B不对的解释没看懂，能否解释一下，谢谢

问题如下：

A client’s limited partnership stake in a venture that invests in office buildings throughout Asia has been revalued such that this stake is now worth 30% less than estimated at the time the IPS was written. Assume that, prior to the revaluation, this stake accounted for 10% of the total market value of the portfolio and was worth EUR10 million, the target strategic allocation for global real estate securities. The lower bound for rebalancing is 8%. The next annual review of the IPS is scheduled in nine months. Which response below best describes the next IPS review?

选项：

A.

The next IPS review should take place in nine months as scheduled

B.

The next IPS review should be rescheduled as soon as possible with a focus on capital sufficiency analysis

C.

The next IPS review should be rescheduled as soon as possible to review the asset allocation of the portfolio

解释：

Given the assumption on the initial size of the limited partnership stake, the decline in the total portfolio value is just 3%, so a capital sufficiency analysis is unnecessary. Moreover, the allocation to Global Real Estate Securities declines to 7.2% (from 10%), so it is just below the 8% lower rebalancing limit for this asset class — see calculations below. Therefore, the next IPS review should be rescheduled as soon as possible to review the asset allocation of the portfolio with a view towards rebalancing. Decline in total portfolio value is -3%, Allocation to global real estate securities is 7.2%

A is incorrect because significant changes in market conditions, such as the revaluation of the limited partnership stake, can create the need for an IPS review earlier than a scheduled once per year review. B is incorrect because the couple can tolerate portfolio volatility, and the decline in total portfolio value is just 3%, so a focus on the capital sufficiency analysis should not be a necessary aspect of the next IPS review.