PRMIA 8006 Dumps

Backwardation is said to occur when futures prices are lower than the current spot prices. This would happen only when carrying costs are negative. Carrying costs are equal to interest, plus storage costs and less any 'convenience yield'. The existence of large convenience yields may explain backwardation in commodity futures prices. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Contango is the 'normal' market situation where forward prices are higher than spot prices. Storage costs explain contango, not backwardation. Risk free rates, or the cost of funding for the futures position, are always positive and do not explain backwardation.

The Sharpe ratio does not require investors to be risk neutral, only that for a given level of returns they prefer less risk to more risk. (Risk neutral means that investors are indifferent to the level of risk, and are only driven by a desire to maximizing expected value, regardless of risk levels.)

The ability to borrow and lend any amounts of money at the risk free rate is a fundamental assumption for the rule that optimal portfolios will maximize the Sharpe ratio.

This rule also assumes that risk preferences are completely described by return and standard deviation of returns.

Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer as statements I and II are correct.

The LIBOR square is a (rare) derivative contract which pays, as mentioned in the question, the square of the interest rate move between two dates. If LIBOR at inception is y, and upon settlement is x, the contract pays (x - y)^2 for x > y; and -(x - y)^2 for x < y.

For any question that involves calculating delta or gamma, and the payoff is described in terms of variables as is the case here, remember that delta is always the first derivative and gamma is the second derivative. For this question, let us calculate the second derivative and see what the gamma is:

If x > y, then the payoff is (x - y)^2

The first derivative wrt x is 2(x - y)

The second derivative wrt x is 2.

ie, the gamma is 2

If x < y, then the payoff is -(x - y)^2

The first derivative wrt x is -2(x - y)

The second derivative wrt x is -2.

ie, the gamma is -2

If x = y, then the payoff is 0. Both the first and the second derivatives are zero. ie the gamma is 0.

Based on the above, we see that the contract can have a gamma of either 0, +2 or -2. 1 is not a possible value for gamma, and therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The put-call parity can be expressed as:

Call – Put = Spot – PV of exercise price

Note that a negative sign above means a short position. The 'term PV of exercise price' is the same as a bank deposit placed today equivalent to the PV of the exercise price so that we will have the cash flow on the exercise date to exercise the option.

Therefore only Choice 'd' is the correct answer as rearranging the above gives us Buying a call + Bank Deposit = Buying the stock + Buying a put.

Choice 'd' is therefore the correct answer.

This question requires us to use the CAPM.

Recall that according to CAPM the expected return on an asset = The risk free rate + β x Market risk premium.

Using the beta and expected return of security A, we can determine the market risk premium to be (8% - 3%)/1.2 = 4.1667%. The excess return is the return over the risk free rate, and for security B, this is nothing but the beta multiplied by the market risk premium. Therefore the correct answer is 4.1667% x 1.5 = 6.25%. Note that this is the 'excess return', and not the total return. (Total return will include the risk free rate).

The operating free cash flows can be considered a perpetual annuity with a given growth rate.

The value of a perpetuity of a periodic cash flow of 'c', with a discount rate 'r' and growth rate 'g' is given by c/(r - g). In the given case, the company can be considered as providing a perpetual annuity which provides an annual cash flow of $100 which are growing at 2.5% (equal to the GDP's growth rate, as given), and whose cost of capital, or the discount rate to use, is 7.5%

Therefore the value of the firm in this case is given by $100/(7.5% - 2.5%) = $2,000. Recall that the value of the firm is equal to the Operating Free Cash Flow/Weighted Average Cost of Capital (OFCF/WACC). Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The optimal hedge ratio answers the question of how much of the hedge to buy to hedge a given position. If 103.11.e1 is the standard deviation of the asset to be hedged, and 103.11.e2 is the standard deviation the asset being used to hedge against price movements in x, then the minimum variance hedge ratio is given by the expression 103.11.e3. In this question, correlation = 0.00378/(6%*7%) = 0.9. The minimum variance hedge ratio is given by (6%/7%)*0.9 = 0.77

He should therefore hold 0.77 x $10m /$100k = 77 contracts.

[We can also do a direct covar based calculation for the min variance hedge ratio as follows:

103.11.a3

= 0.00378 / (0.07 * 0.07) = 0.7714]

The stock has a beta of 1.2, therefore intuitively it can be expected to earn more than the broad market index. It will earn the risk free rate, ie 3%, and 1.2 times the equity risk premium of 5% (8% - 3%). The expected returns from the stock therefore are 3% + (8% - 3%)*1.2 = 9%

The all in price would be equal to the clean price plus accrued interest. The accrued interest for the 60 days that have passed since the last coupon payment is $5 x 60/360 = $0.83. Therefore the dirty price, or the all in price, will be $98.83. (Note that the $5 is the annual 5% coupon on the $100 face.)

The effectiveness of the hedge is solely determined by the correlation between the position being hedged, and the position being used as the hedge. A hedge can be perfect when correlation is 1, and will be less than perfect when it is anything other than 1.The effectiveness of the optimal hedge is given by the formula √(1-ρ2), where ρ is the correlation between the two. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer. Standard deviations affect the hedge ratio, not the effectiveness of the hedge.

A covered call is an attempt to earn premium income by selling calls while protecting against the downside by holding long the underlying. In case prices rise, the holder of the covered call can give away the held underlying. In case prices fall or stay below the strike price of the sold call, the holder of the covered call gets to keep the premium.

The holder of the covered call will suffer a loss if the price of the underlying declines due to the long position held in the underlying. However, these losses will be partly offset by the premiums earned on the calls sold.

Choice 'd' does not represent a correct statement as in the event of a rise in the price of the underlying the holder of the covered call will lose any upside, but will not have unlimited losses. In the event of a decline in stock prices, his losses will be equal to the loss on the underlying, minus the premium earned.

Consider a long vanilla call at a strike of K1, and a short call with a strike price of K2 so that K2>K1. If you construct the payoff diagrams for these option positions, you will see that the combined payoff resembles very closely the payoff of a digital cash-or-nothing option. By bringing K2 and K1 closer together, we can make it very close to a digital cash-or-nothing option. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The no-arbitrage futures price is given by exp(0.5*(4%-1%))*$1000 = $1015.11. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Systematic risk refers to market risk that cannot be diversified away. Specific risk relates to the unique risk from the securities selected in the portfolio, and these can be diversified away by adding other securities to the portfolio. Diversifiable risk is risk that can be diversified away, ie the same as specific risk. Portfolio risk is the total risk of the portfolio that includes both specific and systematic risk.

Equity futures are by far the most traded futures contracts in terms of value, followed by interest rate products. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Statement I is not correct because the 4% bond with the same modified duration as the zero coupon bond will have a maturity much later in the future than the zero coupon, and the final repayment coming much later will cause its convexity to be greater than the equivalent duration zero coupon bond.

Statement II is not correct as the convexity of a bond increases not in a linear fashion but in proportion to the square root of time as the maturity of the bond is increased.

Statement III is not correct as mortgage based bonds bring negative convexity even in the case of long positions,

Statement IV is not correct as the duration of a zero coupon bond maturing in 10 years has a modified duration greater than that of a coupon bearing bond of the same maturity, which means its convexity is higher and not lower (note this is different from statement I where the modified durations were identical. Here, the maturity is identical which has different implications.)

Therefore none of the statements is correct and Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

This question requires a calculation of the present value of the future cash flows from the bond. The correct answer is $94.92, calculated as =(5/(1 + 5%)) + (5/(1+ 6%)^2) + (105/(1 + 7%)^3).

There was no event such as the CDO squeeze in 2008. (Quite on the contrary, securitized products were selling at distressed prices.).

The silver squeeze of 1979-80 (Hunt brothers), the Chicago fire of 1872 (leading to a short squeeze on wheat), and the wheat squeeze (Hutchingson) of 1866 are real historical events that led to short squeezes in commodity markets. Choice 'b' is therefore the correct answer.

For the PRM exam, you should try to remember the event broadly, and the commodity involved.

Choice 'b' is the correct answer. The other relationships are not correct.

When assets are uncorrelated, variances are additive. But volatility (which is standard deviation) is not. In the given situation, the total variance of the portfolio will be equal to the the square root of the sum of the variances of the assets in the portfolio weighted by the square of their weights. Its volatility will be the square root of this variance. Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

(This is because V(cA + dB) = c^2 V(A) + d^2 V(B) - refer tutorial on combining variances.)

Choice 'a' is incorrect as it describes the calculation of variance, not volatility. Also, the presence of a large number of uncorrelated assets does not create a portfolio with volatility equal to zero or that of the market. The other choices are therefore incorrect.

Explanation:

The return on an asset is a function of the covariance of the asset's return to the returns of the market portfolio. They do not depend upon the standard deviation of the asset itself. Therefore Choice 'b' is correct and Choice 'c' is incorrect.

The expected returns on an asset are equal to the risk free rate plus the beta times the market risk premium, therefore Choice 'a' is correct.

Portfolios on the efficient frontier will all have a different Sharpe ratio, which is the ratio of excess returns to portfolio volatility.

Choice 'c' is the correct answer (note that the question is asking for an identification of the INCORRECT statement).

It is important to note the distinction between the clearing house and the exchange itself. The clearing house does not get involved with physical delivery, nor does it provide any dispute settlement services. It only makes sure that cash is settled as and when due between the members. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer

Since Macaulay duration is 6 years, the modified duration is 6/(1+5%) = 5.71. This means that if interest rates were to rise by 1%, the bond price would decrease by 5.71%. Since interest rates have risen by 10 bps, (100bps = 1%), the bond's price would fall by roughly 0.571%, or 57 basis points

All the statements are correct, and represent the relationships between the values of the Greek variables for calls and puts for the same option. It is important to know why as the PRM exam often asks tough questions about the Greeks.

Statement I is correct because of the put-call parity. According to the put-call parity,

Value of call - Value of put = Spot price - Exercise price discounted to the present

Now the delta of the spot is 1, and that of the discounted price is zero. Therefore

Delta of Call - Delta of Put = 1 - 0, or by rearranging we get the equation in statement I.

Statements II and III are correct as the gamma and vega of both the spot price and the discounted price are zero. Therefore using the put-call parity, we can say

Gamma of Call - Gamma of Put = 0 - 0, and

Vega of Call - Vega of Put = 0 - 0

Rearranging, we get statements II and III.

Statement IV is correct because of the following relationship between theta of call and theta of put:

Theta of Put = Theta of Call + rKe^(-rt).

Since rKe^(-rt) can only be a positive number, theta of put can only exceed the theta of a call. However, since theta is generally negative, it often implies that the theta of a call is the larger absolute number.

Additional explanation for the last point: Assume rKe^(-rt) =+1 and theta of a put is -5 (completely hypothetical)

Now Theta of Put = Theta of Call + rKe^(-rt)

Ie -5 = -6 + 1

Now -5 is the larger number than -6. In other words, theta of put exceeds that of the call in a pure mathematical sense, which is what I mean when I say “theta of put can only exceed the theta of call”. But if you ignore the sign, then theta of call is larger at 6 when compared to 5. Therefore the theta of the put is greater than the theta of the call – which is what the answer says.

The duration of a perpetuity is 1/running yield. Therefore the correct answer is 1/.05 = 20 years

Explanation:

If the spot rate is 1.1010 and the forward is 1.1040, the swap rate is 30 "points" (= 1.1040 - 1.1010). The annualized swap premium is the swap premium divided by the spot rate, and therefore =0.0030/1.1010 =0.27%, or 27 basis points.

This is a trick question, no great science to it. Remember that the 'present value of a basis point' refers to PV01, which is the same as BPV (basis point value) referred to in the PRMIA handbook. In other textbooks, the same term is also variously called 'DV01' (dollar value of a basis point). Remember these other terms too.

PV01, or the present value of a basis point, is the change in the value of a bond (or other fixed income security) from a 1 basis point change in the yield. PV01 is calculated as (Price * Modified Duration/10,000).

The price of a treasury bill can be calculated as [Future value / (1 + yield x days-to-maturity/365)] = 100/(1+5%*90/365) = $98.78.

A utility function provides a description of an individual or a firm's risk attitude. It expresses how risk seeking or risk averse a firm or an individual is. The utility function would explain differences between risk seeking and risk averse behavior, for example, as an individual becomes richer, he may seek (or shun) risk more than before. A utility function incorporates all of this, and therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

A swaption is an option to enter into a fixed for floating interest rate swap at a point in the future, with the fixed rate decided upfront. These options can be European, Bermudan or American, in terms of what dates the option can be exercised. A receiver option on a swap is an option that gives the buyer the right to enter into a swap and receive the fixed rate and pay the variable rate. In the case of a payer option, the buyer pays the fixed rate and receives the variable rate. One way to remember this is that receiving and paying are terms used with reference to the fixed rates.

The underlying asset in a Treasury note futures contract is any long term Treasury note with a maturity of no less than 6.5 years and no more than 10 years. The underlying asset in a treasury bond futures contract is any long term US Treasury bond with a maturity of more than 15 years and not callable within 15 years.

Note the difference betwen what the underlying asset is for treasury bond futures and treasury note futures. In either case, adjustments will be made for the coupon and maturity of the actual bond delivered (the concept of the adjustment of 'cheapest-to-deliver').

The fair price for the futures contract should be [1000 x ( 1 + (2%-1%)/2)] = 1005. This means the futures contract is 'rich' at 1020. The trader should therefore short the futures contract, and buy the index spot. To buy the spot index, he will incur a borrowing cost of 2%, which will be partly offset by the dividend yield of 1%, and at the end of six months he will owe a net amount of 1005 and hold the index. At the same time the futures contract would expire too, and he would be able to sell at the agreed price of 1020, making a risk free profit of 15.

A portfolio loses its delta neutrality if the delta of the portfolio changes but the underlying hedge is unchanged. The portfolio that will require the most rebalancing will be one whose delta changes by larger amounts in response to a given change in the price of the underlying. The sensitivity of the changes in delta in response to changes in the price of the underlying is measured by gamma. The higher the gamma, the more the portfolio will go out of delta neutrality given a change in the price of the underlying. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A portfolio with a low gamma will maintain its delta over a larger price range for the underlying, and is therefore likely to require less frequent rebalancing. The absolute level of the delta itself does not matter, what matters is the gamma. Vega is irrelevant to the delta hedging decision. Therefore the other choices are incorrect.

Futures contracts carry no gamma. Only options have gamma. Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Any instrument whose price varies in a linear fashion with respect to the underlying will have gamma equal to zero.

To solve this question, we need to revisit how delta is calculated in a single step binomial model:

Consider a portfolio with just two positions: 1 Long Call option, and Δ Short Stock. We do not know what Δ (Delta) is.

Now if the current price of the stock is P, which can take the value P2 (higher value) and P1 (lower value) in the future at time T, then Δ needs to be such that the value of the portfolio is equal in both the cases. If the price goes up, the value of the option will be $1 (given) and the value of the short stock will be -Δ P2. If the price goes down, the value of the option will be $0, and the value of the stock will be -Δ P1.

Therefore, $1 - Δ P2 = $0 - Δ P1.

Solving for Δ, we get Δ = $1 /(P2 - P1) = $1 / ($102-$98) = 1/4.

The crack spread is the difference between the price of refined products and crude oil. An option on the crack spread can protect a refiner from both a fall in the price of its output and a rise in the price of its inputs. Calendar spreads are options with different maturities. Crude oil futures and swaps only protect against an adverse change in the price of crude, and not that of refined products. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The effect of higher convexity is that when yields rise, the price decrease is lower than the increase in yields, and when yields fall, the increase in price is greater than the fall in yield. In either case, it benefits the holder of the fixed income instrument that carries such positive convexity. The converse is true for someone short a bond - such an investor would prefer lower convexity to higher convexity. Therefore statement I is not true for an investor who is short a bond.

An increase in yields makes bond prices decrease, something that would benefit the short. Therefore statement II is true for an investor short a bond.

Negative convexity has exactly the opposite effect as the one described for positive convexity for statement I above. An investor short a bond would prefer negative convexity (which by the way is exhibited by very few fixed income instruments such as mortgages) to positive convexity, therefore statement III is true for such an investor.

Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A zero coupon bond has a Macaulay duration equal to its maturity, ie in this case 5 years. We can calculate modified duration from Macaulay duration by using the following relationship:

Modified duration = Macaulay duration/(1 + y) where y is the yield.

Therefore the correct answer is 5 / (1.05) = 4.76.

Or intuitively, all the other answers appear clearly incorrect: 5 and 5.25 are too high, and 4 is too low. Therefore the only reasonable choice is 4.76.

Over the counter and electronic communication networks match buyers and sellers. However, there is no market making function, ie, in periods of stress liquidity may completely disappear from these markets. Exchanges normally have market makers that are required to present two way quotes on the securities they are making the market for. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

We know from the put-call parity that:

Call - Put = Stock - Deposit

In the given situation,

Stock price = 100

call = 35

Put = ?

Exercise price = 100

However, we cannot use the stock price as-is, we need to adjust it for dividends that will be received during the period for which the option is valid. Dividends are $1, which need to be discounted to the present. In financial theory, dividends are often assumed to be continuously paid, though in reality they are single discrete payments at points in time. In this situation, for simplicity we assume that the dividend is paid at the end of the year, and needs to be discounted to the present and deducted from the spot price.

Therefore:

Stock price adjusted for dividends = $100 - ($1/1.05) = $100 - $0.95 = $99.05

Similarly, the bank deposit amount, which is the PV of the exercise price, can be calculated as $100/1.05 = $95.24

We can now calculate the price of the put by plugging the numbers above in the put-call parity:

35 - Put = $99.05 - $95.24

Therefore the value of the put = 31.19, which is closest to 31.20 which therefore is the correct answer.

Short calls and short puts have negative gamma, ie their delta increases at a decreasing rate as the price of the underlying change. Likewise, remember that long calls and long puts have positive gamma.

As a bond approaches maturity, its value will be driven less by the time value of money or its coupons, and more by its redemption value, ie the par. Therefore as maturity approaches, its value converges to its par value and this phenomenon is called pull to par.

All the choices list inputs into the determination of futures prices. Therefore volatility in any of them affects the volatility of futures prices. Of course, the largest contributor to the volatility is the volatility of the spot price of the underlying. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.