CFA Institute CFA Level II Chartered Financial Analyst Exam Practice Test

James Walker is the Chief Financial Officer for Lothar Corporation, a U .S . mining company that specializes in worldwide exploration for and excavation of precious metals. Lothar Corporation generally tries to maintain a debt-to-capital ratio of approximately 45% and has successfully done so for the past seven years. Due to the time lag between the discovery of an extractable vein of metal and the eventual sale of the excavated material, the company frequently must issue short-term debt to fund its operations. Issuing these one to six month notes sometimes pushes Lothar's debt to capital ratio above their long-term target, but the cash provided from the short-term financing is necessary to complete the majority of the company's mining projects.

Walker has estimated that extraction of silver deposits in southern Australia has eight months until project completion. However, funding for the project will run out in approximately six months. In order to cover the funding gap. Walker will have to issue short-term notes with a principal value of $1,275,000 at an unknown future interest rate. To mitigate the interest rate uncertainty, Walker has decided to enter into a forward rate agreement (FRA) based on LIBOR which currently has a term structure as shown in Exhibit 1.

Three months after establishing the position in the forward rate agreement, LIBOR interest rates have shifted causing the value of Lothar's FRA . position to change as well. The new LIBOR term structure is shown in Exhibit 2.

While Walker is estimating the change in the value of the original FRA position, he receives a memo from the Chief Operating Officer of Lochar Corporation, Maria Steiner, informing him of a major delay in one of the company's South African mining projects. In the memo, Stciner states the following: "As usual, the project delay will require a short-term loan to cover funding shortage that will accompany the extra time until project completion. I have estimated that in 210 days, we will require a 90-day project loan in the amount of $2,350,000.1 would like you to establish another FRA position, this time with a contract rate of 6.95%."

Which of the following is least likely a reason Walker has chosen to use forward contracts instead of futures contracts?

William Bow, CFA, is a risk manager for GlobeCorp, an international conglomerate with operations in the technology, consumer products, and medical devices industries. Exactly one year ago, GlobeCorp, under Bow's advice, entered into a 3-year payer interest rate swap with semiannual floating rate payments based on the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) and semiannual fixed rate payments based on an annual rate of 2.75%. At the time of initiation, the swap had a value of zero and the notional principal was set equal to $150 million. The counterparty to GlobeCorp's swap is NVS Bank, a commercial bank that also serves as a swap dealer. Exhibit 1 below summarizes the current LIBOR term structure.

Upper management at GlobeCorp feels that the original swap has served its intended purpose but that circumstances have changed and it is now time to offset the firm's exposure to the swap. Because they cannot find a counterparty to an offsetting swap transaction, management has asked Bow to come up with alternative measures to offset the swap exposure. Bow created a report for the management team which outlines several strategies to neutralize the swap exposure. Two of his strategies are included in Exhibit 2.

After examining its long-term liabilities, NVS Bank has decided that it currently needs to borrow $100 million over the next two years to finance its operations. For this type of funding need, NVS generally issues quarterly coupon short-term floating rate notes based on 90-day LIBOR. NVS is concerned, however, that interest rates may shift upward and the LIBOR curve may become upward sloping. To manage this risk, NVS is considering utilizing interest rate derivatives. Managers at the bank have collected quotes on over-the-counter interest rate caps and floors from a well known securities dealer. The quotes, which are based on a notional principal of $100 million, are provided in Exhibit 3.

One of the managers at NVS Bank, Lois Green, has expressed her distrust of the securities dealer quoting prices on the caps and floors. In a memo to the CFO, Green suggested that NVS use an alternative but equivalent approach to manage the interest rate risk associated with its two-year funding plan. Following is an excerpt from Green's memo:

"Rather than using a cap or floor, NVS Bank can effectively manage its exposure to interest rates resulting from the 2-year funding requirement by taking long positions in a series of put options on fixed-income instruments with expiration dates that coincide with the payment dates on the floating rate note."

"As a cheaper alternative, NVS can effectively manage its exposure to interest rates resulting from the 2-ycar funding requirement by creating a collar using long positions in a series of call options on interest rates and long positions in a series of call options on fixed income instruments all of which would have expiration dates that coincide with the payment dates on the floating rate note."

GlobeCorp is concerned with its exposure to the interest rate swap initiated one year ago. Evaluate the strategies recommended by Bow in Exhibit 2.

William Bow, CFA, is a risk manager for GlobeCorp, an international conglomerate with operations in the technology, consumer products, and medical devices industries. Exactly one year ago, GlobeCorp, under Bow's advice, entered into a 3-year payer interest rate swap with semiannual floating rate payments based on the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) and semiannual fixed rate payments based on an annual rate of 2.75%. At the time of initiation, the swap had a value of zero and the notional principal was set equal to $150 million. The counterparty to GlobeCorp's swap is NVS Bank, a commercial bank that also serves as a swap dealer. Exhibit 1 below summarizes the current LIBOR term structure.

Upper management at GlobeCorp feels that the original swap has served its intended purpose but that circumstances have changed and it is now time to offset the firm's exposure to the swap. Because they cannot find a counterparty to an offsetting swap transaction, management has asked Bow to come up with alternative measures to offset the swap exposure. Bow created a report for the management team which outlines several strategies to neutralize the swap exposure. Two of his strategies are included in Exhibit 2.

After examining its long-term liabilities, NVS Bank has decided that it currently needs to borrow $100 million over the next two years to finance its operations. For this type of funding need, NVS generally issues quarterly coupon short-term floating rate notes based on 90-day LIBOR. NVS is concerned, however, that interest rates may shift upward and the LIBOR curve may become upward sloping. To manage this risk, NVS is considering utilizing interest rate derivatives. Managers at the bank have collected quotes on over-the-counter interest rate caps and floors from a well known securities dealer. The quotes, which are based on a notional principal of $100 million, are provided in Exhibit 3.

One of the managers at NVS Bank, Lois Green, has expressed her distrust of the securities dealer quoting prices on the caps and floors. In a memo to the CFO, Green suggested that NVS use an alternative but equivalent approach to manage the interest rate risk associated with its two-year funding plan. Following is an excerpt from Green's memo:

"Rather than using a cap or floor, NVS Bank can effectively manage its exposure to interest rates resulting from the 2-year funding requirement by taking long positions in a series of put options on fixed-income instruments with expiration dates that coincide with the payment dates on the floating rate note."

"As a cheaper alternative, NVS can effectively manage its exposure to interest rates resulting from the 2-ycar funding requirement by creating a collar using long positions in a series of call options on interest rates and long positions in a series of call options on fixed income instruments all of which would have expiration dates that coincide with the payment dates on the floating rate note."

Which of the following statements regarding the GlobeCorp swap initiated one year ago is most likely correct?

Rock Torrey, an analyst for International Retailers Incorporated (IRI), has been asked to evaluate the firm's swap transactions in general, as well as a 2-year fixed for fixed currency swap involving the U .S . dollar and the Mexican peso in particular. The dollar is Torrey's domestic currency, and the exchange rate as of June 1,2009, was $0.0893 per peso. The swap calls for annual payments and exchange of notional principal at the beginning and end of the swap term and has a notional principal of $100 million. The counterparty to the swap is GHS Bank, a large full-service bank in Mexico.

The current term structure of interest rates for both countries is given in the following table:

Torrey believes the swap will help his firm effectively mitigate its foreign currency exposure in Mexico, which sterns mainly from shopping centers in high-end resorts located along the eastern coastline. Having made this conclusion, Torrey begins writing his report for the management of IRI. In addition to the terms of the swap, Torrey includes the following information in the report:

* Implicit in the currency swap under consideration is a swap spread of 75 basis points over 2-year U .S . Treasury securities. This represents a 10 basis point narrowing of the spread as compared to this time last year. Thus, we can assume that the credit risk of the global credit market has decreased. Unfortunately, the decline provides no insight into the credit risk of the individual currency swap with GHS Bank, which could have increased.

* In order to decrease the counterparty default risk on the currency swap, we will need to utilize credit derivatives between the beginning and midpoint of the swap's life when this particular risk is at its highest. This is a significantly different strategy than we normally use with interest rate swaps. For interest rate swaps, counterparty default risk peaks at the middle of the swap's life, at which point we utilize credit derivative CQuntermeasures to offset the risk.

* Because currency swaps almost always include netting agreements and interest rate swaps can be structured to include mark-to-market agreements, we can significantly reduce the credit risk of these swap instruments by negotiating swap contracts that include these respective features. When negotiating these features is not possible, credit risk can be reduced by using off-market swaps that do not require an initial payment from IRI.

Six months have passed (180 days) since Torrey issued his report to IRI's management team, and the current exchange rate is now $0,085 per peso. The new term structure of interest rates is as follows:

Calculate the value of the 2-year currency swap from the perspective of the counterparty paying dollars six months after Torrey's initial analysis.

Rock Torrey, an analyst for International Retailers Incorporated (IRI), has been asked to evaluate the firm's swap transactions in general, as well as a 2-year fixed for fixed currency swap involving the U .S . dollar and the Mexican peso in particular. The dollar is Torrey's domestic currency, and the exchange rate as of June 1,2009, was $0.0893 per peso. The swap calls for annual payments and exchange of notional principal at the beginning and end of the swap term and has a notional principal of $100 million. The counterparty to the swap is GHS Bank, a large full-service bank in Mexico.

The current term structure of interest rates for both countries is given in the following table:

Torrey believes the swap will help his firm effectively mitigate its foreign currency exposure in Mexico, which sterns mainly from shopping centers in high-end resorts located along the eastern coastline. Having made this conclusion, Torrey begins writing his report for the management of IRI. In addition to the terms of the swap, Torrey includes the following information in the report:

* Implicit in the currency swap under consideration is a swap spread of 75 basis points over 2-year U .S . Treasury securities. This represents a 10 basis point narrowing of the spread as compared to this time last year. Thus, we can assume that the credit risk of the global credit market has decreased. Unfortunately, the decline provides no insight into the credit risk of the individual currency swap with GHS Bank, which could have increased.

* In order to decrease the counterparty default risk on the currency swap, we will need to utilize credit derivatives between the beginning and midpoint of the swap's life when this particular risk is at its highest. This is a significantly different strategy than we normally use with interest rate swaps. For interest rate swaps, counterparty default risk peaks at the middle of the swap's life, at which point we utilize credit derivative CQuntermeasures to offset the risk.

* Because currency swaps almost always include netting agreements and interest rate swaps can be structured to include mark-to-market agreements, we can significantly reduce the credit risk of these swap instruments by negotiating swap contracts that include these respective features. When negotiating these features is not possible, credit risk can be reduced by using off-market swaps that do not require an initial payment from IRI.

Six months have passed (180 days) since Torrey issued his report to IRI's management team, and the current exchange rate is now $0,085 per peso. The new term structure of interest rates is as follows:

Calculate the present value of the dollar fixed payments for the tw year currency swap six months after Torrey's initial analysis.

Charles Mabry manages a portfolio of equity investments heavily concentrated in the biotech industry. He just returned from an annual meeting among leading biotech analysts in San Francisco. Mabry and other industry experts agree that the latest industry volatility is a result of questionable product safety testing methodologies. While no firms in the industry have escaped the public attention brought on by the questionable safety testing, one company in particular is expected to receive further attention---Biological Instruments Corporation (BIC), one of several long biotech positions in Mabry's portfolio. Several regulatory agencies as well as public interest groups have heavily criticized the rigor of BIC's product safety testing.

In an effort to manage the risk associated with BIC, Mabry has decided to allocate a portion of his portfolio to options on BIC's common stock. After surveying the derivatives market, Mabry has identified the following European options on BIC common stock:

Mabry wants to hedge the large BIC equity position in his portfolio, which closed yesterday (June 1) at $42 per share. Since Mabry is relatively inexperienced with utilizing derivatives in his portfolios, Mabry enlists the help of an analyst from another firm, James Grimell.

Mabry and Grimell arrange a meeting in Boston where Mabry discusses his expectations regarding the future returns of BIC's equity. Mabry expects BIC equity to make a recovery from the intense market scrutiny but wants to provide his portfolio with a hedge in case BIC has a negative surprise. Grimell makes the following suggestion:

"If you want to avoid selling the BIC position and are willing to earn only the risk-free rate of return, you should sell calls and buy puts on BIC stock with the same market premium. Alternatively, you could buy put options to manage the risk of your portfolio. I recommend waiting until the vega on the options rises, making them less attractive and cheaper to purchase."

Assuming that on October 15, the closing price of BIC common stock is $40 per share, how would the delta of Put F have changed from June 1?

Charles Mabry manages a portfolio of equity investments heavily concentrated in the biotech industry. He just returned from an annual meeting among leading biotech analysts in San Francisco. Mabry and other industry experts agree that the latest industry volatility is a result of questionable product safety testing methodologies. While no firms in the industry have escaped the public attention brought on by the questionable safety testing, one company in particular is expected to receive further attention---Biological Instruments Corporation (BIC), one of several long biotech positions in Mabry's portfolio. Several regulatory agencies as well as public interest groups have heavily criticized the rigor of BIC's product safety testing.

In an effort to manage the risk associated with BIC, Mabry has decided to allocate a portion of his portfolio to options on BIC's common stock. After surveying the derivatives market, Mabry has identified the following European options on BIC common stock:

Mabry wants to hedge the large BIC equity position in his portfolio, which closed yesterday (June 1) at $42 per share. Since Mabry is relatively inexperienced with utilizing derivatives in his portfolios, Mabry enlists the help of an analyst from another firm, James Grimell.

Mabry and Grimell arrange a meeting in Boston where Mabry discusses his expectations regarding the future returns of BIC's equity. Mabry expects BIC equity to make a recovery from the intense market scrutiny but wants to provide his portfolio with a hedge in case BIC has a negative surprise. Grimell makes the following suggestion:

"If you want to avoid selling the BIC position and are willing to earn only the risk-free rate of return, you should sell calls and buy puts on BIC stock with the same market premium. Alternatively, you could buy put options to manage the risk of your portfolio. I recommend waiting until the vega on the options rises, making them less attractive and cheaper to purchase."

If the gamma of Put E is equal to 0.081, which of the following correctly interprets the option's gamma?