the dollar equity capital charge (per share) in 2012 is closest
to:
A. 1.71.
B. 1.79.
C. 3.30.
45. Based on Assumption 1 and using the data in Exhibit 1, the present value of the
terminal value is closest to:
A. $17.89.
B. $21.65.
C. $106.92.
A. overvalued.
B. undervalued.
C. fairly valued.
47. Based on the information presented in Exhibit 2, Chaput will most likely conclude
that the residual income persistence of:
A. Laport is higher.
B. Davis Steel is higher.
C. Laport and Davis Steel are equal.
48. Which of the following most accurately highlights the impact of Observations 1
and 2 on residual income?
Observation 1: Observation 2:
A. Overstated No impact
B. Understated Understated
C. Overstated Overstated
Based on the information collected in the Exhibit, Mendes attempts to answer the
following queries put forth by one of his subordinates, Carl Rodriguez:
Question 1: What is the effective duration of the callable bond relative to an option-free
bond when the embedded option is deep in the money?
Question 2: Which bond issue will experience the greatest percentage price decline in
response to a steepening of the yield curve?
Question 3: What is the impact of a flattening of the yield curve on the effective
convexity of callable and putable bond issues?
After attending to the subordinate’s queries, Mendes attempts to value BTS’s putable
issue using a binominal interest rate tree (Exhibit 2). He has used an interest rate
volatility of 15% to construct the tree.
After constructing the tree, Mendes realizes that he must factor in an option-adjusted
spread (OAS) of 100 basis points prior to valuing the issue. He then proceeds to adjust
the tree. Rodriguez is asked to review the calculation of the bond’s value after
incorporating the OAS. Rodriguez conducts a scenario analysis for the purposes of
determining the impact of change in OAS on bond value. He summarizes the results of
his analysis in the following statement:
Statement: “The OAS should increase as interest rate volatility increases reflecting the
additional compensation required for higher risk. This holds true for both
callable and putable bonds.”
49. Using Exhibit 1, the most appropriate response to Question 1 and Question 2,
respectively, is:
Question 1: Question 2:
A. closer to 8.0 callable.
B. lower than 8.0 option-free.
C. higher than 8.0 putable.
51. Using the data in Exhibits 1 and 2, the value of the putable bond (% of par value)
upon incorporating the OAS is closest to:
A. $98.50.
B. $110.244.
C. $115.210.
52. Rodriguez’s statement concerning the impact of OAS on interest rate volatility is
most likely:
A. correct.
B. incorrect; the statement holds true for callable bonds only.
C. incorrect; the probability of the embedded call being exercised increases
which increases interest rate risk.
53. Using the data in Exhibit 3, Mendes will conclude that a current arbitrage
opportunity involving the convertible bond most likely:
54. The premium (discount) which investors are required to pay when purchasing the
BTS convertible bond as opposed to its underlying common stock is closest to:
A. – $1.62.
B. – $1.39.
C. + $1.62.
Forwards And Derivative Dealers (FDD), is a firm that engages in derivative strategies
for institutional investors with either speculation or hedging motives. Shaun Evans is a
financial strategist at the firm, with considerable experience in the implementation of
derivative strategies. Mega-Cap Enterprises (MCE) has instructed Evans, to sell a stock
currently worth $154.87 in ten months time. MCE is concerned with the amount it would
receive at that time and wants to hedge this risk. Evans has advised MCE to enter into a
forward contract to achieve this purpose. After ten months, the price of the stock rises to
$155.99. The risk free rate is 7.645%. When MCE asked Evans about what rate of return
it earned over this time period, Evans made the following comment:
“If you entered the contract at a price of $164.675, the value of the forward contract to
you is $8.685, but the rate of return that you earn cannot be higher or lower than
7.645%.”
MCE is expected to receive British pounds from the sale of its subsidiary operating in
England. A large multinational firm established in Britain is likely to buy the subsidiary
in about one year’s time. To hedge the exchange rate risk associated with the
dollar/pound exchange rate, MCE has entered a forward contract at the no-arbitrage price.
The current spot exchange rate is $1.886/£. The U.S. risk free rate is 5.5% and the U.K.
risk free rate is 6.3%. After two months the exchange rate rose to $1.861/£. During a
meeting with Adrian Hill, MCE’s CEO, Evans stated that the value of the contract (per
unit) to MCE after the exchange rate movement is -$0.000715.
Evans will receive a performance-based bonus in 167 days and will use it to purchase the
stock of High-Class Entertainment Studios (HCES). The stock is currently selling for
$120.39 and is expected to pay a dividend of $1.36 in 65 days and another $1.03 in 135
days. The risk free rate is 5.0%. To lock in a fixed purchase price, Evans has decided to
go long a forward contract on the stock. 80 days later, the stock price rises to $125.79.
Hill held a meeting with Evans to understand the relative benefits of trading in futures
markets as well as the operations of suchmarkets. Evans made the following comments:
Statement 2: “Advantages of trading in the futures market over the forward market
include liquidity and transparency.”
Exhibit 1
60 day LIBOR 5.45%
120 day LIBOR 5.85%
180 day LIBOR 6.01%
240 day LIBOR 6.10%
FDD also specializes in trading strategies involving credit derivatives to enhance return
and manage risk. Joe Monks is a hedge fund manager at the firm who specializes in credit
derivative trading strategies. Monks and Evans discusstwo trades involving credit default
swaps (CDS) in which FDD has taken a position. The two individuals are attempting to
determine FDD’s stance on the underlying reference entity, to classify the type of
tradeand determine the implication of the trade on the shape of the associated credit
curve.Both transactions involve distinct reference entities.
Transaction 1: The reference entity’s bond trades at a yield of 2.5%. FDD has purchased
two-year duration CDS trading at 550 basis points and has sold eight-year
duration CDS trading at 300 basis points on the same entity. The
volatilities of both positions are identical.
Monks is pricing a futures contract with the spot price of the underlying equal to $67.
The contract expires in eighteen months. The underlying is expected to earn a positive
cash flow during this time period, and the future value of this cash flow is $1.3. The
future value of storage costs net of convenience yield is $1.83. The risk free rate is 8.0%.
55. Is Evans accurate with respect to the stock forward contract and currency forward
contract that Mega-Cap Enterprises entered into?
56. The value of the HCES stock forward contract to Evans after 80 days is closest to:
A. $4.723.
B. $5.026.
C. $5.473.
A. Statement 1 only.
B. Statement 2 only.
C. both statements 1 and 2.
58. The rate on the forward rate agreement that HCES is entering is closest to:
A. 4.155%.
B. 5.069%.
C. 6.260%.
59. Which of the following statements is most likely correct with respect to the CDS
transactions discussed by Monks and Evans?
60. The appropriate futures price for the future contract Monks is pricing is closest to:
A. $74.829.
B. $75.569.
C. $75.729.