Theresa Ponder and Rod Owens are analysts for a multinational investment bank, Datko Bank, based in Canada. Datko's clients have been advised to diversify globally, due to a decrease in expected long-term growth for North American economies.
As part of her analysis of global stocks, Ponder uses the domestic CAPM and the international CAPM to value stocks. She makes the following statements regarding the extension of the domestic capital asset pricing model (CAPM);
Statement 1: To extend the domestic CAPM to international asset pricing using the extended CAPM, one must make two additional assumptions. First, that global investors have identical consumption baskets and second, that interest rate parity holds throughout the world.
Statement 2: The extended CAPM assumes that exchange rate changes are predictable so that there is no real exchange rate risk.
As the primary analyst for European securities, Owens analyzes the stocks in the countries of Catonia and Arbutia. Catonia and Arbutia arc not currently members of the European Union, but have a timetable for joining by the end of the decade.
To evaluate Caionian stocks, he uses the international CAPM. Owens mentions that a foreign currency risk premium must be added in this model, and that the risk premium depends on various parity conditions. He finds that the foreign exchange expectation relation and interest rate parity hold between Canada and Catonia. The interest rate in Canada is 2%, and the interest rate in Catonia is 5%.
One of the companies Owens follows in Arbutia is Diversified Metal Finishers. Diversified produces customized sheet metal applications for manufacturers throughout the world. The firm enjoys a competitive advantage because Arbutia is a commodity-rich country which allows Diversified to source its inputs locally. Owens has found that when the Arbutian currency changes by 10%, the value of the Diversified stock generally changes by 6%.
Ponder is also analyzing stocks in the nations of Bisharov and Dineva. She is estimating the expected return using the international CAPM (ICAPM) for Ivanova Metals, located in Dineva. The data for Canada, Dineva, and lvanova are shown in the following. The foreign currency is denoted as the local currency (LC).
Canadian risk-free rate 2.00%
Dineva risk-free rate 8.00%
World market risk premium 6.00%
Dineva index beta to world market index 1.40
Dineva local market risk premium 7.50%
Ivanova beta to local index 1.30
Foreign currency risk premium 3.00%
Dineva sensitivity of LC stock returns to LC 0.70
Owens examines Ponder's analysis and makes the following statements:
Statement 1: To protect the growing economy and prevent capital flight, the Bisharov government taxes foreign investors at higher rates and has placed limits on currency convertibility. In Dineva, the government has taken a more hands-off approach and does not regulate .foreign investment. If the world were to consist entirely of countries like Bisharov, then the ICAPM cannot be applied.
Statement 2; Furthermore, inflation is often a concern in emerging market countries. To measure an exchange rate between Canada and an emerging market currency that is adjusted for inflation, a real exchange rate should be calculated. Assuming no change in the real exchange rate, the change in an emerging market's asset values in domestic currency will just reflect the emerging market's asset returns in local currency and the difference between inflation rates in the domestic and foreign countries.
Which of the following would best explain the relationship between the Diversified stock value and the Arbutian currency?
As explained in the answer for the previous question, Diversified stock will go up when the value of the Arbutian currency goes down; they are negatively correlated.
In the traditional model, a decline in the value of a country's currency increases national competitiveness in the long run. The traditional model predicts that depreciation in the value of the local currency will cause an increase in local currency firms stock values. This describes the Diversified stock price behavior.
In the money demand model, an increase in real economic activity leads to an increase in the demand for the domestic currency. The increased currency demand causes the value of the currency to appreciate. Because stock prices are highly correlated with GDP growth, the money demand model is consistent with a positive correlation between the ' foreign exchange value of the local currency rates and local stock returns. So this would not describe the Diversified stock price behavior.
The free markets theory pertains to bond prices, so it is not applicable to the stock example here. (Study Session 18, LOS 66.n,o)
George Armor, CFA, is a new stock analyst for Pedad Investments. One tool that Pedad uses to compare stock valuations is the dividend discount model (DOM). In particular, the firm evaluates stocks in terms of "justified" multiples of sales and book value. These multiples are based on algebraic manipulation of the DDM. Over time, these multiples seem to provide a good check on the market valuation of a stock relative to the company's fundamentals. Any stock which is currently priced below its value based on a justified multiple of sales or book value is considered attractive for purchase by Pedad portfolio managers. Exhibit 1 contains financial information from the year just ended for three stable companies in the meat-packing industry: Able Corp, Baker, Inc., and Charles Company, from which Armor will derive his valuation estimates.
One of Pedad's other equity analysts, Marie Swift, CFA, recently held a meeting with Armor to discuss a relatively new model the firm is implementing to determine the P/E ratios of companies that Pedad researches. Swift explains that the model utilizes a cross-sectional regression using the previous year-end data of a group of comparable companies' P/E ratios against their dividend payout ratios (r), sustainable growth rates (g), and returns on equity (ROE). The resulting regression equation is used to determine a predicted P/E ratio for the subject company using the subject company's most recent year-end data. Swift has developed the following model, which has an R-squared of 81%, for the meat packing industry (16 companies):
Predicted P/E = 2.74 + 8.21(r) + 14.21(g) + 2.81(ROE)
(STD error) (2.11) (6.52) (9.24) (2.10)
After Swift presents the model to Armor, she points out that models of this nature are subject to limitations. In particular, multicollinearity, which appears to be present in the meat packing industry model, can create great difficulty in interpreting the effects of the individual coefficients of the model. Swift continues by stating that in spite of this limitation, models of this nature generally have known and significant predictive power across different time periods although not across different stocks.
Based on Exhibit 1, the justified price-to-sales ratio of Baker, Inc. is closest to:
The justified price-to-sales (P/S) ratio is calculated as:
P/S = [profit margin X payout ratio X (1 + g)) / (r - g)
Baker: P/S = [(4.80 / 52.80) x (1.60 / 4.80) x (1 + 0.10)] / (0.12 - 0.10) = 1.67
(Study Session 12, LOS 42.j)
The Wyroman International Pension Fund includes a $65 million fixed-income portfolio managed by Susan Evermore, CFA, of Brighton Investors. Evermore is in the process of constructing a binomial interest-rate tree that generates arbitrage-free values for on-the-run Treasury securities. She plans to use the tree to value more complex bonds with embedded options. She starts out by observing that the yield on a one-year Treasury security is 4.0%. She determines in her initial attempt to price the two-year Treasury security that the value derived from the model is higher than the Treasury security's current market price.
After several iterations Evermore determines that the interest rate tree that correctly values the one and two-year Treasury securities has a rate of 5.0% in the lower node at the end of the first year and a rate of 7.5% in the upper node at the end of the first year. She uses this tree to value a two-year 6% coupon bond with annual coupon payments that is callable in one year at 99.50. She determines that the present value at the end of the first year of the expected value of the bond's remaining cash flows is $98.60 if the interest rate is 7.5% and $100.95 if the interest rate is 5.0%.
Note: Assume Evermore's calculations regarding the two-year 6% callable bond are correct
Evermore also uses the same interest rate tree to price a 2-year 6% coupon bond that is putable in one year, and value the embedded put option. She concludes that if the yield volatility decreases unexpectedly, the value of the putable bond will increase and the value of the embedded put option will also increase, assuming all other inputs are unchanged.
Evermore also uses the interest rate tree to estimate the option-adjusted spreads of two additional callable corporate bonds, as shown in the following figure.
Evermore concludes, based on this information, that the A A-rated issue is undervalued, and the BB-rated issue is overvalued.
At a subsequent meeting with the trustees of the fund. Evermore is asked to explain what a binomial interest rate model is and how it was used to estimate effective duration and effective convexity. Evermore is uncertain of the exact methodology because the actual calculations were done by a junior analyst, but she tries to provide the trustees with a reasonably accurate step-by-stcp description of the process:
Step 1: Given the bond's current market price, the on-the-run Treasury yield curve, and an assumption about rate volatility, create a binomial interest rate tree.
Step 2: Add 100 basis points to each of the 1-year rates in the interest rate tree to derive a "modified" tree.
Step 3: Compute the price of the bond if yield increases by 100 basis points using this new tree.
Step 4: Repeat Steps 1 through 3 to determine the bond price that results from a 100 basis point decrease in rates.
Step 5: Use these two price estimates, along with the original market price, to calculate effective duration and effective convexity.
Lucas Davenport, a trustee and university finance professor, immediately speaks up to disagree with Evermore. He claims that a more accurate description of the process is as follows:
Step 1: Given the bond's current market price, the Treasury yield curve, and an assumption about rate volatility, create a binomial interest rate tree and calculate the bond's option-adjusted spread (OAS) using the model.
Step 2: Impose a parallel upward shift in the on-the-run Treasury yield curve of 100 basis points.
Step 3: Build a new binomial interest rate tree using the new Treasury yield curve and the original rate volatility assumption.
Step 4: Add the OAS from Step I to each of the 1-year rates on the tree to derive a "modified" tree.
Step 5: Compute the price of the bond using this new tree.
Step 6: Repeat Steps 1 through 5 to determine the bond price that results from a 100 basis point decrease in rates.
Step 7: Use these two price estimates, along with the original market price, to calculate effective duration and effective convexity.
At the meeting with the trustees. Evermore also presents the results of her analysis of the effect of changing market volatilities on a 1-year convertible bond issued by Highfour Corporation. Each bond is convertible into 25 shares of Highfour common stock. The bond is also callable at 110 at any time prior to maturity. She concludes that the value of the bond will decrease if either (1) the volatility of returns on'Highfour common stock decreases or (2) yield volatility decreases.
Davenport immediately disagrees with her by saying "changes in the volatility of common stock returns will have no effect on the value of the convertible bond, and a decrease in yield volatility will result in an increase in the value of the bond."
Is Evermore correct in her analysis of the effect of a change in yield volatility?
The value of a putable bond is equal to the value of an otherwise equivalent option-free bond plus the value of the embedded put option. The value of the embedded put option will decrease if yield volatility decreases. The value of the option-free bond will not be affected by changes in yield volatility, so the value of the putable bond will also decrease. Evermore is incorrect in her analysis of both effects. (Study Session 14, LOS 54.e,f)
Michelle Norris, CFA, manages assets for individual investors in the United States as well as in other countries. Norris limits the scope of her practice to equity securities traded on U .S . stock exchanges. Her partner, John Witkowski, handles any requests for international securities. Recently, one of Norris's wealthiest clients suffered a substantial decline in the value of his international portfolio. Worried that his U .S . allocation might suffer the same fate, he has asked Norris to implement a hedge on his portfolio. Norris has agreed to her client's request and is currently in the process of evaluating several futures contracts. Her primary interest is in a futures contract on a broad equity index that will expire 240 days from today. The closing price as of yesterday, January 17, for the equity index was 1,050. The expected dividends from the index yield 2% (continuously compounded annual rate). The effective annual risk-free rate is 4.0811%, and the term structure is flat. Norris decides that this equity index futures contract is the appropriate hedge for her client's portfolio and enters into the contract.
Upon entering into the contract, Norris makes the following comment to her client:
"You should note that since we have taken a short position in the futures contract, the price we will receive for selling the equity index in 240 days will be reduced by the convenience yield associated with having a long position in the underlying asset. If there were no cash flows associated with the underlying asset, the price would be higher. Additionally, you should note that if we had entered into a forward contract with the same terms, the contract price would most likely have been lower but we would have increased the credit risk exposure of the portfolio."
Sixty days after entering into the futures contract, the equity index reached a level of 1,015. The futures contract that Norris purchased is now trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for a price of 1,035. Interest rates have not changed. After performing some calculations, Norris calls her client to let him know of an arbitrage opportunity related to his futures position. Over the phone, Norris makes the following comments to her client:
"We have an excellent opportunity to earn a riskless profit by engaging in arbitrage using the equity index, risk-free assets, and futures contracts. My recommended strategy is as follows: We should sell the equity index short, buy the futures contract, and pay any dividends occurring over the life of the contract. By pursuing this strategy, we can generate profits for your portfolio without incurring any risk."
If the expected growth rate in dividends for stocks increases by 75 basis points, which of the following would benefit the most? An investor who:
An increase in the growth rate in dividends for stocks would increase the spot price of the equity index. As the spot price increases, the futures price for a given maturity also increases (holding interest rates constant). Thus, an investor who is long a futures contract already can enter into a short futures contract at the same maturity for a higher futures price than his long contract. Effectively, the investor can buy the asset in the future for a fixed price and sell the asset for a higher fixed price; a guaranteed profit. Thus, as the spot and futures prices rise, the value of a long index futures position rises as well. (Study Session 16, LOS 59.d)
Millennium Investments (MI), an investment advisory firm, relies on mean-variance analysis to advise its clients. Mi's advisors make asset allocation recommendations by selecting the mix of assets along the capital allocation line that is most appropriate for each client.
One of MPs clients, Edward Alverson, 60 years of age, requests an analysis of four risky mutual funds (Fund W, Fund X, Fund Y, and Fund Z). After examining the four funds, MI finds that all four mutual funds are equally weighted portfolios, and that all of the funds, except Fund Z, are mean-variance efficient. MI also finds that the correlations between all pairs of the mutual funds are less than one.
MI calculates the average variance of returns across all assets within each mutual fund, the average covariance of returns across all pairs of assets within each mutual fund, and each mutual fund's total variance of returns. The results of Mi's calculations are reported in Exhibit 1.
During his meeting with the MT advisors, Alverson explains that he will retire soon, and, consequently, is highly risk-averse. Alverson agrees with Mi's reliance on mean-variance analysis and makes the following statements:
Statement 1: All portfolios lying on the minimum variance frontier are desirable portfolios.
Statement 2: Because I am highly risk-averse, I expect that my investment portfolio on the capital allocation line will have risk and return equal to that of the global minimum variance portfolio.
MI operates under the assumption that all investors agree on the forecasts of asset expected returns, variances, and correlations. Based on these assumptions, MI created the Millennium Investments 5000 Fund (MI-5000), which is a market value-weighted portfolio of all assets in the market. MI derives the forecasts for the MI-5000 Fund and for a fund comprising short-term government securities shown in Exhibit 2.
Alverson asks MI to examine the risk-return characteristics for an equal-weighted combination of Funds Y and Z. MI should conclude that the:
The expected return on a portfolio of two assets equals:
this will equal the average of the two standard deviations only if the correlation between Funds Y and Z equals +1. MI already determined that the correlation of returns between Funds Y and Z is less than +1. Therefore, the equally weighted portfolio combination of Funds Y and Z will have a standard deviation that is less than the arithmetic average of the Fund Y and Z standard deviations. (Study Session 18, LOS 64.a)
