contingent immunization = return maximization?

Schweser lists the 3 requirements. is this another discrepency?

Here is my summary Classical immunization to parallel shift: same PV+same duratin Classical immunization to NON-parallel shift: same PV+same duration+similar cash distribution Multiple liablity: same duration, same PV, wider distribution.

Hi All, What do you mean by wider distribution of assets than liabilities? Are you all refering that the assets be more dispersed in terms of time line? Or you are referring to have many bonds with wider range of durations than those observed on the liabilities? If yes, how does it help in multiple liability immunization? Getting more & more confused with this point, can someone help?

busy_people Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > former trader Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > yes. it’s one of the 3 requirements > > > FT, > page 351, volume3 textbook mentions only 2 > requirements as ‘necessary and sufficient > condition’ for multiple liab immuniztion: > > Match duration + wider range of asset duration > distribution. > > PV matching is not mentioned. busy_people, if you look at one of the answers at the end of the book, they require all 3.