Two left, can someone give me a spoiler for them?
This is exactly where the fun begins 
Based on the volume, I can tell. Looks like my weekend is booked.
“I think you’re all fu**ed in the head. We’re 2 SS’s from the fu**ing fun end, and you wanna bail out! Well, I’ll tell you something, this is no longer a vacation. . . it’s a quest! It’s a quest for fun! I’m gonna have fun, and you’re gonna have fun! We’re all gonna have so much fu**ing fun we’ll need plastic surgery to remove our G**damn smiles! You’ll be whistling Zip-a-dee-doo-da out of your a**holes! I’ve got to be crazy! I’m on a pilgrimage to get 3 letters next to my name! Praise Marty Moose!” -clark griswold
Both suck pretty hard. Make sure you have plenty of Monster handy for when you hit the tax section in PM!
well, I’m going to grab a sandwich before I start it. back in a few, I may have to remove my ‘having a good time’ post!
SS17 is doable. (except for valuation of currency swap, which is pretty f_ing bad. SS18 is hell, in my opinion.
agreed, 17 aint horrible, 18 is living hell, they saved the best for last.
In addition to the no-arbitrage condition, the assumptions underlying the BSM model are: The price of the underlying asset follows a lognormal distribution.* The (continuous) risk-free rate is constant and known. The volatility of the underlying asset is constant and known. Option values depend on the volatility of the price of the underlying asset or interest rate. Markets are “frictionless.” There are no taxes, no transactions costs, and no restrictions on short sales or the use of short-sale proceeds. The underlying asset has no cash flow, such as dividends or coupon payments. The options valued are European options, which can only be exercised at maturity. *A variable that is lognormally distributed is one where the logs of the values (in this case, the continuous returns) are normally distributed. It has a minimum of zero and conforms to prices better than the normal distribution (which would produce negative prices).
Enjoy both SS17 and 18. They are pretty much pain in the butt. But look at the bright side… three more weeks and you are done. XD
I really do look forward to your thread once you’re maybe 2 readings into PM. I have a feeling all *I LOVE THIS STUFF* will go out the window and fast. Enjoy quant, enjoy. Currency swaps, taxes in PM, ICAPM… oh yeah… you’re in for a fun weekend.
Some fun: difference between CAL&CML, CML&SML, CAMP&APT, Market Model & Mutifactor Model, macroconomic & fundamental models. Jesus, what is Market Model for?
Reading them is only half the fun, make sure you bring some lube for that portion of the exam. bannisja Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really do look forward to your thread once > you’re maybe 2 readings into PM. I have a > feeling all *I LOVE THIS STUFF* will go out the > window and fast. Enjoy quant, enjoy. > Currency swaps, taxes in PM, ICAPM… oh yeah… > you’re in for a fun weekend.
I loved how in the tax section they give you this hideous formula for calculating future value interest factors using returns after realized taxes (Rart) and tax on effective capital gains (Tecg), and then Schweser says: “you’ll notice it looks just like the formula for regular capital gains with adjusted basis…” No it doesn’t! It looks nothing like that formula. Nothing!!! Seriously. Don’t try to make me feel better about it, just admit that you’re about to mind f**k me and move on to the next one.
honestly, i think these are the #1 and #2 hardest readings in the curriculum. drink some coffee and man up and get it done quantjock. ask lots of questions on the forum.
I see what you all mean. These readings separate the boys from the men, L2ers from L3ers, BS from GS, etc. Nontheless they are not extremely painful, difficult, but overall I enjoy the material.
jankynoname Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I loved how in the tax section they give you this > hideous formula for calculating future value > interest factors using returns after realized > taxes (Rart) and tax on effective capital gains > (Tecg), and then Schweser says: > > “you’ll notice it looks just like the formula for > regular capital gains with adjusted basis…” > > No it doesn’t! It looks nothing like that > formula. Nothing!!! Seriously. Don’t try to > make me feel better about it, just admit that > you’re about to mind f**k me and move on to the > next one. if you disregard the subscripts, it is the same except for the last term which i believe is -B(1-T) or something like that