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

cika · 2022年11月29日

请问A怎么理解,谢谢

* 问题详情,请 查看题干

NO.PZ202206210100000106

问题如下:

Olivinia Heritage Case Scenario

Olivinia is an oil-rich state in the country of Puerto Rinaldo, which uses the US dollar as its official currency of exchange. In 1981, the state’s legislature created the Olivinia Heritage Fund (OHF) to collect a portion of the state’s non-renewable resource revenue and invest it on behalf of future generations. James Lafferty, the managing director of the fund, is one of the keynote speakers at the Global Wealth Creation Conference. He begins his presentation with a brief overview of OHF’s history (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1

An Overview of the Olivinia Heritage Fund
  • Phase 1 (1981–1991)

    The fund was given an initial allocation of $1 billion by the state. The fund was to receive 10% of all state revenues arising from taxes on oil and gas production and extraction. The fund was given a 20-year accumulation period over which no distributions were allowed and the fund was forecasted to grow to $10 billion. Income earned following the accumulation period was to be used to provide for public works and other public infrastructure within the state. Investments were restricted to cash and investment-grade bonds.

  • Phase 2 (1991–2001)

    By 1991, after being in existence for 10 years, the fund value had grown to $2.2 billion. At this time, transfers of state revenues from taxes on oil-related resources was halted and the government began to use income generated by the fund for direct economic development and social investment purposes. In addition to cash and investment-grade bonds, the investment mandate for the fund was expanded to include investments in private and public companies, real estate, and infrastructure investments. Management of cash and bond investments was performed in-house. For the higher-risk component of the portfolio, the fund hired external managers in an effort to increase return and correspondingly lower the incidence of negative performance. These managers were hired or retained if they had outperformed other active managers in their sectors in at least the prior two years. The fund value at the end of this period was $6 billion.

  • Phase 3 (2001–2014)

    Strong reform legislation related to the original intent of the fund was introduced in 2001. It reinstated transfers of oil-related taxes to the fund, increasing them to 35% of oil- and gas-related state revenues. In addition, the fund was mandated to have 50% in public equities through passive index funds and 10% in cash and investment-grade bonds. The remainder was to be divided equally between high-yield bonds, real estate, private equity, and hedge funds and would continue to be managed externally. All investments were to be made outside the country to avoid overheating the national economy. Investments managed by individual external managers was limited to approximately $75 million. A two-thirds majority in both the upper and lower legislative bodies was required to change any future legislation related to the fund. By the end of this phase, the fund was worth $28 billion.

  • Phase 4 (2014–Present)

    The fund’s management felt that the significant decline in oil prices since mid-2014 and lowered production levels were likely to persist through several business cycles, requiring a change in strategy to maintain the long-term objectives of the funds. They sought government approval for lower withdrawals from the fund, higher equity exposure, and the flexibility to vary asset class policy weights by as much ±5% for each asset class from the static weights that had previously existed. The government reaffirmed its commitment to the fund given in Phase 3, and legislative approval was received for these changes, including the ability to increase public equity exposure to 65% and reduce investment-grade bond exposure to as little as 7.5%. Of the remaining authorized assets, no one asset class could have a weight in excess of 10%.

Lafferty states that ever since the fund was given the authority to vary asset class policy weights from their strategic levels, it has actively engaged in tactical asset allocation (TAA) using a variety of proprietary short-term forecasting tools that have been developed in-house. He provides the data in Exhibits 2 and 3 to illustrate the results of one such shift in the fund’s asset allocation following a signal from its TAA model.

Exhibit 2

Example of a Short-Term Shift in Asset Allocation


* Current weight refers to the weighting in effect just prior to when the TAA signal occurred.

Lafferty concludes the morning portion of his presentation at the conference by comparing the relative performance of the three portfolios (from Exhibit 2) utilizing a graph (Exhibit 3) of the efficient frontier derived from the asset classes used by the fund.

Exhibit 3

Efficient Frontier from Assets Utilized by OHF

Exhibit 3

Question


The most appropriate conclusion that can be drawn from Exhibit 3 is that:

选项:

A.management’s risk–return objectives may not have been achieved with the TAA portfolio. B.the current portfolio is a corner portfolio. C.the Sharpe ratios for the policy portfolio and the TAA portfolio are the same.

解释:

Solution

A is correct. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line drawn from the risk-free rate to a particular portfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the policy portfolio and the TAA portfolio because both are indicated as being efficient. The diagram to the right indicates that the policy portfolio/risk-free combination has a higher slope than the TAA/risk-free combination. Even though the TAA portfolio has a higher return than the policy portfolio, the additional return requires too much additional risk. In addition, the TAA portfolio may exceed management’s risk tolerance.

B is incorrect. Corner portfolios are efficient portfolios and represent a portfolio where an asset weight changes from zero to positive or positive to zero. No such behavior in weights is indicated for the current portfolio allocation in Exhibit 2. It is also an inefficient portfolio.

C is incorrect. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line drawn from the risk-free rate to a particular portfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the policy portfolio and the TAA portfolio because both are indicated as being efficient. The diagram to the right indicates that the policy portfolio/risk-free combination has a higher slope than the TAA/risk-free combination.

请问A怎么理解,麻烦老师详细讲下,谢谢

1 个答案
已采纳答案

lynn_品职助教 · 2022年11月30日

嗨,努力学习的PZer你好:


这道题其实是“看图说话”哈,首先TAA Portfolio 和Policy portfolio都是在efficient frontier上,所以斜率SR是一样的,sharp ratio一样只说明单位风险的收益一样。虽然单位风险的收益一样,但是Policy的收益低,风险也低,而TAA收益高,风险也高,那么从risk tolerance的角度来看,TAA可能不符合组合管理的要求,因此A选项正确,C选项错误。

----------------------------------------------
就算太阳没有迎着我们而来,我们正在朝着它而去,加油!

  • 1

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 57

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ202206210100000106问题如下The most appropriate conclusion thcawn from Exhibit 3 is that:A.management’s risk–return objectives mnot have been achievewith the Tportfolio.B.the current portfolio is a corner portfolio.C.the Sharpe ratios for the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio are the same. SolutionA is correct. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line awn from the risk-free rate to a particulportfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio because both are incatebeing efficient. The agrto the right incates ththe poliportfolio/risk-free combination ha higher slope ththe TAA/risk-free combination. Even though the Tportfolio ha higher return ththe poliportfolio, the aitionreturn requires too muaitionrisk. In aition, the Tportfolio mexceemanagement’s risk tolerance.B is incorrect. Corner portfolios are efficient portfolios anrepresent a portfolio where asset weight changes from zero to positive or positive to zero. No subehavior in weights is incatefor the current portfolio allocation in Exhibit 2. It is also inefficient portfolio. C is incorrect. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line awn from the risk-free rate to a particulportfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio because both are incatebeing efficient. The agrto the right incates ththe poliportfolio/risk-free combination ha higher slope ththe TAA/risk-free combination. 如题,啥也看不到呢,没法答题

2022-12-05 17:08 1 · 回答

NO.PZ202206210100000106 问题如下 The most appropriate conclusion thcawn from Exhibit 3 is that: A.management’s risk–return objectives mnot have been achievewith the Tportfolio. B.the current portfolio is a corner portfolio. C.the Sharpe ratios for the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio are the same. SolutionA is correct. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line awn from the risk-free rate to a particulportfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio because both are incatebeing efficient. The agrto the right incates ththe poliportfolio/risk-free combination ha higher slope ththe TAA/risk-free combination. Even though the Tportfolio ha higher return ththe poliportfolio, the aitionreturn requires too muaitionrisk. In aition, the Tportfolio mexceemanagement’s risk tolerance.B is incorrect. Corner portfolios are efficient portfolios anrepresent a portfolio where asset weight changes from zero to positive or positive to zero. No subehavior in weights is incatefor the current portfolio allocation in Exhibit 2. It is also inefficient portfolio. C is incorrect. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line awn from the risk-free rate to a particulportfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio because both are incatebeing efficient. The agrto the right incates ththe poliportfolio/risk-free combination ha higher slope ththe TAA/risk-free combination. poliportfolio是Corner portfolios 么

2022-11-13 17:11 1 · 回答

NO.PZ202206210100000106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 most appropriate conclusion thcawn from Exhibit 3 is that:A.management’s risk–return objectives mnot have been achievewith the Tportfolio.B.the current portfolio is a corner portfolio.C.the Sharpe ratios for the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio are the same. SolutionA is correct. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line awn from the risk-free rate to a particulportfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio because both are incatebeing efficient. The agrto the right incates ththe poliportfolio/risk-free combination ha higher slope ththe TAA/risk-free combination. Even though the Tportfolio ha higher return ththe poliportfolio, the aitionreturn requires too muaitionrisk. In aition, the Tportfolio mexceemanagement’s risk tolerance.B is incorrect. Corner portfolios are efficient portfolios anrepresent a portfolio where asset weight changes from zero to positive or positive to zero. No subehavior in weights is incatefor the current portfolio allocation in Exhibit 2. It is also inefficient portfolio. C is incorrect. The Sharpe ratio is the slope of the line awn from the risk-free rate to a particulportfolio. The two portfolios of interest are the poliportfolio anthe Tportfolio because both are incatebeing efficient. The agrto the right incates ththe poliportfolio/risk-free combination ha higher slope ththe TAA/risk-free combination. ​图3在哪里?能否把图3发上来?

2022-08-24 06:45 4 · 回答