Free CFA-Level-III Exam Braindumps
CFA Level III Chartered Financial Analyst Questions 101–105 (page: 22)

Jack Mercer and June Seagram are investment advisors for Northern Advisors. Mercer graduated from a prestigious university in London eight years ago, whereas Seagram is newly graduated from a mid-western university in the United States. Northern provides investment advice for pension funds, foundations, endowments, and trusts. As part of their services, they evaluate the performance of outside portfolio managers. They are currently scrutinizing the performance of several portfolio managers who work for the Thompson University endowment.
Over the most recent month, the record of the largest manager. Bison Management, is as follows. On March 1, the endowment account with Bison stood at $ 11,200,000. On March 16, the university contributed $4,000,000 that they received from a wealthy alumnus. After receiving that contribution, the account was valued at $ 17,800,000. On March 31, the account was valued at $16,100,000. Using this information, Mercer and Seagram calculated the time-weighted and money-weighted returns for Bison during March. Mercer states that the advantage of the time-weighted return is that it is easy to calculate and administer. Seagram states that the money-weighted return is, however, a better measure of the manager's performance.
Mercer and Seagram are also evaluating the performance of Lunar Management. Risk and return data for the most recent fiscal year are shown below for both Bison and Lunar. The minimum acceptable return (MAR) for Thompson is the 4.5% spending rate on the endowment, which the endowment has determined using a geometric spending rule. The T-bill return over the same fiscal year was 3.5%. The return on the MSCI World Index was used as the market index. The World index had a return of 9% in dollar terms with a standard deviation of 23% and a beta of 1.0.

The next day at lunch, Mercer and Seagram discuss alternatives for benchmarks in assessing the performance of managers. The alternatives discussed that day are manager universes, broad market indices, style indices, factor models, and custom benchmarks. Mercer states that manager universes have the advantage of being measurable but they are subject to survivor bias. Seagram states that manager universes possess only one quality of a valid benchmark.
Mercer and Seagram also provide investment advice for a hedge fund, Jaguar Investors. Jaguar specializes in exploiting mispricing in equities and over-the-counter derivatives in emerging markets. They periodically engage in providing foreign currency hedges to small firms in emerging markets when deemed profitable. This most commonly occurs when no other provider of these contracts is available to these firms. Jaguar is selling a large position in Mexican pesos in the spot market. Furthermore, they have just provided a forward contract to a firm in Russia that allows that firm to sell Swiss francs for Russian rubles in 90 days. Jaguar has also entered into a currency swap that allows a firm to receive Japanese yen in exchange for paying the Russian ruble.

Determine which of the following best describes the relative diversification and performance of the Bison portfolio and Lunar portfolio:

Jack Mercer and June Seagram are investment advisors for Northern Advisors. Mercer graduated from a prestigious university in London eight years ago, whereas Seagram is newly graduated from a mid-western university in the United States. Northern provides investment advice for pension funds, foundations, endowments, and trusts. As part of their services, they evaluate the performance of outside portfolio managers. They are currently scrutinizing the performance of several portfolio managers who work for the Thompson University endowment.

Over the most recent month, the record of the largest manager. Bison Management, is as follows. On March 1, the endowment account with Bison stood at $ 11,200,000. On March 16, the university contributed $4,000,000 that they received from a wealthy alumnus. After receiving that contribution, the account was valued at $ 17,800,000. On March 31, the account was valued at $16,100,000. Using this information, Mercer and Seagram calculated the time-weighted and money-weighted returns for Bison during March. Mercer states that the advantage of the time-weighted return is that it is easy to calculate and administer. Seagram states that the money-weighted return is, however, a better measure of the manager's performance.

Mercer and Seagram are also evaluating the performance of Lunar Management. Risk and return data for the most recent fiscal year are shown below for both Bison and Lunar. The minimum acceptable return (MAR) for Thompson is the 4.5% spending rate on the endowment, which the endowment has determined using a geometric spending rule. The T-bill return over the same fiscal year was 3.5%. The return on the MSCI World Index was used as the market index. The World index had a return of 9% in dollar terms with a standard deviation of 23% and a beta of 1.0.

The next day at lunch, Mercer and Seagram discuss alternatives for benchmarks in assessing the performance of managers. The alternatives discussed that day are manager universes, broad market indices, style indices, factor models, and custom benchmarks. Mercer states that manager universes have the advantage of being measurable but they are subject to survivor bias. Seagram states that manager universes possess only one quality of a valid benchmark.
Mercer and Seagram also provide investment advice for a hedge fund, Jaguar Investors. Jaguar specializes in exploiting mispricing in equities and over-the-counter derivatives in emerging markets. They periodically engage in providing foreign currency hedges to small firms in emerging markets when deemed profitable. This most commonly occurs when no other provider of these contracts is available to these firms. Jaguar is selling a large position in Mexican pesos in the spot market. Furthermore, they have just provided a forward contract to a firm in Russia that allows that firm to sell Swiss francs for Russian rubles in 90 days. Jaguar has also entered into a currency swap that allows a firm to receive Japanese yen in exchange for paying the Russian ruble.

Regarding their statements about manager universes, determine whether Mercer and Seagram are correct or incorrect.

Jack Mercer and June Seagram are investment advisors for Northern Advisors. Mercer graduated from a prestigious university in London eight years ago, whereas Seagram is newly graduated from a mid-western university in the United States. Northern provides investment advice for pension funds, foundations, endowments, and trusts. As part of their services, they evaluate the performance of outside portfolio managers. They are currently scrutinizing the performance of several portfolio managers who work for the Thompson University endowment.
Over the most recent month, the record of the largest manager. Bison Management, is as follows. On March 1, the endowment account with Bison stood at $ 11,200,000. On March 16, the university contributed $4,000,000 that they received from a wealthy alumnus. After receiving that contribution, the account was valued at $ 17,800,000. On March 31, the account was valued at $16,100,000. Using this information, Mercer and Seagram calculated the time-weighted and money-weighted returns for Bison during March. Mercer states that the advantage of the time-weighted return is that it is easy to calculate and administer. Seagram states that the money-weighted return is, however, a better measure of the manager's performance.
Mercer and Seagram are also evaluating the performance of Lunar Management. Risk and return data for the most recent fiscal year are shown below for both Bison and Lunar. The minimum acceptable return (MAR) for Thompson is the 4.5% spending rate on the endowment, which the endowment has determined using a geometric spending rule. The T-bill return over the same fiscal year was 3.5%. The return on the MSCI World Index was used as the market index. The World index had a return of 9% in dollar terms with a standard deviation of 23% and a beta of 1.0.

The next day at lunch, Mercer and Seagram discuss alternatives for benchmarks in assessing the performance of managers. The alternatives discussed that day are manager universes, broad market indices, style indices, factor models, and custom benchmarks. Mercer states that manager universes have the advantage of being measurable but they are subject to survivor bias. Seagram states that manager universes possess only one quality of a valid benchmark.
Mercer and Seagram also provide investment advice for a hedge fund, Jaguar Investors. Jaguar specializes in exploiting mispricing in equities and over-the-counter derivatives in emerging markets. They periodically engage in providing foreign currency hedges to small firms in emerging markets when deemed profitable. This most commonly occurs when no other provider of these contracts is available to these firms. Jaguar is selling a large position in Mexican pesos in the spot market. Furthermore, they have just provided a forward contract to a firm in Russia that allows that firm to sell Swiss francs for Russian rubles in 90 days. Jaguar has also entered into a currency swap that allows a firm to receive Japanese yen in exchange for paying the Russian ruble.

Of the following risks, determine which was most likely not considered in the series of foreign currency derivative transactions by Jaguar.

Powerful Performance Presenters (PPP) is a performance attribution and evaluation firm for pension consulting firms and has recently been hired by Stober and Robertson to conduct a performance attribution analysis for TopTech. Tom Harrison and Wendy Powell are the principals for PPP. Although performance attribution has come under fire lately because of its shortcomings, Stober believes PPP provides a needed service to its clients. Robertson shares Stober's view of performance attribution analysis.
Stober and Robertson request that Harrison and Powell provide a discussion of performance measures. During a conversation on complements to attribution analysis, Harrison notes the uses of the Treynor ratio. He states that the Treynor ratio is appropriate only when the investor's portfolio is well diversified. Powell states that the Sharpe ratio and the Treynor ratio will typically yield the same performance rankings for a set of portfolios.
Stober requests that PPP do some performance attribution calculations on TopTech's managers. In order to facilitate the analysis, Stober provides the information in the following table:

Harrison states one of PPP's services is that it will determine if TopTech has chosen a valid benchmark. Stoher volunteers that indeed his firm's benchmark possesses the properties of a valid benchmark and describes its composition. The benchmark has the following characteristics:
• It uses the top 10% of U.S. portfolio managers each year in each asset class as the benchmark for TopTech managers;
• TopTech is very careful to make sure that its managers are familiar with the securities in each benchmark asset class;
• The identities and weights of various securities in the TopTech benchmark are clearly defined.

During a presentation to Stober, Robertson, and other TopTech executives, Harrison and Powell describe how macro attribution analysis can decompose an entire fund's excess returns into various levels. In his introduction, Robertson delineates the six levels as net contributions, risk-free return, asset categories, benchmarks, investment managers, and allocations effects.
Robertson states that TopTech has performed impressively at the investment managers level tor three years in a row. Harrison and Powell then describe the levels in greater detail. Harrison describes the benchmark level as the difference between active managers' returns and their benchmark returns. Powell states that the investment managers' level reflects the returns to active management on the part of the fund's managers, weighted by the amount actually allocated to each manager.
At the request of Stober, Harrison and Powell explore alternatives to the benchmark TopTech is currently using for its small-cap value manager. After some investigation of the small-cap value manager's emphasis, Harrison and Powell derive four potential custom benchmarks and calculate two measures to evaluate the benchmarks:
(1) the return to the manager's active management or A = portfolio return - benchmark return; and (2) the return to the manager's style or S = benchmark return - broad market return.
The following characteristics are presented below for each benchmark: (1) the beta between the benchmark and the small-cap value portfolio; (2) the tracking error (i.e., the standard deviation of A); (3) the turnover of the benchmark; and (4) the correlation between A and S.

Harrison and Powell evaluate the benchmarks based on the four measures.

Regarding their statements concerning the Sharpe and the Treynor ratios, are Harrison and Powell correct or incorrect?

Powerful Performance Presenters (PPP) is a performance attribution and evaluation firm for pension consulting firms and has recently been hired by Stober and Robertson to conduct a performance attribution analysis for TopTech. Tom Harrison and Wendy Powell are the principals for PPP. Although performance attribution has come under fire lately because of its shortcomings, Stober believes PPP provides a needed service to its clients. Robertson shares Stober's view of performance attribution analysis.
Stober and Robertson request that Harrison and Powell provide a discussion of performance measures. During a conversation on complements to attribution analysis, Harrison notes the uses of the Treynor ratio. He states that the Treynor ratio is appropriate only when the investor's portfolio is well diversified. Powell states that the Sharpe ratio and the Treynor ratio will typically yield the same performance rankings for a set of portfolios.
Stober requests that PPP do some performance attribution calculations on TopTech's managers. In order to facilitate the analysis, Stober provides the information in the following table:

Harrison states one of PPP's services is that it will determine if TopTech has chosen a valid benchmark. Stoher volunteers that indeed his firm's benchmark possesses the properties of a valid benchmark and describes its composition. The benchmark has the following characteristics:
• It uses the top 10% of U.S. portfolio managers each year in each asset class as the benchmark for TopTech managers;
• TopTech is very careful to make sure that its managers are familiar with the securities in each benchmark asset class;
• The identities and weights of various securities in the TopTech benchmark are clearly defined.
During a presentation to Stober, Robertson, and other TopTech executives, Harrison and Powell describe how macro attribution analysis can decompose an entire fund's excess returns into various levels. In his introduction, Robertson delineates the six levels as net contributions, risk-free return, asset categories, benchmarks, investment managers, and allocations effects.
Robertson states that TopTech has performed impressively at the investment managers level tor three years in a row. Harrison and Powell then describe the levels in greater detail. Harrison describes the benchmark level as the difference between active managers' returns and their benchmark returns. Powell states that the investment managers' level reflects the returns to active management on the part of the fund's managers, weighted by the amount actually allocated to each manager.
At the request of Stober, Harrison and Powell explore alternatives to the benchmark TopTech is currently using for its small-cap value manager. After some investigation of the small-cap value manager's emphasis, Harrison and Powell derive four potential custom benchmarks and calculate two measures to evaluate the benchmarks:
(1) the return to the manager's active management or A = portfolio return - benchmark return; and (2) the return to the manager's style or S = benchmark return - broad market return.
The following characteristics are presented below for each benchmark: (1) the beta between the benchmark and the small-cap value portfolio; (2) the tracking error (i.e., the standard deviation of A); (3) the turnover of the benchmark; and (4) the correlation between A and S.

Harrison and Powell evaluate the benchmarks based on the four measures.

Based on an overall attribution analysis, does TopTech demonstrate superior ability to select sectors?