Pass the PRMIA PRM Certification 8013 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

A swaption is an option to enter into a fixed for floating interest rate swap at a point in the future, with the fixed rate decided upfront. These options can be European, Bermudan or American, in terms of what dates the option can be exercised. A receiver option on a swap is an option that gives the buyer the right to enter into a swap and receive the fixed rate and pay the variable rate. In the case of a payer option, the buyer pays the fixed rate and receives the variable rate. One way to remember this is that receiving and paying are terms used with reference to the fixed rates.

There are two ways to think about this question: First, because the asset manager thinks that interest rates are going to decline, his profit will be maximized if he buys the bond with the greatest duration. The zero coupon bond has the greatest duration among the alternatives listed. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The second way to look at this question is to consider what is called 'reinvestment risk'. Yields to maturity calculations have an implicit assumption that any cash flows received prior to maturity are investible at the ytm rate. Thus, an yield to maturity calculation for a coupon bearing bond assumes that coupon payments get invested at the same rate as the calculated ytm from the time they are received till the time the bond matures. In an environment where interest rates fall, this assumption will not hold true. Reinvestment risk is the risk that coupons will not be able to earn the ytm that the bond was brought at - and the investor will be at a loss to the extent the money does not earn the ytm rate till the end of the investment. One way to reduce reinvestment risk is to minimize coupon receipts so the money stays invested as part of the bond, and the zero coupon bond helps to do exactly that.

Mortgage backed securities carry prepayment risk as borrowers tend to prepay mortgages when rates fall, and substitute it with newer cheaper mortgages. This creates the issue of 'negative convexity' for mortgages, ie, they lose value when rates rise, but do not gain in value when rates fall.

Prepayment risk can be offset by instruments that also carry negative convexity. A swaption is an option to borrow in the future at an agreed rate, which may be fixed or floating. An option to borrow in the future paying floating and receiving fixed guards against losses when rates fall, as the option can be exercised for a profit when rates are declining and the mortgage portfolio is being prepaid. A callable bond is very similar to an MBS in that the issuer can call it back when rates fall. Thus a long position in an MBS can be offset by a short position in a callable bond. Thus I and III are valid choices.

A cap allows exchanging fixed for floating when interest rates rise above an agreed rate. A long cap position allows borrowing at a fixed rate in exchange for floating, and a short cap implies receiving fixed and paying floating when rates go above the strike rate. Prepayment risk arises from falling interest rates, therefore a short cap will not protect against such a risk as falling interest rates would mean that no payments would be exchanged. Thus II does not help hedge against the risk in question.

A long position in a fixed for floating swap would require paying fixed and receiving floating when rates are falling. This would just make the problem from prepayments worse as the position would pay fixed and receive a falling rate. Thus IV is not an appropriate way to hedge prepayment risk.

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. 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.

Note the difference betwen 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').

The portfolio's beta is 0.8, and therefore in order to completely hedge the portfolio (ie reduce beta to 0), the portfolio manager would need to short 0.8 * $25m/(1450*$250) = 55.17 contracts, or 55 contracts. However, the ask here is to reduce the beta to 0.6, and not 0.

The number of contracts required to reduce the beta of a portfolio fromߠto߱is give by (ߠ-߱) * Value of portfolio / Value of a single contract. In this case, this calculation works out to (0.8 - 0.6) * $25m/(1450*250) = 13.8, or roughly 14 contracts.

The portfolio manager should short 14 index futures contracts to reduce the total portfolio beta to 0.6.

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.

Average rate options will be the most cost effective in this scenario as they are cheaper than vanilla options. Writer extendible options on commodities will be even more expensive, and correlation products are irrelevant to the manufacturing company's hedging needs.

A short position in a fixed rate bond and a long position in an FRN has the effect of paying fixed and receiving floating. The floating received offsets the floating payment on the borrowing, leaving the borrower with just a fixed rate outflow. Therefore the combination identified in statement I can be used to achieve the objective of paying fixed.

A collar is equivalent to a long position in an interest rate cap combined with a short position in an interest rate floor. This has the effect of setting a range within which the investor's borrowing rate will vary. In the case where the cap and floor rates are the same, the combination of a collar and a long FRN effectively produces an outcome where the holder of such positions pays a fixed rate. Therefore, an interest rate collar can be used to convert the fixed payment to a floating rate payment. [Example: Assume current interest rate is 3%, and therefore the borrower has a liability of 3% on the FRN. Assume that the borrower now buys a collar at the strike rate of 4%. Now the borrower receives 0% (=Max(3 % -4%, 0)) on the cap part of the collar, and pays 1% on the floor part of the collar (=Max(4% - 3%, 0)). The net borrowing cost therefore is 3% paid on the FRN plus 1% paid on the collar, equal to 4%. Now if interest rates rise to say 6%, the borrower pays 6% on the FRN, and receives 2% from the collar (=Max(6% - 4%, 0) - Max(4% - 6%, 0)), creating a net cost of 6% - 2% = 4%.

A collar is often issued with an FRN to convert floating flows to fixed. Therefore combination II is an acceptable choice.

A short position in a fixed rate bond and a short position in an FRN produces a cash flow that does not produce a net fixed cash outflow when combined with the borrowing. Therefore statement III is not a valid combination.

An interest rate swap where the investor pays fixed and receives floating, when combined with a floating payment on an FRN leaves a net fixed payment, Therefore statement IV is a valid way to achieve the borrower's objective.

The vast majority of exchange traded futures contracts are closed out prior to expiry by the parties acquiring offsetting positions. Very few contracts are settled by delivery. Since P&L on futures contracts is settled daily, 'cash settlement' really does not mean much as only the previous day's P&L is due or receivable on any given day.

Choice 'a' correctly describes a 'holder extendible option'. Choice 'b' describes a 'writer extendible option'. Choice 'c' describes a 'shout option'. Choice 'd' describes a 'knock in' option.