actuaryalfred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > former trader Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > mo34 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > are you sure ? I doubt that they would test > > your > > > ability to round numbers at level 3 
> > > > > > i’m serious. i did the calculation at least 4 > > times. it was so simple yet i was getting 2 > > different answers based on my rounding. > > how did you do that? let’s say the numbers are > 59 > 60 > 64 > 60 > 61 try it. use 2 decimal and use 6 i believe. the difference was 0.005, which was the difference between .123 and .128
On that Repo rate did anyone else read that they were delivering the collateral to a bank which would eliminate the Borrower’s Lending risk factor because in essence it would be guaranteed?
umuc Wrote: > However if you actually calculate the quarterly > returns and divide by 4, then you get the second > set of numbers. > > Now remember that GIPS post 2006 is monthly > returns, not yearly. > > The question asked “closest” to. > > The monthly returns will be closer to the > quarterly returns, hence the second set of > numbers. > J Why would you divide by 4? If you do that, you are not geometrically linking the quarters. I did it by quarter and geometrically linked them and then just did year-end to year-end and got the same results because there were no CF in or out. I went with the first set of numbers.
former trader Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > actuaryalfred Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > former trader Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > mo34 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > are you sure ? I doubt that they would test > > > your > > > > ability to round numbers at level 3 > > > > > > > > > i’m serious. i did the calculation at least 4 > > > times. it was so simple yet i was getting 2 > > > different answers based on my rounding. > > > > how did you do that? let’s say the numbers are > > 59 > > 60 > > 64 > > 60 > > 61 > > > try it. use 2 decimal and use 6 i believe. the > difference was 0.005, which was the difference > between .123 and .128 for my example the different is 0.012%
Anybody remember the trading question for the morning? I put cross network, but a couple of people have told me principal trade.
i went with principal
went back and forth…ended up on crossing network since principal trade usually requires more urgency and ECN avoids price discovery, which, due to the large trade as % of volume would be important.
i too put principal but many many people say they are 100% positive it was cross network.
I’ve seen many people say they’re 100% positive on principal too, just watch CFAI come out and say “Hey, jokes on you, it’s a limit order!” BTW, this thread has gotten ridiculously large.
The thing that put me over for principal was the institutional holders, a principal would be able to contact them and try to sell to them. trying to selling 150% daily volume on an ECN would take forever.
isnt cross network will match the price in batch order, so not match the urgent requirement?
actuaryalfred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > isnt cross network will match the price in batch > order, so not match the urgent requirement? yes, but if urgency is not important AND there are lot of mutual fund players (they are the major players on crossing) then it is the best
…but you have 5 months to transition so no need to put all through at once (plus pricncipal trade will cost more since uses a broker) program or basket trade would have been best choice if offered.
the both statements are correct
You’ve got a point, but it’s spread over 6 months time and the lack of price discovery seemed like a big advantage to me, since you might tip your hand too much using a principal. Oh well, we’ll just have to wait until they release the answers. When do they release the essay answers by the way?
s23dino Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing that put me over for principal was the > institutional holders, a principal would be able > to contact them and try to sell to them. trying to > selling 150% daily volume on an ECN would take > forever. that was my logic as well.
AbbeFaria Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’ve seen many people say they’re 100% positive on > principal too, just watch CFAI come out and say > “Hey, jokes on you, it’s a limit order!” > > BTW, this thread has gotten ridiculously large. i said limit order. they had 6 months for heavens sake, why on earth would you ever do anything except a limit order. yet to hear someone refute this logic.
I got the impression from the question that each option was for the whole block. If that were the case, you would want something without significant market impact and you would probably want some anonymity. I waffled between crossing network and principal trade but ended up with principal trade. Not certain it is right, though. Had they explicit said you could do more than one trade, then limit order would make sense - just do a little each day.
but can’t you put in the whole order in ECN (w/o discovery) and as buy orders come in, they are match and it slowly widdles away until whole order fills?
I realize I’m probably wrong, but I said limit order too. No urgency whatsoever, so price is the number one factor; can’t recall what specifically was said about liquidity, but with 6 months to get it done, I don’t know how badly could they possibly need the liquidity? So I thought they would do a little bit at a time with limit orders, to avoid fees and maximize price. Not hearing many others in agreement though.