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

Carolyne · 2025年06月27日

equity exposure变多了

* 问题详情,请 查看题干

NO.PZ202206210100000104

问题如下:

The changes that were allowed in OHF’s strategic asset allocation in Phase 4 are best classified as relating to changes in:

选项:

A.constraints. B.beliefs. C.goals.

解释:

Solution

B is correct. In Phase 4, lower oil prices and reduced production would have resulted in substantial declines in cash inflows that management perceived to be long term in nature. To compensate for these changes, management sought both lower withdrawals and increased equity exposure to bolster its declining cash inflows.

A is incorrect. A change in constraints would arise from a change in time horizon, liquidity needs, asset size, or regulatory constraints, none of which are indicated in Phase 4.

C is incorrect. Although business conditions have changed because of lower oil prices and reduced production, there is no indication that the main goal of the fund has changed; indeed, the government reaffirmed its commitment to the fund given in the latter part of Phase 2.

equity exposure变多了,不就是rik appetite 增加了吗,这个应该属于goal的改变啊,请问如何理解

1 个答案

Lucky_品职助教 · 2025年06月27日

嗨,从没放弃的小努力你好:


在 Phase 4 中,OHF 增加股票敞口并非目标的改变,而是基于对市场环境变化的信念调整。

基金的核心目标始终是为后代积累财富,政府也重申了 Phase 3 的承诺。油价下跌和产量下降导致现金流入长期减少,管理层认为需通过增加股票这类高收益资产来弥补收益缺口,这是对资产收益预期和市场趋势的认知变化,属于根据外部条件调整投资策略的信念层面变动,而非改变基金的根本目标。

Constraints方面,时间 horizon、流动性需求等均未变化,因此正确分类为信念的变化。

----------------------------------------------
加油吧,让我们一起遇见更好的自己!

  • 1

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 5

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ202206210100000104 问题如下 Olivinia Heritage Case Scenario Olivinia is oil-ristate in the country of Puerto Rinal, whiuses the US llits officicurrenof exchange. In 1981, the state’s legislature createthe Olivinia Heritage Fun(OHF) to collea portion of the state’s non-renewable resourrevenue aninvest it on behalf of future generations. James Lafferty, the managing rector of the fun is one of the keynote speakers the GlobWealth Creation Conference. He begins his presentation with a brief overview of OHF’s history (Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1 Overview of the Olivinia Heritage Fun Phase 1 (1981–1991) The funwgiven initiallocation of $1 billion the state. The funwto receive 10% of all state revenues arising from taxes on oil angproction anextraction. The funwgiven a 20-yeaccumulation perioover whino stributions were alloweanthe funwforecasteto grow to $10 billion. Income earnefollowing the accumulation periowto useto provi for public works another public infrastructure within the state. Investments were restricteto cash aninvestment-gra bon. Phase 2 (1991–2001) 1991, after being in existenfor 10 years, the funvalue hgrown to $2.2 billion. this time, transfers of state revenues from taxes on oil-relateresources whalteanthe government begto use income generatethe funfor reeconomic velopment ansociinvestment purposes. In aition to cash aninvestment-gra bon, the investment mante for the funwexpanto inclu investments in private anpublic companies, reestate, aninfrastructure investments. Management of cash anboninvestments wperformein-house. For the higher-risk component of the portfolio, the funhireexternmanagers in effort to increase return ancorresponngly lower the incinof negative performance. These managers were hireor retaineif they houtperformeother active managers in their sectors in least the prior two years. The funvalue the enof this periow$6 billion. Phase 3 (2001–2014) Strong reform legislation relateto the originintent of the funwintrocein 2001. It reinstatetransfers of oil-relatetaxes to the fun increasing them to 35% of oil- angas-relatestate revenues. In aition, the funwmanteto have 50% in public equities through passive inx fun an10% in cash aninvestment-gra bon. The remainr wto viequally between high-yielbon, reestate, private equity, anhee fun anwoulcontinue to manageexternally. All investments were to ma outsi the country to avoioverheating the nationeconomy. Investments manageinviexternmanagers wlimiteto approximately $75 million. A two-thir majority in both the upper anlower legislative boes wrequireto change any future legislation relateto the fun the enof this phase, the funwworth $28 billion. Phase 4 (2014–Present) The funs management felt ththe significant cline in oil prices sinmi2014 anlowereproction levels were likely to persist through severbusiness cycles, requiring a change in strategy to maintain the long-term objectives of the fun. They sought government approvfor lower withawals from the fun higher equity exposure, anthe flexibility to vary asset class poliweights mu±5% for eaasset class from the static weights thhpreviously existe The government reaffirmeits commitment to the fungiven in Phase 3, anlegislative approvwreceivefor these changes, inclung the ability to increase public equity exposure to 65% anreinvestment-gra bonexposure to little 7.5%. Of the remaining authorizeassets, no one asset class coulhave a weight in excess of 10%. Lafferty states thever sinthe funwgiven the authority to vary asset class poliweights from their strategic levels, it hactively engagein tacticasset allocation (TAusing a variety of proprietary short-term forecasting tools thhave been velopein-house. He provis the ta in Exhibits 2 an3 to illustrate the results of one sushift in the funs asset allocation following a signfrom its Tmol. Exhibit 2 Example of a Short-Term Shift in Asset Allocation * Current weight refers to the weighting in effejust prior to when the Tsignoccurre Lafferty conclus the morning portion of his presentation the conferencomparing the relative performanof the three portfolios (from Exhibit 2) utilizing a graph (Exhibit 3) of the efficient frontier rivefrom the asset classes usethe fun Exhibit 3 Efficient Frontier from Assets UtilizeOHF Question The changes thwere allowein OHF’s strategic asset allocation in Phase 4 are best classifierelating to changes in: A.constraints. B.beliefs. C.goals. SolutionB is correct. In Phase 4, lower oil prices anreceproction woulhave resultein substanticlines in cash inflows thmanagement perceiveto long term in nature. To compensate for these changes, management sought both lower withawals anincreaseequity exposure to bolster its clining cash inflows.A is incorrect. A change in constraints woularise from a change in time horizon, liquity nee, asset size, or regulatory constraints, none of whiare incatein Phase 4. C is incorrect. Although business contions have changebecause of lower oil prices anreceproction, there is no incation ththe main goof the funhchange ine the government reaffirmeits commitment to the fungiven in the latter part of Phase 2. Investment Strategy的改变或者Asset Allocation的改变都是Belief的变化带来的吗

2025-06-01 14:16 3 · 回答

NO.PZ202206210100000104 问题如下 Olivinia Heritage Case Scenario Olivinia is oil-ristate in the country of Puerto Rinal, whiuses the US llits officicurrenof exchange. In 1981, the state’s legislature createthe Olivinia Heritage Fun(OHF) to collea portion of the state’s non-renewable resourrevenue aninvest it on behalf of future generations. James Lafferty, the managing rector of the fun is one of the keynote speakers the GlobWealth Creation Conference. He begins his presentation with a brief overview of OHF’s history (Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1 Overview of the Olivinia Heritage Fun Phase 1 (1981–1991) The funwgiven initiallocation of $1 billion the state. The funwto receive 10% of all state revenues arising from taxes on oil angproction anextraction. The funwgiven a 20-yeaccumulation perioover whino stributions were alloweanthe funwforecasteto grow to $10 billion. Income earnefollowing the accumulation periowto useto provi for public works another public infrastructure within the state. Investments were restricteto cash aninvestment-gra bon. Phase 2 (1991–2001) 1991, after being in existenfor 10 years, the funvalue hgrown to $2.2 billion. this time, transfers of state revenues from taxes on oil-relateresources whalteanthe government begto use income generatethe funfor reeconomic velopment ansociinvestment purposes. In aition to cash aninvestment-gra bon, the investment mante for the funwexpanto inclu investments in private anpublic companies, reestate, aninfrastructure investments. Management of cash anboninvestments wperformein-house. For the higher-risk component of the portfolio, the funhireexternmanagers in effort to increase return ancorresponngly lower the incinof negative performance. These managers were hireor retaineif they houtperformeother active managers in their sectors in least the prior two years. The funvalue the enof this periow$6 billion. Phase 3 (2001–2014) Strong reform legislation relateto the originintent of the funwintrocein 2001. It reinstatetransfers of oil-relatetaxes to the fun increasing them to 35% of oil- angas-relatestate revenues. In aition, the funwmanteto have 50% in public equities through passive inx fun an10% in cash aninvestment-gra bon. The remainr wto viequally between high-yielbon, reestate, private equity, anhee fun anwoulcontinue to manageexternally. All investments were to ma outsi the country to avoioverheating the nationeconomy. Investments manageinviexternmanagers wlimiteto approximately $75 million. A two-thir majority in both the upper anlower legislative boes wrequireto change any future legislation relateto the fun the enof this phase, the funwworth $28 billion. Phase 4 (2014–Present) The funs management felt ththe significant cline in oil prices sinmi2014 anlowereproction levels were likely to persist through severbusiness cycles, requiring a change in strategy to maintain the long-term objectives of the fun. They sought government approvfor lower withawals from the fun higher equity exposure, anthe flexibility to vary asset class poliweights mu±5% for eaasset class from the static weights thhpreviously existe The government reaffirmeits commitment to the fungiven in Phase 3, anlegislative approvwreceivefor these changes, inclung the ability to increase public equity exposure to 65% anreinvestment-gra bonexposure to little 7.5%. Of the remaining authorizeassets, no one asset class coulhave a weight in excess of 10%. Lafferty states thever sinthe funwgiven the authority to vary asset class poliweights from their strategic levels, it hactively engagein tacticasset allocation (TAusing a variety of proprietary short-term forecasting tools thhave been velopein-house. He provis the ta in Exhibits 2 an3 to illustrate the results of one sushift in the funs asset allocation following a signfrom its Tmol. Exhibit 2 Example of a Short-Term Shift in Asset Allocation * Current weight refers to the weighting in effejust prior to when the Tsignoccurre Lafferty conclus the morning portion of his presentation the conferencomparing the relative performanof the three portfolios (from Exhibit 2) utilizing a graph (Exhibit 3) of the efficient frontier rivefrom the asset classes usethe fun Exhibit 3 Efficient Frontier from Assets UtilizeOHF Question The changes thwere allowein OHF’s strategic asset allocation in Phase 4 are best classifierelating to changes in: A.constraints. B.beliefs. C.goals. SolutionB is correct. In Phase 4, lower oil prices anreceproction woulhave resultein substanticlines in cash inflows thmanagement perceiveto long term in nature. To compensate for these changes, management sought both lower withawals anincreaseequity exposure to bolster its clining cash inflows.A is incorrect. A change in constraints woularise from a change in time horizon, liquity nee, asset size, or regulatory constraints, none of whiare incatein Phase 4. C is incorrect. Although business contions have changebecause of lower oil prices anreceproction, there is no incation ththe main goof the funhchange ine the government reaffirmeits commitment to the fungiven in the latter part of Phase 2. resultein substanticlines in cash inflows 这句话可以判断出是有CF的未预期进出的呀,所以这个是属于Constraints的其中之一呀

2025-05-10 16:04 2 · 回答

NO.PZ202206210100000104 问题如下 The changes thwere allowein OHF’s strategic asset allocation in Phase 4 are best classifierelating to changes in: A.constraints. B.beliefs. C.goals. SolutionB is correct. In Phase 4, lower oil prices anreceproction woulhave resultein substanticlines in cash inflows thmanagement perceiveto long term in nature. To compensate for these changes, management sought both lower withawals anincreaseequity exposure to bolster its clining cash inflows.A is incorrect. A change in constraints woularise from a change in time horizon, liquity nee, asset size, or regulatory constraints, none of whiare incatein Phase 4. C is incorrect. Although business contions have changebecause of lower oil prices anreceproction, there is no incation ththe main goof the funhchange ine the government reaffirmeits commitment to the fungiven in the latter part of Phase 2. 老师能讲下goal和belief的区别吗,constraint能分清,这两个感觉有点模糊

2024-06-11 23:38 2 · 回答

NO.PZ202206210100000104 问题如下 The changes thwere allowein OHF’s strategic asset allocation in Phase 4 are best classifierelating to changes in: A.constraints. B.beliefs. C.goals. SolutionB is correct. In Phase 4, lower oil prices anreceproction woulhave resultein substanticlines in cash inflows thmanagement perceiveto long term in nature. To compensate for these changes, management sought both lower withawals anincreaseequity exposure to bolster its clining cash inflows.A is incorrect. A change in constraints woularise from a change in time horizon, liquity nee, asset size, or regulatory constraints, none of whiare incatein Phase 4. C is incorrect. Although business contions have changebecause of lower oil prices anreceproction, there is no incation ththe main goof the funhchange ine the government reaffirmeits commitment to the fungiven in the latter part of Phase 2. 书上的这三个概念也十分模糊,老师是否可以总结一下区分这三个constraints的关键词?比如看到 time horizon, asset size就是 change in constraints看到什么是 change belief

2022-11-05 02:31 1 · 回答