开发者:上海品职教育科技有限公司 隐私政策详情

应用版本:4.2.11(IOS)|3.2.5(安卓)APP下载

mino酱是个小破货 · 2025年05月24日

烦请问下老师这么回答可以吗?谢谢老师

NO.PZ2023010903000070

问题如下:

After answering a few additional questions, Swanson provides Rizzitano with a one-page document comparing the Legends Fund to the Kingston Fund. The information in this document is displayed in Exhibit 1. Swanson notes that the Kingston Fund is the Legends Fund's closest competitor and employs a very similar investment philosophy focused on quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano that the document demonstrates that the Legends Fund has a much more efficient portfolio structure than the Kingston Fund.

Identify two fund characteristics in Exhibit 1 that support Swanson's comment regarding the Legends Fund's relatively efficient portfolio structure.

选项:

解释:

Answer:

An efficient, well-constructed portfolio should have 1) risk exposures that align with investor expectations, and 2) low idiosyncratic(unexplained) risk relative to total risk.

The investment philosophies of both the Legends Fund and the Kingston Fund focus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions provided in Exhibit 1 suggest that quality is a significant factor exposure for the Legends Fund at-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fund at -0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.

In addition, the amount of idiosyncratic risk is much higher as a percentage of total risk for the Kingston Fund, at 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legends Fund. This also supports Swanson's statement.

Legends Fund has a much more efficient portfolio structure than the Kingston Fund.

Because with similar active risk, Legends has high active share than the Kingston Fund with less securities.

What’s more, Legends has higher total return with less volatility.

0 个答案
  • 0

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 4

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. Totreturn of Legen is greater thKingston even if they have the same management fee. Active share of Legen is greater thKingston so it is more risk-efficient because Legen use less stocks to generate more return anless likely ththe benchmark.Active risk are similbut totreturn of Legen is greater thKingston.

2025-04-05 08:31 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. Totreturn of Legen is greater thKingston even if they have the same management fee. Active share of Legen is greater thKingston so it is more risk-efficient because Legen use less stocks to generate more return anless likely ththe benchmark.Active risk are similbut totreturn of Legen is greater thKingston.

2025-04-05 08:27 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. 我直接答了risk efficient的两条,能算对吗?1.Legenfunhsimilactive risk with kingston fun but legenfuns active share is mularger thkingstong fun anlegen funs number of share is smaller thkingstong fun.Legen funhsimilactive risk with kingstonfun but legenfuns totreturn is larger thkingston fund

2025-01-22 18:57 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. 请问老师,我没有按照答案写的那两点回答,而是回答了如下,请问这样可以么?麻烦老师指导一下,谢谢!Legen funhactive of 4.9% whiis very close to Kingston funs active risk, 4.7%. However, Legen ha muhigher active share of 0.88% compareto 0.37% of Kingston. Legen anKingston have the same management fee. But Leen ha higher active share.

2025-01-06 02:24 2 · 回答

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. 第一个问题如题,想从risk anstructucharacteristipromise以及 A risk-efficient livery methology的角度答题。首先描述quality factor的contribution更大,因此满足第一条risk anstructucharacteristipromise另外就是Active share / active risk更大,因此满足A risk-efficient livery methology。第二个问题我看解析都没提 risk-efficient livery methology,反而提了unexplainereturn?请问讲义里关于Risk efficient的定义中的4条,哪里看出了需要unexplainereturn?

2024-08-12 00:58 1 · 回答