What about the qt with less than -22? I marked in B i.e. 2.5% from what I remember. Anyone?
yeah, 2.5% is correct.
Highest Sharpe ratio or Roy’s safety ratio I forget was D?
the responses to the fx question are disconcerting to me as i took the 10xxxx series and they quoted DC/FC and asked how the FC was trading relative to the DC so since the F was higher than the S the answer would have to be PREMIUM…
I remember it was a given in indirect quote and they wanted the answer in terms of the direct quote’s domestic currency and if the problem was solved as indirect quote it was a premium or else it was a discount… So, i penciled in discount.
what series did you take adb? that would be -1 for me if you took the 10xxxx series.
I remember it asked for R when there is no unexplained variation, R^2=SSR/SST, SST=SSR+SSE and SSE = 0, So R^2 = 1, therefore R = 1 as well
I’m don’t think SSE=0 in that question.
Then, why do they need to stress there is NO unexplained variation? since R^2 < R in any other cases other than 1, isn’t it too obvious!? I had 1010/1111 version, maybe we had different versions.
in schweser in forward, spot rates DC/FC ; FC/DC there were always annualized numbers even if the didn’t ask to annulized then less than 50% of R^2 which mean that dependent varialble explains… ( R^2 = corr ^2 )was correct 2,5 % was corect with - 22, there were 2 std dev down which means 1 - 95 % = 0,05% 0,05% / 2 = 0,025 %
There are too many questions regarding R and R^2, we might be talking different questions here… The one that gave you a chart of data is D, less than half of the variation of y is explained by x. And the one that says there No explained variation of the dependant variable, R = 1. Hope that’s what every1 gets.!
Does anyone remember which markowitz assumption was incorrect? I think I had a brain fart on that question and couldn’t recollect 
its bang on the schweser quicksheet adb
Yeh, but I don’t remember the options…
adb258 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone remember which markowitz assumption > was incorrect? > I think I had a brain fart on that question and > couldn’t recollect I’m just trying to remember. I think there were a couple of questions on that. I believe one of them was talking about borrowing at RFR, which is wrong, since RFR is introduced with CML. I don’t remember anything about the other one. Hope that helps a bit nevertheless.
I think it was lending rate or something for the point beforek Market port on the CML… Not sure at all…
Yeh Jilly. I think your correct… it was the lending rate. There were a couple of questions on Optiomal Portfolio in both the AM and PM section. I think for both the answer was something to do with the portfolio with the maximum return for a given level of risk. Does that ring a bell?
Yep adb258. I picked the one says the max return for a given level of risk too!
^ yep the basic markowitz assumption is : investors prefer more returns than less returns for a given level of risk. unfortunately because the the option on the test said less risk to more risk for a given level of return, my little peabrain froze and i dumbly chose the lending assumption. ssigh.