Anyone get the carve-out? I kept getting 3.44 but I think I may have been brain dead at that point. the closest was 3.5
cdogstu77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. i think this will be a long argument
i misread the q1 am time horizon. i put single stage on both but thought this one can’t be that easy. with 2 min to go went back reread and saw it said what is time horizon for 2009 ips assuming age 65 retirement. changed it just in time to multi 2 stage
loss aversion is when an investor would hold on to the stock risking a large uncertain loss, rather than selling it and taking a smaller certain loss. I am pretty confident that the answer was the investor would hold the position.
I think i got 3.44 for the carve out as well and then put 3.5
motorfinger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AM: Fully-funded pension or corporate foundation > has more risk taking ability? Posted by: mcpass (IP Logged) [hide posts from this user] Date: June 7, 2009 12:33PM 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. motorfinger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- that;s what i finally chose too, had to rewrite the whole q when i changed my mind.
how about the very first question in PM - Yes / No because not suitable / No because material nonpublic info? THat one threw me off already
A compliance officer can have a dual reporting structure during the transition, right? >> I dont think they can have dual reporting structure. They can report to CEO and/or Board of Directors not to Information Officer.
That acute vs. chronic I’m not sure of. Obviously the chronic market inefficiencies include the behavioral characteristics (i.e. price target revisions and ebullience cycle that would lead to increased trading )but the way the question was stated made me think otherwise. If one recognizes the type of inefficiency, why would they trade more frequently.
It was definitely “No because material nonpublic info” it said in the paragraph that the bid was not publicly disclosed
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. Question asked “frequently”… “chronic” means something that happens often… so answer should be “chronic” rather than “acute”. “acute” can result in large trades, but infrequently. Really a test of English than finance I think. NC
acute baby
nevacfa1 – did you read that chapter in cfa/schweser material?
- I didn’t get the carve-out, what’s the calculation? I figured cash was just 6% of the portfolio, and the relevant asset was also 5% or so. So I felt like the cash carve-out would have minimal impact and went for 4.1. Didn’t know the specific rules for calculating those so didn’t spend more time on it. - went for ‘acute’ but don’t remember the question so I can’t tell you why. - I went for dual reporting, was a 50/50 guess though. It made the most sense for a transition period.
> Question asked “frequently”… “chronic” means > something that happens often… so answer should > be “chronic” rather than “acute”. > > “acute” can result in large trades, but > infrequently. > > Really a test of English than finance I think. > > NC No chronic means a sustained inefficiency that will last for a while in the market. I’m pretty sure acute results in higher trading
I just found out I screwed up all my calculations in the AM session (yes, the easy points). Now I have to leave my fate to my handwritings that are beyond recognition. I felt ok leaving the test center and feel a bit bummed now.
i chose 3.5 on the carve out. the cash allocation was 800k for int’l
it is acute, easy to detect and be taken advantage with arbitrage strategy chronic very difficult to spot… how will the investor trade often the cant even detect it? pretty sure its acute.
mcpass Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. I got 264 as well, and it took me a while to figure out where I went wrong. I think the answer was 259 though. I vaguely remember the beta’s being 0.98 and 1.00. In that problem, you were not supposed to multiply by the beta’s though (259 / .98 = 264). For leverage, I think I had the lowest number. It seemed straightforward to me and I didn’t give it a second thought.
LICandidate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Question asked “frequently”… “chronic” means > > something that happens often… so answer > should > > be “chronic” rather than “acute”. > > > > “acute” can result in large trades, but > > infrequently. > > > > Really a test of English than finance I think. > > > > NC > > > No chronic means a sustained inefficiency that > will last for a while in the market. I’m pretty > sure acute results in higher trading You are probably right on that one. NC