NO.PZ2022051904000006
问题如下：
In its quarterly policy and performance review, the investment team for the Peralandra University endowment identified a tactical allocation opportunity in international developed equities. The team also decided to implement a passive 1% overweight ($5 million notional value) position in the asset class. Implementation will occur by either using an MISC EAFE Index ETF in the cash market or the equivalent futures contract in the derivatives market.
The team determined that the unlevered cost of implementation is 27 basis points in the cash market (ETF) and 32 bps in the derivatives market (futures). This modest cost differential prompted a comparison of costs on a levered basis to preserve liquidity for upcoming capital commitments in the fund’s alternative investment asset classes. For the related analysis, the team’s assumptions are as follows:
- Investment policy compliant at 3 times leverage
- Investment horizon of one year
- 3-month Libor of 1.8%
- ETF borrowing cost of 3-month Libor plus 35 bps
选项：
解释：
SolutionAs the lower cost alternative, the endowment’s investment team should implement the 1% overweight position using futures.
The additional cost of obtaining leverage for each option is as follows:ETF: ($5 million × 0.6667 × 2.15%) / $5 million = 1.43% (or 143 bps) and Futures: ($5 million × 0.6667 × 1.80%) / $5 million = 1.20% (or 120 bps),
where the inputs are derived as follows:0.6667 reflects the 3 times leverage factor (66.67% borrowed and 33.33% cash usage), 2.15% reflects the ETF borrowing rate (3-month Libor of 1.80% + 35 bps), and 1.80% reflects the absence of investment income offset (at 3-month Libor) versus the unlevered cost of futures implementation.
The total levered cost of each option is the sum of the unlevered cost plus the additional cost of obtaining leverage:ETF: 27 bps + 143 bps = 170 bps and Futures: 32 bps + 120 bps = 152 bps.
This 18 bps cost advantage would make futures the appropriate choice for the endowment’s investment team.
这道题没看懂，请问有讲解视频吗？
