Free Practice Questions for PRMIA 8006 Exam

The square root of time rule can be used to convert, say a 1-day volatility to a 10-day volatility, by multiplying the known volatility number by the square root of time to get the volatility over a different time horizon. However, there are key assumptions that underlie the application of this rule, and statements I to III correctly state those assumptions. If serial correlations (whether negative or positive) exist, then asset returns are not independent as they are affected by the prior day or prior period's returns, and we cannot use the square root of time rule. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

In order to use the 'square root of time' rule, asset returns should be iid, volatility should stay constant (ie there should be no volatility clustering), and no serial correlations (ie the returns of one day should not be affected by the returns of the prior periods). Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The need for physical storage of goods such as live cattle, oil tankers, the variability in these costs, the existence of a 'convenience yield' are all factors that contribute to a high basis risk for commodity futures. The basis between spot prices and futures prices is the highest for commodity futures when compared to other futures contracts.

A protective put is a put option purchased to protect against the fall in value of a long position. If the price of the underlying in respect of the long position goes down, the put options helps limit losses. If the price of the underlying goes up, the premium paid on the puts is lost but the investor gets to keep the entire upside from the rise in the price.

Therefore statements I, III and IV are correct. Statement II is not correct as any decline in the value of the underlying is offset by the gain from the put, which is the entire idea behind a protective put.

Choice 'b' lists all the factors that affect the forward price of a physical asset and is the most complete answer. Forward prices for physical assets are not affected by volatility (only options are), nor are they arbitrarily decided by any prevailing 'views'.

The underlying asset in a treasury bond futures contract is any long term US Treasury bond with a maturity of more than 15 years and not callable within 15 years. The underlying asset in a Treasury note futures contract is any long term Treasury note with a maturity of no less than 6.5 years and no more than 10 years.

Note the difference between what the underlying asset is for treasury bond futures and treasury note futures. In either case, adjustments will be made for the coupon and maturity of the actual bond delivered (the concept of the adjustment of 'cheapest-to-deliver').

Statement I is correct. If daily returns are not independent, variances cannot simply be added up over the period, and the square root of time rule is not appropriate to use to scale volatility.Statement II is incorrect. Statement III is correct. If daily returns are positively correlated, it means that a high return on one day will likely cause a higher return the next day, and likewise for low or negative returns. Intuitively, it means that a 'trend' will be created and volatility will be higher than in a case where daily returns were not correlated. Therefore statement II is not correct. By the same logic, negative correlation between daily returns would mean a higher return on one day would likely be followed by lower returns the next day, ie a reversion to mean will result causing the volatility to be lower than the case when the returns are uncorrelated. (The correlation between the daily returns is called the 'autocorrelation coefficient'.)Statement IV is false because while the random walk of prices does imply independence, it says nothing about the expected value of returns. It does not imply that the returns will have an expected value of zero (or any other value).Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer and the rest are incorrect.

The buyer of an FRA is considered 'long', and a 3 x 6 FRA allows him or her to borrow funds at the agreed rate starting at the end of month 3 till the end of month 6. (ie, 3 x 6 indicates that the borrowing period commences at 3 months, and ends at 6 months, for a period of 6 - 3 = 3 months). The seller has exactly the opposite position, ie he or she is committed to lend funds at the agreed rate for 3 months starting at the end of 3 months from today (for a 3 x 6 FRA). [Note that the obligation to borrow or lend in and FRA does not mean that either parties will actually do that, instead they will just exchange cash flows to get to get to an identical economic situation.]

Since the seller, or the short, is committed to lending in the future starting 3 months from now, it is akin to borrowing now for 3 months, and investing the borrowed amount for 6 months. During the first 3 months, the amounts borrowed and lent 'cancel' out (conceptually) and after the 3 months the short returns the amount borrowed, and is left with just the net amount lent, ie the FRA.

Thus the correct answer is Choice 'd'. Choice 'b' describes the position of the FRA buyer. Choice 'a' and Choice 'c' are nonsensical.

According to the mean variance criterion, an investor would always:

- prefer less risk to more risk given a certain level of returns,

- prefer more returns to less returns given a certain level of risk,

- if two portfolios are such that one provides higher returns at a higher risk, and the other provides a lower return at a lower risk, then we cannot say which of the portfolios the investor would prefer as that would depend upon the investor's risk preference.

The implication of the above is that an investor will always prefer a portfolio on the efficient frontier (the first two points above), as the portfolios on the efficient frontier always represent the maximum return for any given level of risk (or lowest risk given a certain level of desired return). As between two portfolios both of which are on the efficient frontier (last point above), the investor will pick based upon his or her level of risk tolerance.

Therefore statement II and III are correct, and Choice 'd' is the correct answer. The reference to drawdowns and risk neutrality in statements I and IV are meaningless in the context and are incorrect.

This question relates to the Black Scholes PDE (partial differential equation). The Black Scholes PDE is derived by combining the results of a stock price following a Weiner process with a mathematical result known as Ito's lemma and holds true for all derivatives whose prices depend upon S, the price of the underlying and upon t, which indicates time.

The derivation of the Black Scholes PDE is beyond the scope of the PRM syllabus (and also of the author of this question), but we need to know what it is. The PDE can be written as:

202.21.q1

Substituting , this can also be written as

202.21.e

202.21.q2

Therefore the first and the second equations are correct, and the other two are wrong. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

You should know the PDE in case there is a numerical question about it. The two ways of writing it (as I and II above in the question) express the same relationship. The BSM formula itself for valuing a vanilla European option is based upon the PDE. Most other options are also valued using the fundamental relationship expressed in the PDE.

Security A 'dominates' security B, ie it offers the most return per unit of volatility. However, because it is less volatile, its returns are likely to be more concentrated around its mean compared to Security B which will have 'fatter tails' compared to Security A. Therefore Security B will offer a much better chance of making the desired 25% return. Of course, this also means that Security B is much more likely to lose a lot more money than Security A. However, if the portfolio manager is only interested in maximizing his chances of making a 25% or greater return, he should select Security B. The answer can be verified using Excel's Normdist formula, and probability of exceeding 25% will be given by [=1-NORMDIST(0.25,0.1,0.1,TRUE)] for Security A and =1-NORMDIST(0.25,0.1,0.2,TRUE)] for Security B. A combined portfolio of the two will have a return of 10% and variance less than that of Security B (or at the most equal to the weighted average of the two variances, even if their correlation is 1), which means a combined portfolio will also have a lower probability of exceeding a 25% return.

This question reflects how portfolio managers may be tempted to make sub-optimum decisions for their investors by swinging for the fences by taking large bets, for example, when they have had a big drawdown and have to make it up to the high water mark levels before they earn performance fees.