I can’t remember the specific question- something about maximizing roy’s safety first ratio. For two of the portfolios NOT chosen I used the same reason- that they didn’t maximize safety first. they didn’t explicity say (like I’ve seen them do before) that you couldn’t use the same reason twice. I’m curious if anyone else did this as well??
I did this. However, it was unavoidable, there was no other strong reason to reject (for two of them). Also, as far as I remember, it was not metnioned that we need to state unique reasons.
no didnt and RSF was the reason on majority of the portfolios…i screwed up though
gauravku Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did this. However, it was unavoidable, there was > no other strong reason to reject (for two of > them). Also, as far as I remember, it was not > metnioned that we need to state unique reasons. I did the same.
Yes, I rememebr this one, good memory L3beatit. I was racking my brain for 5 minutes trying to look for another reason to put down opposed to the " lower safety first" but couldnt think of anything, since those 2 had enough cash, was well diversified and had similar weights in the selected asset classes and met the required return, so I really dont think there was anything else but the lower safety first
I’m not sure is there a differences in the US and ASIA Exam paper as I take 8181. In fact, only one portfolio satisfied all requirements. I haven’t calculated any RSF, in my question paper they provided a formula for Utility. The remaining 2 portfolios, of which one is failed in meeting the Utility requirement. Just for reference.
count me in on this one portfolio’s 3 and 4 I said: Does not maximize Roy’s Safety first