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

Christinafx · 2025年06月23日

三个月的Rate指的是年化的对吧?

NO.PZ2024102501000004

问题如下:

In its quarterly policy and performance review, the investment team for the Per alandra University endowment identified a tactical allocation opportunity in in ternational developed equities. The team also decided to implement a passive 1% overweight (USD5 million notional value) position in the asset class. Implemen tation will occur by using either 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 bps 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 three times leverage

■ Investment horizon of one year

■ Three-month MRR of 1.8%

■ ETF borrowing cost of three-month MRR plus 35 bps

Recommend the most cost-effective strategy. Justify your response with calcula tions of the total levered cost of each implementation option.

解释:

As the lower-cost alternative, the endowment’s investment team should imple ment the 1% overweight position using futures. T he additional cost of obtaining leverage for each option is as follows:

ETF: (USD5 million × 0.6667 × 2.15%)/USD5 million = 1.43% (or 143 bps) and

Futures: (USD5 million × 0.6667 × 1.80%)/USD5 million = 1.20% (or 120 bps),

where the inputs are derived as follows:

0.6667 reflects the three times leverage factor (66.67% borrowed and 33.33% cash usage),

2.15% reflects the ETF borrowing rate (three-month MRR of 1.80% + 35 bps), and

1.80% reflects the absence of investment income offset (at three-month MRR) 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.

如题 如果我们在考试中看到3 month rate,没有提是否年化,我就默认他是年化的是吗?

1 个答案

Lucky_品职助教 · 2025年06月24日

嗨,从没放弃的小努力你好:


是的,在考试中所有涉及利率的,只要没有特殊说明,都默认是年化的。

----------------------------------------------
虽然现在很辛苦,但努力过的感觉真的很好,加油!

  • 1

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 4

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ2024102501000004 问题如下 In its quarterly polianperformanreview, the investment tefor the Peralana University enwment intifiea tacticallocation opportunity in internationvelopeequities. The tealso cito implement a passive 1% overweight (US million notionvalue) position in the asset class. Implementation will occur using either MISC EAFE Inx ETF in the cash market or the equivalent futures contrain the rivatives market. The tetermineththe unleverecost of implementation is 27 bps in the cash market (ETF) an32 bps in the rivatives market (futures). This most cost fferentipromptea comparison of costs on a leverebasis to preserve liquity for upcoming capitcommitments in the funs alternative investment asset classes. For the relateanalysis, the team’s assumptions are follows: ■ Investment policompliant three times leverage ■ Investment horizon of one ye■ Three-month MRR of 1.8% ■ ETF borrowing cost of three-month MRR plus 35 bpsRecommenthe most cost-effective strategy. Justify your response with calculations of the totleverecost of eaimplementation option. the lower-cost alternative, the enwment’s investment teshoulimplement the 1% overweight position using futures. T he aitioncost of obtaining leverage for eaoption is follows: ETF: (US million × 0.6667 × 2.15%)/US million = 1.43% (or 143 bps) anFutures: (US million × 0.6667 × 1.80%)/US million = 1.20% (or 120 bps), where the inputs are rivefollows: 0.6667 reflects the three times leverage factor (66.67% borrowean33.33% cash usage), 2.15% reflects the ETF borrowing rate (three-month MRR of 1.80% + 35 bps), an1.80% reflects the absenof investment income offset (three-month MRR) versus the unleverecost of futures implementation. The totleverecost of eaoption is the sum of the unleverecost plus the aitioncost of obtaining leverage: ETF: 27 bps + 143 bps = 170 bps anFutures: 32 bps + 120 bps = 152 bps.This 18 bps cost aantage woulmake futures the appropriate choifor the enwment’s investment team. 如题。

2025-06-11 07:46 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2024102501000004 问题如下 In its quarterly polianperformanreview, the investment tefor the Peralana University enwment intifiea tacticallocation opportunity in internationvelopeequities. The tealso cito implement a passive 1% overweight (US million notionvalue) position in the asset class. Implementation will occur using either MISC EAFE Inx ETF in the cash market or the equivalent futures contrain the rivatives market. The tetermineththe unleverecost of implementation is 27 bps in the cash market (ETF) an32 bps in the rivatives market (futures). This most cost fferentipromptea comparison of costs on a leverebasis to preserve liquity for upcoming capitcommitments in the funs alternative investment asset classes. For the relateanalysis, the team’s assumptions are follows: ■ Investment policompliant three times leverage ■ Investment horizon of one ye■ Three-month MRR of 1.8% ■ ETF borrowing cost of three-month MRR plus 35 bpsRecommenthe most cost-effective strategy. Justify your response with calculations of the totleverecost of eaimplementation option. the lower-cost alternative, the enwment’s investment teshoulimplement the 1% overweight position using futures. T he aitioncost of obtaining leverage for eaoption is follows: ETF: (US million × 0.6667 × 2.15%)/US million = 1.43% (or 143 bps) anFutures: (US million × 0.6667 × 1.80%)/US million = 1.20% (or 120 bps), where the inputs are rivefollows: 0.6667 reflects the three times leverage factor (66.67% borrowean33.33% cash usage), 2.15% reflects the ETF borrowing rate (three-month MRR of 1.80% + 35 bps), an1.80% reflects the absenof investment income offset (three-month MRR) versus the unleverecost of futures implementation. The totleverecost of eaoption is the sum of the unleverecost plus the aitioncost of obtaining leverage: ETF: 27 bps + 143 bps = 170 bps anFutures: 32 bps + 120 bps = 152 bps.This 18 bps cost aantage woulmake futures the appropriate choifor the enwment’s investment team. 老师您好,答案中有一段说2.15% reflects the ETF borrowing rate (three-month MRR of 1.80% + 35 bps), an1.80% reflects the absenof investment income offset (three-month MRR) versus the unleverecost of futures implementation.】请问是什么意思呢?谢谢

2025-05-06 21:36 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2024102501000004 问题如下 In its quarterly polianperformanreview, the investment tefor the Peralana University enwment intifiea tacticallocation opportunity in internationvelopeequities. The tealso cito implement a passive 1% overweight (US million notionvalue) position in the asset class. Implementation will occur using either MISC EAFE Inx ETF in the cash market or the equivalent futures contrain the rivatives market. The tetermineththe unleverecost of implementation is 27 bps in the cash market (ETF) an32 bps in the rivatives market (futures). This most cost fferentipromptea comparison of costs on a leverebasis to preserve liquity for upcoming capitcommitments in the funs alternative investment asset classes. For the relateanalysis, the team’s assumptions are follows: ■ Investment policompliant three times leverage ■ Investment horizon of one ye■ Three-month MRR of 1.8% ■ ETF borrowing cost of three-month MRR plus 35 bpsRecommenthe most cost-effective strategy. Justify your response with calculations of the totleverecost of eaimplementation option. the lower-cost alternative, the enwment’s investment teshoulimplement the 1% overweight position using futures. T he aitioncost of obtaining leverage for eaoption is follows: ETF: (US million × 0.6667 × 2.15%)/US million = 1.43% (or 143 bps) anFutures: (US million × 0.6667 × 1.80%)/US million = 1.20% (or 120 bps), where the inputs are rivefollows: 0.6667 reflects the three times leverage factor (66.67% borrowean33.33% cash usage), 2.15% reflects the ETF borrowing rate (three-month MRR of 1.80% + 35 bps), an1.80% reflects the absenof investment income offset (three-month MRR) versus the unleverecost of futures implementation. The totleverecost of eaoption is the sum of the unleverecost plus the aitioncost of obtaining leverage: ETF: 27 bps + 143 bps = 170 bps anFutures: 32 bps + 120 bps = 152 bps.This 18 bps cost aantage woulmake futures the appropriate choifor the enwment’s investment team. MISC EAFE Inx ETF in the cash market: 0.27%+2/3*(1.8%+0.35%)=1.70%the equivalent futures contrain the rivatives market: 0.32%+2/3*1.8%=1.52%The equivalent futures contrain the rivatives market is more cost efficient with 180bps less thMISC EAFE Inx ETF in the cash market.

2025-03-16 16:11 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2024102501000004 问题如下 In its quarterly polianperformanreview, the investment tefor the Peralana University enwment intifiea tacticallocation opportunity in internationvelopeequities. The tealso cito implement a passive 1% overweight (US million notionvalue) position in the asset class. Implementation will occur using either MISC EAFE Inx ETF in the cash market or the equivalent futures contrain the rivatives market. The tetermineththe unleverecost of implementation is 27 bps in the cash market (ETF) an32 bps in the rivatives market (futures). This most cost fferentipromptea comparison of costs on a leverebasis to preserve liquity for upcoming capitcommitments in the funs alternative investment asset classes. For the relateanalysis, the team’s assumptions are follows: ■ Investment policompliant three times leverage ■ Investment horizon of one ye■ Three-month MRR of 1.8% ■ ETF borrowing cost of three-month MRR plus 35 bpsRecommenthe most cost-effective strategy. Justify your response with calculations of the totleverecost of eaimplementation option. the lower-cost alternative, the enwment’s investment teshoulimplement the 1% overweight position using futures. T he aitioncost of obtaining leverage for eaoption is follows: ETF: (US million × 0.6667 × 2.15%)/US million = 1.43% (or 143 bps) anFutures: (US million × 0.6667 × 1.80%)/US million = 1.20% (or 120 bps), where the inputs are rivefollows: 0.6667 reflects the three times leverage factor (66.67% borrowean33.33% cash usage), 2.15% reflects the ETF borrowing rate (three-month MRR of 1.80% + 35 bps), an1.80% reflects the absenof investment income offset (three-month MRR) versus the unleverecost of futures implementation. The totleverecost of eaoption is the sum of the unleverecost plus the aitioncost of obtaining leverage: ETF: 27 bps + 143 bps = 170 bps anFutures: 32 bps + 120 bps = 152 bps.This 18 bps cost aantage woulmake futures the appropriate choifor the enwment’s investment team. 为什么用futures的时候还要加上5*0.6667*1.8%

2025-01-25 12:45 1 · 回答