time weighted and it was 4.1 if I remember correctly. Ponpon
3.3% 4.5% for Dietz
quite sure it was not 4.1%, as modified Dietz needs weighted by days, not 1/2, if you use 1/2, you got 4.1%
i was reading through a book and have few queries would you disclose you arrangement with an vendor to your clients and employeer? does the fixed rate mortgage pass through have call risk ? is reviewing trade allocation policy at end of the month ok? would increase in trading expenses decrease both gross & net of fee return?
Oups… ¨ Ponpon
yes yes not sure , I guess yes yes
IMHO, orrower quality because collateral in repo is generally treasuries with minimal quality concerns. Fed fund rates or similar short term rates of wherever you live are a proxy for risk free rates.
For what it is worth, i had 3.3 and 4.5.
I have visiting Japan twice, but now find myself wondering if it was the right place to go.
I have visited Japan twice, but now find myself wondering if it was the right place to go.
reviewing at the end of the month is ok, but aren’t they requireded to inform the client about the change on timely basis??
again, no one remember the leveraged return stuff, 2.86%?
reviewing at the end of the month is ok, but aren’t they required to inform the client about the change on timely basis??
was that A? I think i put A
Ferrari321 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quesion on the currency question didn’t they have > it reversed so ie because local currency was > expected to fall, so it means the singapore \> increases? He's right. unhedged should be UK because the currency returns were in signapore , thus you must reverse the sign of the currency returns before adding them on.
I don’t think reviewing the allocation against the IPS at the end of month is ok, you should do it right away when you are allocating the shares… Ponpon
Git R Done Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have visited Japan twice, but now find myself > wondering if it was the right place to go. it was Jap, Jap, UK
I would think that if the collateral is transferred, they wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about the quality of the borrower as long as the collateral is good.
quality of the borrower is important because they could decide to keep the collateral. They could even bankrupt and then the collateral gets assigned to the bankruptcy trustee. Lots of complications. But i dont remember the specifiecs of the question. Quality of the borrower is important though.
why the term of repo is important? it couldn’t be too way off the standard one right?