i think i got 0.25 for one of the calculate the min HH values… and high level of competition…
zero Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh that contraction risk question… Vaguely > remember putting A but i may be getting > confused… > > IRR question i got gross IRR of 12% and didnt know > to change it from that. Congratulations me. > > There was also a question in fixed income about > different tranches being more stable or something > due to some type of FACS or NACS calss or > something… cant remember the answer… i think you are referring to the one about NAS TRANChes having a more stable life. think they were aksing which of the statements are true…
tsttse Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i think i got 0.25 for one of the calculate the > min HH values… > > and high level of competition… wsa there a question asking us to calculate the minimum HH values? i dont rememner seeing that…
There was no min HH values question… yes that NAs tranches question i think i put the second or third option (remember ruling out the first)… No idea what NAS tranches are… think i chose the answer that had something to do with stabilisation of payments or the average life or something…
HHI 0-1000 - Perfect Comp 1000-1800 - Monopoly Comp 1800-10000 - Oligopoly 10000 - Monopoly Question asked for 500
When you start a thread for Asia, Is the form number 6060 and 6161? Otherwise we’re just discussing UFOs here.
yes mine was 6060 and 6161 - Australia
minimouse : “Normal backwardation dint fit the bill” …why ??
krishariss Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > minimouse : “Normal backwardation dint fit the > bill” …why ?? if i did not remember the figures wrongly S>F>E(s) so normal backwardation is out.
yeah I think the NAS question was answer c- reduced average life variability- I looked it up when I got home. HydrogenRainbow, that sounds correct (above) re normal backwardation and why it is out.
S>F : given in the vignette F>E(S) how did u arrive ? I think E(S) will always be positive given positive risk free rate and positive carrying cost.
fantastic news regarding that reducing average variability question. one less to reduce my score.
wtf … I asnwered…economics of scale …as I found to CONTRIBUTE anythng to it has I read NOT CONTRIBUTE…I would have gone for economies of scope… -1 for me
wtf … I anwwered…economics of scale …as I found it CONTRIBUTING had I read NOT CONTRIBUTE…I would have gone for economies of scope… -1 for me
wtf … I answered…economics of scale …as I found it CONTRIBUTING had I read NOT CONTRIBUTE…I would have gone for economies of scope… -1 for me
normal backwardation and econ of scale… I don’t remember the details but I know that’s how i answered…
minimouse Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yeah I think the NAS question was answer c- > reduced average life variability- I looked it up > when I got home. > > HydrogenRainbow, that sounds correct (above) re > normal backwardation and why it is out. I mean, the definition of backwardation is that F
krishariss Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > S>F : given in the vignette > > F>E(S) how did u arrive ? I think E(S) will always > be positive given positive risk free rate and > positive carrying cost. if i didnt remember wrongly the figure for expected spot was also given.
I dont have practical knowledge so let me ask a simple question can Backwardation & Normal COntago can co-exist ??
Alchemist1320 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont have practical knowledge > > so let me ask a simple question > > can Backwardation & Normal COntago can co-exist ?? that’s why i thought there was somethign wrogn with the question.