In the past the minimum passing score has been about 58-60%.
A compliance officer can have a dual reporting structure during the transition, right?
For me house money meant ‘in the bag’. also the question said the stiock made money(dont know where losing stock is comin g from)… but may be iam wrong…but i definitely remeber house money was related on investor making money
say you have a someone who likes to trade a lot- what category would he most associate with- chronic or acute efficiencies?(not sure i’m even phrasing it right).
I guess it’s debatable. In no doubt do they hold on to their investments but what about the actual position? They hold on to their investments but do they maintain their actual share position? I say they add to it to average down.
don;t think the compliance officer can report to chief investment officer
Slash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jscott24 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Corrupted Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If people are loss averse, would they take > more > > > risk with their losing investments or > maintain > > the > > > same? > > > > maintain - the question was about their holding > i > > think > > People who are loss averse are prone to taking > more risk when their investments tank. I believe they will hold their position. If they sell then they have to recognize their losses. This is a widely observed phenomena, for example currently many people are holding on to their houses because they can’t accept that the price has fallen so much. I don’t think it implies that they will buy more though. NC
chronic for me
AM: Fully-funded pension or corporate foundation has more risk taking ability?
foundation
I was very nervous going in. Very relieved coming out. I think I missed a few things, but feel that the probability of passing is high. I think I had less preparation for this one than level 1 or 2, but after the exam I felt more confident than I did coming out of the first two. I’m worried that my essay answers in AM were too simplistic. I don’t know if I’m just over thinking it. PM was great, I thought. I thought most of the ethics was straightforward. I thought the rest were pretty fair. A few hang-ups with the two bond hedge and some of the derivative formulas, but overall I didn’t think it was bad at all.
i said acute. chronic ones can last really long -multiple years…there isnt much need to trade that often. acute ones need to be arbitraged away asap -rapid trading needed -that was my story anway.
vanz1212 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A compliance officer can have a dual reporting > structure during the transition, right? I said no, because someone acting as compliance offer can report to only the CEO and/or Board. Hope the transition thing was just a trick to try to throw you off.
I’ve talked to a ton of people about that question afterwards. Everybody had their reasons, but it was pretty much 50/50 on that Q (the loss aversion) and I can’t really say anyone had a great argument. There were a few others that got me. The 2-bond hedge figure? Couldn’t calculate my way to any of the three answers. The carve-out, didn’t know how to end up at any of them. This last futures question, my answer was 264 but the available answers were 254,259 and 262. Struck me. Overall, I think I did quite well. What did you have on the added return of the leverage? I thought I was spot on but apparantly, many have a different number. Morning session was okay, not as bad as I feared it would be. It looked a lot like the 2008 exam which I reviewed pretty well. Perhaps it got to some people who didn’t review that exam but for those who did it was quite alike. Still blanked at the WACC and Grinold Kroner Q, though. Also wasn’t too sure about the commodities question. GIPS in the afternoon was just too specific for me, I had hoped to see it in the morning session. Probably went 2/6 on that one. Ethics was okay - some curveballs here and there but that’s what you can expect, and there were some vignettes where I managed to calculate all the wrong answers as well, just to make sure I had the right. Felt pretty good.
> Jscott24 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Corrupted Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If people are loss averse, would they take > more > > > risk with their losing investments or > maintain > > the > > > same? > > > > maintain - the question was about their holding > i > > think > > People who are loss averse are prone to taking > more risk when their investments tank. I thought that ppl were loss averse and instead of average of several years, Manager was trying to show annual returns which will make it even worse as they will see more fluctuation in equity than bond.
the way i saw is that if someone is loss averse, they want to avoid that loss at all costs. If they are losing money on a stock and they buy more stock then effectively they have cut down the amount of money they have lost by averaging down.
motorfinger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AM: Fully-funded pension or corporate foundation > has more risk taking ability? Foundation because it has an infinite time horizon.
I think the morning sesion had the same level of difficulty of the last year…Obviously if it is the second time taking the test it will appear easier… at least for me, the afternoon sesion harder than the mock exam…to many tricky questions
Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i said acute. chronic ones can last really long > -multiple years…there isnt much need to trade > that often. acute ones need to be arbitraged away > asap -rapid trading needed -that was my story > anway. that’s exactly my reasoning- I talked to others and they picked chronic
sct123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > foundation Typically yes but they stated clearly that the sponsoring company for the PF was doing great and was willing to additionally add money to the fund. For the foundation they specifically stated that they would not donate anything else. Thus, I specifically stated that usually it’s a foundation but due to the above reasons I went for the PF.