PM discussion thread

CFA Level III
#41

yup 2224, but i couldn’t get the number exactly right it kept coming to 2394 or something

#42

16.3

#43

yes, 2224

#44

oskigo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yup 2224, but i couldn’t get the number exactly > right it kept coming to 2394 or something THis one was a gimme and I F^ked it up! Forgot to discount the 4th year return back to its PV. Was to used to the GG model and not 2 stage modell :frowning:

#45

i got 17.6 or something in teh 17 range.

#46

when I was working on that one I thought I was at L2

#47

P/E = 16.3 I think. g came out to 14.8% I think.

#48

21551xxxx anyone? SRI: Since in the specific SRI case they had more a bias aganist certain sectors which are in value, so in this case the answer is growth

#49

215500000 here

#50

The answer I got was 2104. I came back home and did the problem in excel and came up with that answer. I don’t know where 2224 came from - it wasn’t even one of the choices. There was 2394 and 3384 I beleive. L2 Candidate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oskigo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > yup 2224, but i couldn’t get the number exactly > > right it kept coming to 2394 or something > > > THis one was a gimme and I F^ked it up! Forgot to > discount the 4th year return back to its PV. Was > to used to the GG model and not 2 stage modell :frowning:

#51

did you multiply the * 1+ the growth rate? that’s how you get from 16.3 to 17.6 unless i’m high.

#52

2224 was one of the answer, 100% sure, while not sure is whether it’s the right one

#53

Since they gave the forecasted numbers for 08, I didn’t gross up by the growth rate. I figured that was incorporated into the forecasts. I debated it though.

#54

P/e 16.3 i messed up the FCFE…i had 2104 that should have been a gift…damn

#55

hezagenius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since they gave the forecasted numbers for 08, I > didn’t gross up by the growth rate. I figured > that was incorporated into the forecasts. I > debated it though. That’s what I thought.

#56

but weren’t you supposed to forcast the 08 PE not the 07 (correct me if i am wrong)? if it’s 08 you * times the growth rate since it’s d1 not d0 right?

#57

so even this seemingly straightforward question turns out to be tricky, PM is really not easy

#58

Anyone get 35 futures ?

#59

are you sure you didn’t visit japan twice and then the UK traderscott?

#60

had 35 also…