CFA Book 2 Copy Flashcards
Pensions | Funded status
status of PV pension assets - PV pension liabilities
• only DB plan
Pensions | Plan surplus
- plan assets - plan liabilities
- > 0, then overfunded;
- only DB plan
Pensions | Fully funded
plan assets and plan liabilities are roughly equal
• only DB plan
Pensions | Accumulated benefit obligation (ABO)
PV of pension liabilities to date
• includes
◎ remaining pension benefits to currently retired
◎ retirement benefits earned to date by active employees based on their current salaries and years of service
• does NOT include
◎ effect of future salary increases or service on benefits
◎ effects of future service
• measure of liabilities for a terminated plan
• only DB plan
Pensions | Projected benefit obligation (PBO)
PV of pension liabilities to date
• includes
◎ remaining pension benefits to currently retired
◎ retirement benefits earned to date by active employees based on their current salaries and years of service
◎ effect of future salary increases or service on benefits ALREADY earned
• does NOT include
◎ effects of future service
• measure of liabilities for a terminated plan
• only DB plan
Pensions | Total future liability
- PBO + effects of FUTURE service by current employees
- not an accounting term
- only DB plan
Pensions | Retired lives
of retirees
Pensions | Active lives
of active employees
Pensions | Sponsor company
the company the employee works for and that is providing the pension
Pensions | Defined benefit plan
- employer promises to pay employeed during retirement an amount based on criteria such as salary, yrs of service
- employer bears investment risk
- generally not portable
- includes cash balance plan (individual accts >> portable)
Pensions | Defined contribution plan
- employer contributes to an employee retirement acct
- employee (not employer) bears investment risk
- portable
- includes profit sharing plans (contribution based on company profits)
Pensions | Pension risk tolerance
- relative to other institutions: somewhat above average to conservative
- plan surplus: greater surplus >> greater risk tolerance (negative surplus >> desire for more risk to fill gap - not allowed!)
- financial status and profitability: lower debt-equity ratio, greater profits >> greater risk tolerance
- sponsor, pension common risk: more correlated value >> lower risk tolerance
- plan features: greater liquidity needs (early retire), shorter time horizon >> lower risk tolerance
- workforce characteristics: younger, low retiree/active >> more risk tolerance
Pensions | three methods of measuring risk
- asset/liability managment (ALM): stand dev of PLAN SURPLUS
- stand dev of assets (old way, but common)
- shortfall risk: prob of asset value or return falling below a level needed to meet funded status
◎ different def of funded can be used (eg fully funded, total future liability)
Pensions | DB return objective (via IPS)
- cover pension liabilities
- acturial rate
- customers are the employees
- capital gains when low retiree/worker ratio; income and duration matching when high retiree/worker ratio
Pensions | DB return objective from sponsor’s view
- reduce pension contributions
- reduce pension expenses (these appear on income statement)
- but must not lose sight of main objective: covering employee retirement
Pensions | DB constraints: liquidity
affected by:
- # of retired lives
- sponsor contributions
- plan features (eg early retire, lump sum)
Pensions | DB constraints: time horizon
- termination date, if the plan is terminating
- plan participants characteristics
◎ sometimes divided between active (retire age) and retired (life expectancy)
Pensions | DB constraints: taxes
• most are tax exempt (state this on exam)
Pensions | DB constraints: legal and regulatory factors
- In US, ERISA regulates DB plans
- pension plan trustee is fiduciary and must act in interests of plan participants
Pensions | DB constraints: unique
• sometimes small size of plan impedes ability to manage
Pensions | 2 risk management factors
- sponsor operating returns and pension returns should be uncorrelated
◎ no investing in company stock or same industry - coordinating pension investments/assets with liabilities (ALM)
◎ matching asset and liability durations using fixed income
Foundations vs Endowments
• largely the same
• investment management the same
• legal distinction in the US
• founation: grant-making and funded by gifts; endowment: long-term fund owned by a non-profit
• both are
◎ not for profit
◎ serve a social purpose
◎ perpetual
Foundation types
- Independent
- Company sponsored
- Operating
- Community
Foundation | Independent
- private or family
- grants to charities, educational, institutions, social orgs
- source: individual, family, or group
- annual spending: 5% of assets, not counting exp
Foundation | Company sponsored
- tied to sponsor
- grants to charities, ed, institutions; can further corp goals
- source: corp sponsor
- 5% of assets, not counting exp
Foundation | Operating
- sole purpose is funding an org
- source: individual, family or group
- spend 85% of div, int income; also 3.3% of assets
Foundation | Community
- publicaly sponsored
- fund social, ed, religious
- source: general public, large donors
- spending: none
Pension | DC: sponsor vs participant directed
like it sounds: sponsor or participant directs investments
Pension | cash balance plan
• DB plan w/account balance for each participant
• each period:
◎ credit for work (age, salary, etc)
◎ investment credit based on benchmark rate
◎ employer bears investment risk
Pension | ESOP
- employee stock ownership program
- DC
- allows employees to buy company stock, sometimes discounted
- before or after tax dollars
Foundations | Risk
- medium to high
- more aggressive than pensions
Foundation | Return
- If perpetual, preservation of purchasing power
- calc: payout + inf + exp; either add or compound
- total return
Foundation | Constraints: Time horizon
- perpetual, unless mandated to spend down to zero
- so long time horizon >> more risk
Foundation | Constraints: Liquidity
- min spending req = ‘spending rate’
- many countries specify min spendin rate; US is 5%
- smoothing rule: smooth out distribution
- may hold portion of distribution in reserve
Foundation | Constraints: Tax considerations
- not taxable entities; not a major concern • US taxes private foundations at 1%
- unrelated income taxed at reg corp rate
Foundation | Constraints: Legal and regulatory
- Uniform Management Institutional Funds Act (UMIFA) adopted my most US states
- mostly tax exempt status issues
- few regulations
Endowments | Spending rules
• do not have min spending rate
• 3 types:
◎ simple: spending = S(begin mkt val); S = spending rate
◎ rolling 3 yr avg: spending = S*(avg mkt val last 3 yrs)
◎ geometric: spending = R*(last yr spending)*(1 + inf) + (1 - R)*S*(begin mkt val)
Endowments | Risk
- medium to high
- time horizon is infinite >> more risk
- one qualification to high risk is more essential payout >> less risk
Endowments | Return
- preserve purchasing power
- total return
- ‘inflation’ rate should mirror the rate of the costs the endowment must cover (eg. health care costs)
Endowment | Constraints: Time horizon
perpetual
Endowment | Constraints: Liquidity reqs
usually low reqs; only current spending and emergencies
Endowment | Constraints: Tax
tax exempt (other than unrelated business income tax UBIT)
Endowment | Constraints: Legal
- Uniform Management Institutional Funds Act (UMIFA) adopted my most US states
- mostly tax exempt status issues
- few regulations
Endowment | Constraints: Unique
Often have unique restrictions based on their mandate
Two types of insurance company ownership
- stock company owned by shareholders
- mutuals (owned by policy holders)
• many mutuals have demutualized into stock companies
3 types of life insurance
- whole life or ordinary life
- variable life, universal life, variable universal life
- term life
Life insurance | whole life or ordinary life
- fixed payoff at death
- cash value if policyholder terminates policy (or can be borrowed)
- cash builds up at ‘crediting rate’
- disintermediation is when rates are high and policyholders withdraw funds >> requires liquidity
Life insurance | term life
year to year >> short duration assets to fund short duration liability (is this effectively true???)
Life insurance | Variable life, universal life or variable universal life
life whole life, but crediting rate tied to benchmark >> fewer withdrawls during high interest rates
Life insurance | Risk
• govts view as quasi-trusts; NAIC dictates asset valuation reserve (AVR) >> risk based capital >> more capital, less leverage
• overall conservative
1. valuation risk (ALM): asset and liability duration must be similar
2. reinvestment risk: ALM helps with this
3. cash flow volatility: bad
4. credit risk >> diversification
Life insurance | Return
- reqs are by ‘line of business’ (segment by lines of business)
- conservative, fixed income
- total return theoretically good, but not practical
LIfe Insurance | Constraints: Liquidity
Two issues:
1. disintermediation: when rates go up
◎ poor ALM makes problem worse if assets have longer duration
2. asset marketability
• more use of derivatives
Life insurance | Time horizon
- 20-40 years
- getting shorter due to volatile mkts
- segmentation and duration matching by line of business is norm
Life insurance | Tax
- taxable entities
- often actuarial assumed rate is tax free
- laws are fluid in the industry lately
- after-tax return is metric
Insurance constraints: Legal (HINT)
#1often answer is 'complex and extensive, should seek expert legal advice' • heavily regulated at the state level
Life insurance | Legal
Regs often address:
1. eligible investments by asset class and max % holdings (often min interest coverage ratio on corp bonds)
2. In US, prudent investor rule; replaces eligible investments rule with portfolio risk/return
3. valuation methods
• heavily regulated at the state level
Life insurance | Unique
- concentration of product offerings
- company size
- level of surplus
List of Non-life insurance companies
- health
- property and casualty
- surety
Treatment of non-life insurance companies on exam
treat like life insurance except where differences are mentioned
life and non-life insurance differences
- liability duration is shorter (often 1 yr)
- often long tail to policy resolution (eg. litigation)
- non-life often has inflation risk (eg. replacement value of property)
- life insurance is predictable payout, unpredictable timing; non-life is unpredictable in both amount and timing
- non-life has underwriting or profitability cycle: 3-5 yrs; competition >> unprofitable, losing policies
- non-life can be concentrated geographically or by event
What is critical to all insurance company investing
ALM (asset liability managment)
Non-life insurance | Risk
- quasi-fiduciary req
- payouts and timing are volatile (katrina, sandy)
- inflation (eg. replacement cost)
- cash flow req are volatile >> low risk tolerance
- (common stock-to-surplus was varied over decades)
Non-life insurance | Return (general)
- operated as two separate companies: insurance and investment
- policy premiums were not related to returns >> too low premiums
- partially improved
Life and non-life insurance Return differences
- competition >> too low premiums (underwriting cycle)
- profitability: investment return dictates profitability and offset poor premium pricing; ALM
- growth of surplus >> high return, risky assets
- seek after-tax, total return
5.less reg >> varied return across different companies
• buys taxable bonds when in loss period, buys tax-free when in profit period
Non-life insurance | Constraints: Liquidity req
High (critical aspect) >> money market assets, laddered portfolio of govt bonds, ALM
Non-life insurance | Constraints: Time horizon
Short because of short liability duration
Non-life insurance | Constraints: Tax
- taxable entities
- after-tax return is metric
Non-life insurance | Constraints: Legal
- Less reg and investment oversight than for life
- asset valuation reserve (AVR) is not req, but risk based capital is req
Non-life insurance | Constraints: Unique
no universal reqs
Banks | Objectives and Constraints
Defined by fact that portfolio is a residual use of funds
◎ bank borrows (liability) and loans (asset)
◎ borrowed - loaned = portfolio (unused borrowings)
• portfolio is lower return/lower risk than loan portfolio
• easier to adjust portfolio than borrowed and loaned funds
Banks | Risk
- below average
- use ALM
- Portfolio is used to keep overall asset duration similar to liability duration
- Portfolio is also used to manage credit risk and diversification of overall assets >> often very liquid to offset illiquid loans
Banks | Risk metrics
- VAR
- Leveraged Adjusted Duration Gap (LADG): duration of assets less leveraged duration of libilities
◎ form of ALM
◎ LADG = Dass - (L/A)Dliab, D = duration, L/A = leverage
◎ theo predicts equity change in value given int rate change (if +, rates up >> equity down; if -, move together; if 0 no effect on cap)
Banks | Return
Overall, goal is to earn positive interest rate spread: return on assets > rate on liabilities (cost of funds)
Banks | Constraints: Liquidity
- high liquidity req
- function of withdrawls, loan demand and reg
Banks | Time horizon
Short and function of liability duration
Banks | Taxes
- taxable entities
- after-tax return is metric
Banks | Legal
- highly regulated
- risk-based capital reg >> RBC reserves against assets (risk up, reserve up) >> high liq portfolio
- reserve reqs
Banks | Unique
no universal constraints
8 types of institutions
Generalizable IPS:
1. pension funds
2. foundations
3. endowments
4. insurance companies
5. banks
Ungeneralizable IPS (intermediaries - invest other peoples’ funds):
1. investment companies
2. hedge funds
3. commodity pools
Institutional asset management and ALM
- maximization of surplus (A - L) at each risk level
- ALM is preferred framework for portfolio evaluation when defined liabilities
- surplus and surplus volatility is key metrics
- asset and liability duration should be similar
- durations can be gamed to profit from int rate changes
- ALM best for DB plans, insurance companies and banks
Insurance companies: fixed income and surplus
- Fixed income needed to match liabilities is conservative
- Surplus is aggressive
Endowment | Contstraints: liquidity
- similar to foundation
- may hold portion of distribution in reserve
Prudent Investor Rule and Prudent EXPERT Rule with institutional asset managment
• Prudent Investor:
1. Foundations and endowments
2. Insurance
• Prudent Expert:
1. DB Plan
• Prudent expert is tougher than Prudent Investor
Duration matching
long term >> capital gains strategy; short term >> income strategy
Exam note: pension asset management
remember to:
- match duration
- diversify
Pension | 3 types of asset allocation
- asset only: pick most efficient portfolio
- liability-relative: pick assets that mirror the liability risk
- duration management: better than asset-only, worse than liability-relative
• risk free definition
◎ asset only: cash return
◎ liability-relative: highly correlated to liability performance
Pension | asset allocation: duration management
- ok for short term duration pensions (eg. bankruptcy)
- better than asset-only, worse than liability-relative
Pension | asset allocation: benchmark
asset mix that mirrors liability performance and minimizes surplus volatility
Pension | market liability exposure
• active and inactive participants
• active:
◎ obligations from past service
◎ obligations from future service
• inflation exposure
◎ fixed, no inf exposure (nominal bonds)
◎ indexed, yes infl exposure (real rate, eg. TIPS)
◎ mixed
• accrued benefits: obligations to inactive + active obligations from previous service
Pension | future wage liablity + accrued benefits equals what?
- FASB: projected benefit obligation
- IASB: defined benefit obligation
Pension | future wage liability
• PV of expected future benefits based on wage growth
• 2 segments:
◎ inf
◎ real growth
• inf liability offset with real rate bonds; real growth liability offset with equities
Pension | 2 types of inactives
- retirees: receiving payments
- deferred’s: not receiving payments yet, but owed money
Pension | liability noise
• non-mkt exposure
• 2 segments:
◎ demographic uncertainty
◎ model uncertainty
• demo uncertainty decreases as participants increase
• model uncertainty: active (many) > deferred (longevity + timing) > retired (longevity risk)
• hard to hedge
Pension | included in liability benchmark exposure
- accrued benefits
- active future wage
Pension | Market liability exposure segments
- accrued benefits
- active future wage growth
- active future service rendered
- active future participants
Pension | Asset-only vs liability-relative performance
- asset only is 60-70% equities + short, medium nominal bonds
- liability-relative is lower risk: derivatives, long bonds, TIPS, equities
- asset-only outperforms liability-relative
- liablity-relative may require contributions for future service rendered and future participants (not included in model or funding)
Pension | market risk for liabilities
- interest rate
- inflation
- economic growth
WACC | asset beta
weighted avg of debt and equity beta
• used with CAPM to calc WACC
• debt beta can be assumed to be zero
• either operating assets or total assets (operating + pension); total is preferred
WACC | total asset beta
weighted avg of operating and pension asset betas
• = weight of equity in cap structure * equity beta (BUT WEIGHT CAN CHANGE IF PENSION LIABILITIES INCLUDED)
WACC | computation
either avg weighted cost of debt + equity OR calced with asset beta used in CAPM
Pension | bigger danger: funding shortfall or ALM issue
ALM:
◎ balance sheets don’t show asset/liability risk
◎ top 20% of US companies had large pension investments in equities (bad)
WACC computation
• WACC =
◎ We*Ke + Wd*Kd*(1 - t)
◎ Rf + B*(Rm - Rf), B = op asset beta (systemic risk of op assets)
Pension | equity beta
- found by regressing company’s stock return on mkt return
- is risk of company’s pension assets
Pension | pension asset beta
• Ba,p = Ws,p * Bs,p
Ba,p=pension asset beta
Ws,p = weight of equities in pension assets
Bs,p = equity beta
Pension | 3 betas
total, operating, pension
WACC | effect on WACC of adding pension assets, liabilities
lowers WACC because pension liability (no equity) dilutes equity >> reducing weight
WACC | given total asset beta, pension asset beta and pension and op asset weights calc op asset beta and WACC
- op asset beta = (Ba,t - Wa,p * Ba,p) / Wa,o
- WACC = Rf + Ba,o & MRP
- if Ba,t is initially calced without pension >> overestimation of Ba,t and Ba,o and WACC >> reject profitable projects
Pension | effects of increasing plans equity allocation or equity beta
>> increased plan risk >> increased:
◎ company equity beta
◎ total asset beta
◎ operating asset beta
◎ WACC
Pension | maintaining company’s equity beta as plan equity rises
must increase proportion of equity in cap structure (issue shares, buy back debt)
Pension | asset/liability mismatch
- different risks OR
- same risks, but affected differently
WACC should be measured with or without pension assets/liabilities
without: only on operating asset beta, BUT AFTER recalcing asset operating beta with pension asset/liabilities!
Capital Market Expectations (CME)
- CME + ISP >> SAA (strategic asset allocation)
- also help detect ST asset mispricing (tactical asset allocation)
- Expectations of return, correlation and standard deviation of each asset class
- CME re classes of assets = macro expectations (top down)
- CME re specific assets = micro expectations (bottom up)
CME | beta vs alpha research
- beta = CME research
- alpha = excess returns of specific stratagies in specific asset classes
CME | 7 Step Process
- Needed CMEs based on tax status, allowable asset classes, time horizon
- assess historical performance, factors, make forecast
- pick appropriate valuation model
- Collect data (factors)
- Inputs
- Forecast CME
- monitor performance, refine model
CME | 7 Data considerations in model (not 9 data problems)
- calculation methodologies
- data collection techniques
- data def
- error rates
- investability and correction for free float
- turnover in index components
- potential biases
CME | 9 Data problems (not 7 data considerations)
- econ data limitations
- data measurement error and bias
- historical estimate limitations
- using ex post risk and returns
- non-repeating data patterns
- not accounting for conditioning information
- misinterpretation of correlations
- psychological traps
- model and input uncertainty
CME | data problems: limits on econ data
- time lag between collection and distribution
- revisions
- data and methodology change over time
CME | data problems: data measurement errors and bias
- transcription errors (espeically if biased)
- survivorship bias
- appraisal (smoothed) data >> corr and stan dev are biased lower
CME | data problems: limitations of historical estimates
- past does not necessarily predict future
- regime change, non-stationarity >> diff statistical properties period to period
- leads to difficulty in picking best time period
CME | data problems: ex post data to determine ex ante
- only looking at bet outcomes rather than factors (risks) in the original bet
- incorrectly exclude possibilities (eg. risks) that didn’t materialize but were issues
CME | data problems: over-fitting, spurious patters
• over-fitting data (data mining) or finding spurious patterns
• prevention:
◎ ask if economic (theoretical) explanation
◎ out-of-sample testing
◎ look for bias susceptibility
CME | data problems: conditioning information
- related to regime change
- if diff regimes can be identified, use correct data and inputs for that regime
- exp: if gdp is 4% in expansion and 1% in contraction, determine which period is coming and use appropriate value
CME | data problems: misinterpret correlation
- correlation vs causality
- does economic (theoreitical) explanation justify causality (also possible no causality, but both effects from third varaible) #alt method to corr is multiple regression
CME | data problems: 6 psychological traps
- anchoring
- status quo
- confirming evidence
- overconfidence
- prudence
- recallibility
CME | data problem: psychological trap: anchoring
put too much weight on earliest data; new data is given too little weight
CME | data problem: psychological trap: status quo
too much weight on historical data
CME | data problem: psychological trap: confirming
- look for data to back up beliefs
- prevention: seek counter opinions
CME | data problem: psychological trap: overconfidence
- ignore past mistakes and overestimate likelyhood of being right
- prevention: increase range of forecasts
CME | data problem: psychological trap: prudence
- overly conservative
- desire to avoid regret
- prevention: same as overconfidence, increase range of forecasts
CME | data problem: psychological trap: recallibility
letting extreme events in the past overly influence forecasts
CME | data problems: model and input uncertainty
• first principles uncertainty
◎ correct model?
◎ correct inputs?
CME | CME from 4 statistical tools
- projecting historical data
- shrinkage estimators
- time series analysis
- multifactor models
CME | statistical tool: projecting historical data
forecasting mean, stan dev, corr based on past mean, stan dev, corr
• use arithmetic or geometric mean (usually preferred)
CME | statistical tool: shrinkage estimator
using weights in historical data to reduce effect of outliers and more generally change influence of certain data
CME | statistical tool: time series analysis
forecast model based on past values of the estimate (eg. volatility)
CME | statistical tool: multi-factor models
forecast returns and covariances
• see var and covar equations
CME | 4 methds to derive CME
- statistical tools
- discounted cash flow model
- risk premium model
- financial equilibrium model
CME | CME from discounted cash flow model
- intrinsic value = PV of future cash flows
- exp: Gordon growth model (constant growth model) used for equity
- DCF also used with bonds
CME | Grinold Kroner expected return model
R = D1/P0 - Schange + i + g + P/Echange R = exp return on stock D1/P0 = current yield Schange = % change in shares outstanding i = exp inflation g = real growth rate P/Echange = % change in P/E (repricing term)
CME | 3 components of Grinold Kroner model
• R = sum of 3 components
- exp income return = D1/P0 - Schange
- exp nominal earnings growth = i + g
- exp repricing return = P/Echange
CME | stock repurchase yield
exp % stock repurchased
• new issuance is negative >> subtract from current stock yield (D1/P0)
CME | CME from risk premium model
- build-up approach
- bond return = real risk free rate + inf + default risk prem + liq risk prem + maturity risk prem + tax prem
- equity return = bond + risk premium
CME | CME from financial equilibrium model
- assumes supply, demand in equilibrium >> efficient mkts >> models correctly price assets
- exp: ICAPM and Singer,Terhaar model
CME | ICAPM
Ri = Rf + Bint(Rm - Rf)
Bint = systemic risk of asset i returns to int’l mkts (CAPM, B is to domestic mkts)
• Bint (or B) = cov(i,m) / var(m) = p(im) sd(i) / sd(m)
CME | ICAPM: risk premium for asset
RPi = p(i,m) * sd(i) * (Rm - Rf) / sd(m) = p(i,m) * sd(i) * mkt sharpe ratio
CME | covariance between two variables that are functions of a one variable factor model
cov(i,j) = Bi * Bj * var(m), B is the coefficient to the independent variable in f(x) = i or j, m is the independent var (factor)
CME | cov(i,j), where i,j are dep var in a two factor model
cov(i,j) = B(i,1) * B(j,1) * var(x1) + B(i,2) * B(j,2) * var(x2) + (B(i,1) * B(j,1) + B(i,2) * B(j,2))*cov(x1,x2)
CME | ERP
equity risk premium
• = corr(i,m) * sd(i) * mkt sharpe ratio
• if completely segmented, then corr = 1
CME | finding return based off of ERP and intergrated/segmented aspect
- find ERP fully integrated
- find ERP fully segmented (corr = 1)
- use integration degree as weight to find ERP
- Ri = ERP + risk free
- calc cov(i,j) = BiBjVar(m)
CME | CME from surveys
- ask the experts >> CME
- if same people each time >> panel method
CME | CME adjusted by judgement
adjusting forecasts based on experience and judgement
CME | economic analysis: 2 components
- cyclical
- trend-growth
CME | cyclical analysis: 2 components
- inventory cycle (2 - 4 yrs)
- business cycle (9 - 11 yrs)
CME | economic analysis: metrics
- real GDP
- output gap
- recession (2 consecutive quarters of decreasing GDP)
CME | economic analysis: inventory cycle
- 2 - 4 yrs
- metric: inventory / sales
- less variable due to JIT inventory
CME | economic analysis: business cycle
• 9 - 11 yrs
• 5 stages
◎ initial recovery
◎ early upswing
◎ late upswing
◎ slowdown
◎ recession
CME | business cycle: initial recovery
- duration: few months
- bus confidence rising
- fiscal + monetary govt stim
- falling inf
- large output gap
- falling int rates
- bond ylds bottoming
- rising equity prices
- riskier assets do well
CME | business cycles: early upswing
- duration: few yrs
- growth w/ low inf
- bus confidence rising
- inventories rising
- ST rates rising
- output gap closing
- rising bond ylds
- stock mkt rising
CME | business cycles: late upswing
- bus confidence high
- employ high
- output gap zero
- inf rising
- monetary tightening
- ST rates rising
- bond ylds rising
- stock mkt rising, more vol
CME | business cycles: slowdown
- duration: few months
- bus confidence decreasing
- inf rising
- inv falling
- ST rates peak
- bond ylds peak, falling
- yld curve may invert
- stock mkt falling
CME | business cycles: recession
- duration: 6-12 months
- large decline in inv
- bus confidence falls
- profits fall
- UE and bankruptcy increasing
- ST rates fall
- bond ylds fall
- stock mkt rises in later part in anticipation
CME | Inflation effects on businesses
- inflation is fine: 0 - 3%
- highly levered firms are always impacted the most by the inf and rates
- defl bad >> sign of slow growth
CME | Inflation effects on cash
- cash is fine in high inflation because the return can float with rates
- defl bad due to 0 rates
CME | Inflation effects on equity
- inflation 0 -3% fine: equities are hedge
- above 3% >> concern fed will restrict econ growth
- defl bad >> sign of low growth
CME | Inflation effects on real assets
• inflation fine: real assets are hedge unless levered
CME | Consumer spending vs business spending
- consumer: 2/3, largely constant over business cycle, though seasonal over year
- business: 1/3, more volatile over business cycle
CME | fed rate levels
both the direction rates are moving as well as the absolutel level are important
CME | Fed neutral interest rate
real growth rate + inf rate
CME | Taylor rule
- Est of fed interest rate target
- Rtarget = Rneutral + 0.5 * (GDPexp - GDP trend) + 0.5 * (i exp - i target)
CME | affecting growth with fiscal policy
- only active govt policy to change deficit affects growth
- absolute level of deficit and natural changes in deficit do not (eg. reduction due to higher revenues during expansion)
CME | fiscal and monetary effects on yield curve
- both stimulative >> steep yld curve and growth
- both restrictive >> inverted yld curve and contraction
- fiscal stim, monetary tight >> flat yld curve
- fiscal tight, monetary stim >> slight upward slope of yld curve
CME | 2 components of economic growth
- cyclical (ST)
- trend (LT)
CME | economic growth: 2 trend components
- change in employment levels
◎ population growth
◎ labor force participation - changes in productivity
◎ spending on new capital inputs
◎ total factor productivity growth (technology)
• sum all components to get exp growth rate
CME | govt policies that enhance growth
- provide infrastructure
- responsible fiscal policy
- transparent, consistent, broad-based, limited tax policy
- promote competitive markets
CME | economic growth: exogenous shocks
- unanticipated shocks • eg: bank crisis, foreigh crisis (oil shock)
- one country’s shock affecting another country: contagion
CME | economics: macroeconomic links and interest rate differentials
• links: trade, exchange rates (pegged vs floating)
• interest rate differentials between countries can indicate diff in growth, monetary and fical policy
◎ theoretically all countries should have same real rate
CME | 6 factors of emerging economies
- responsible fiscal and monetary policy
- expected growth
◎ 4+% 3. reasonable currency valuation and current account deficit
◎ current acct deficit < 4% gdp 4. reasonable leverage
◎ foreign debt < 50% gdp
◎ debt < 200% current acct receipts 5. foreigh exchange reserves relative to ST debt 6. efficient govt (structural reform)
CME | 3 methods of economic forecasting
- econometrics
- economic indicators
- checklist
CME | economic forecasting: econometrics
• econ theory >> model
• pros:
◎ can be reused
◎ can accurately model economy
◎ quantitative forecasts
• cons:
◎ difficult, time consuming to create
◎ may not work in diff time periods
◎ better at expansions than recessions
◎ scrutiny of output to verify validity
CME | economic forecasting: economic indicators
• types: lagging, coincident, leading (preferred)
• pros:
◎ available from 3rd parties
◎ easy to understand
◎ adaptable to diff purposes
◎ validated by academic research
• cons:
◎ econ relationships change over time
◎ false signals from leading indicators
• one method is majority signals change coming
CME | economic forecasting: checklist method
• checklist of questions about economy
• pros:
◎ simple
◎ allows change over time
• cons:
◎ subjective
◎ time intensive
◎ may not model complex systems
CME | top down asset management process
- generate CME
- assign returns to asset classes
CME | list of 7 asset classes
- cash:
- credit risk free bonds: 2-4% real yld
- credit risky bonds
- emerging mkt govt bonds
- inflation indexed bonds: yld falls during high inf as people buy them
- common stock
- emerging mkt stocks: corr w/developed countries
- real estate
CME | forecasting exchange rates: 4 methods
- relative PPP
◎ diff in inf >> exchange rate change
◎ true in LT - relative economic strength
◎ strong economy attracts investors >> appreciation - capital flows: eg. flows into equity, FDI >> appreciation
- savings and investment (not common)
◎ if country has current acct deficit, must keep currency strong
EMC | Inflation effects on bonds
Does poorly, prices decline; Does well during deflation as prices rise
EMC | 2 international links
- trade
- capital flows (debt, equity, FDI)
EMC | exam notes:
for stock valuation, know: H-model, Fed model, Yardeni model, Tobin’s q, equity q
Equity Valuation | Cobb-Douglas equation
• estimates country’s real economic output
• Y = TFP * K^a * L^b
Y = real output
TFP = total factor productivity (aka A)
K = capital stock
L = labor input
a = output elasticity of capital stock
b = 1 - a = elasticity of labor
Equity Valuation | Cobb-Douglas equation: % change variation
%chg Y = %chg A + a * %chg K + (1 - a) * %chg L
• if TFP is constant (const returns to scale), then %chg A = 0 >> if K and A change by same amount, then Y changes by that % too
Equity Valuation | Cobb-Douglas equation: reasons TFP changes
- technology
- restrictions on labor or capital flows
- trade restrictions
- laws
- division of labor
- depleting/discovering natural resourcs
Equity Valuation | Cobb-Douglas equation: Solow residual
%chg TFP = %chg Y - a * %chg K - (1 - a) * %chg L
• portion of change in output related to change in total factor productivity
Equity Valuation | Pro of investing in a developing country with low corr to developed countries
- pro is diversification
- this can lead to lower required return by global investors
Equity Valuation | H-model
Po = Do / R - Gl * (1 + Gl + N / 2 * (Gs - Gl))
• div discount model with initial super growth
Equity Valuation | H-model: input relationships to output
- yrs to normal growth UP >> P UP
- either growth rate UP >> P UP
- required return UP >> P DOWN
Equity Valuation | top down vs bottom up
- top down: macroecon >> economy >> asset class >> sector >> individual firm
- bottom up: the opposite
- which to use depends on analysts investment strategy
Equity Valuation | why top down and bottom up can have different EPS results
- top down weakness: model is poor due to regime change, poor input variables (specfication problem), etc
- bottom up weakness: firms are too optimistic on the way down in a business cyclee and too pesimistic on the way up
Equity Valuation | 3 Relative value models for stocks vs bonds
- Fed model
- Yardeni model
- 10-yr moving average PE model
Equity Valuation | Relative value: Fed model
• Fed ratio = S&P earnings yld / 10 yr Treasury yld
S&P yld: total op earnings / index value
• some say it should equal 1; in practice, is great than 1 and analysts look for significant changes away from LT average
Equity Valuation | Relative value: Fed model weaknesses
- Ignores equity risk premium
- Ignores SP earnings growth
- compares real variable (index) to nominal variable (T yld)
Equity Valuation | Relative value: Yardeni model
• Yardeni ‘fair’ earnings yld for mkt = Yb - d(LTEG)
Yb = yld on A-rated corp bonds
d = weight for earnings growth (historically: 0.10)
LTEG = 5 yr consensus growth forecast
• estimates equilibrium earnings yld
• based off of constant growth div discount model (CGM) >> total earnings not just divs
Equity Valuation | Relative value: Yardeni model vs realized mkt yld
- if E1/P0 > Yardeni >> mkt undervalued
- if E1/P0 < Yardeni >> mkt overvalued
- can also be used as a ratio: mkt / Yardeni
Equity Valuation | Relative value: Yardeni weaknesses
- uses corp bond yld as proxy for equity risk premium; this is a default risk, not a equity risk metric
- relies on estimate of value investors place on earnings growth (d); could be wrong
- relies on consensus estimate of growth (LTEG); could be wrong
- assumes d and LTEG are constant; might not be
Equity Valuation | Relative value: 10 Yr Moving Average P/E
- Pnow/10 yr MA(E)
- compare the current 10 yr MA P/E to it’s historical value
- uses real, inf adj figures for both P and E’s
Equity Valuation | Relative value: 10 Yr Moving Average P/E: comments
- considers inf effects
- captures business cycle
- backward looking (negative)
- does not capture accounting rule changes
- not good for ST analysis because extreme P/E can persist for a while
Equity Valuation | Asset-based value: Tobin’s q and equit q
• Tobin’s q = mkt val of debt + equity / asset replacement cost
• equity q = mkt val equity / net asset replacement cost
• if > 1 >> overvalued; < 1 >> undervalued
• weaknesses
◎ estimating replacement cost
◎ discrepancies persist
• mean-reverting (makes it easy to use)
BRICs | 6 largest economies in 2050
- China
- US
- India
- Japan
- Brazil
- Russia
BRICs | currency strength
• relative to their PPP, BRIC currencies are weak due to low income levels, high inflation and prices
BRICs | ingredients for a successful macroeconomic environment
- stable inflation
- fiscal policy
- stable currency
- good govt
BRICs | ingredients for a successful economy
- macreconomic stability
- instiutional efficiency
- open trade
- worker education
BRICs | important institutions in the economy
- financial
- markets
- legal
- govt
- health
- education
Asset Allocation | What is it?
- SAA is investor’s desired exposure to systemic risk
- SAA = Capital Market Expectations + IPS
- asset weights are ‘targets’
- portfolio is ‘policy portfolio’ or ‘target portfolio’ or ‘benchmark’
- specific weights with each asset give desired systemic risk exposure
Asset Allocation | Tactical asset allocation
- managers attempt to generate alpha (excess return)
- deviates from SAA
- taking advantage of ST opportunities in the market
- TAA creates additional risk
- big focus: possible high cost of TAA due to transaction cost and illiquidity of alternative investments
Asset Allocation | SAA vs TAA
- SAA is LT allocation to different assets towards the goals and limitations of the IPS
- TAA is ST alpha
- SAA is systemic risk
- TAA is specific risk
- SAA accounts for almost the entire risk and return of the portfolio
Asset Allocation | ALM SAA vs Asset-only SAA
- ALM SAA models liabilities and allocates assets in relation to those liabilities
- Asset-only SAA disregards liabilites and maximizes return in relation to a specified level of risk
- ALM can be applied to any investor (eg. individiual)
- seems like ALM is superior
Asset Allocation | Dynamic vs Static Asset Allocation
- Dynamic looks at the investment outcomes of one time period on following time periods
- Static assesses each time period independently (often just a single period)
- Dynamic is superior (often used with ALM SAA)
Asset Allocation | effects of loss aversion
loss >> desire to make back the loss >> taking on too much risk
Asset Allocation | effects of mental accounting
- investor segments his needs and creates an independent investment strategy for each need
- investor does not look at portfolio in the aggregate >> does not access correlations or overall risk / return and diversification
Asset Allocation | effects of regret and fear of regret
• regret >> not taking a loss >> bigger loss / inefficient investment strategy
• fear of regret
◎ >> not taking action / too conservative >> inefficient investment strategy
◎ holding both winners and losers too long
Asset Allocation | rates: addition vs compound
• use compound when
◎ asked for
◎ multi-period
◎ path dependent
• otherwise use addition
Asset Allocation | Utility Adjusted Return
• adjusts return based on investor’s risk aversion and portfolio variance
• U = R - .005 * A * var(portfolio)
U = utility adjusted return on specific portfolio
R = expected return
A = investor’s risk aversion score
var(portfolio) = portfolio variance
• if using decimals for return, then use .05
Asset Allocation | 3 downside risks
- shortfall
- semivariance
- target semivariance
- Roy’s Safety-First Measure
Asset Allocation | Roy’s safety first measure
- RSF = (Rp - Rmar) / std dev p
- downside risk measure
- finds num of std devs the exp return is from the min acceptable return
Asset Allocation | Defining (specifying) asset classes
- class includes similar assets by description, system risk and other statistics
- classes are not highly correlated >> diversification
- distinct (no single investment fit two classes)
- aggregate of classes should encompass all investments >> increases return at all risk levels
- in aggregate contain many liquid assets
Asset Allocation | 6 common asset classes
- domestic equity
- domestic fixed income
- global equity
- global fixed income
- cash & equivalents
- alternative investments (real estate, PE, hedge funds, etc)
Asset Allocation | Deciding to add an investment to a portfolio
If Si > Sp * corr(i,p), Then yes, add it. Otherwise, no.
Si = new investment sharpe
Sp = existing portfolio sharpe
Asset Allocation | Asset allocation process
- capital market expectation (CME)
- effects on each asset class
- allocate across classes that best meet IPS
- monitor
- revise
Asset management | general 3 step process throughout all management
- action
- monitor/evaluate
- revise
Asset Allocation | 6 allocation methods
- mean-variance optimization (MVO)
- resampled efficient frontier
- Black-Littman
- Monte Carlo
- ALM
- experience-based
Asset Allocation | mean variance: constrained vs unconstrained
unconstrained allows short selling to create efficient portfolios; constrained does not
Asset Allocation | Black’s mean variance theorem
any min-variance portfolio can be described as the weighted average of two other min-variance portfolios
Asset Allocation | MVO is how many periods
1
Asset Allocation | Efficient frontier ` CAL and CML
- CAL is the line defined by a risk free asset and an efficient frontier (EF) risky portfolio
- CML is the CAL with the market portfolio (everyone should hold it if everyone had same assessments)
Asset Allocation | Problem with CML
- often a risk free asset does not effectively exist (known return, std dev and corr = 0)
- Borrowing/lending the risk free asset is often effectively non-optimal with obligations *borrowing) and fees (both)
Asset Allocation | exam note:
unless risk free or CML is specified, assume world of portfolios are those on the efficient frontier (EF)
Asset Allocation | Resampled Efficient Frontier (REF)
- EF is recreated using monte carlo, historical data and CME
- at each point on the frontier is the distribution from an average of multiple portfolios with the same expected return
- if the current portfolio is within a specificed confidence interval of the efficient portfolio (statistically equivalent), then no need to rebalance
Asset Allocation | advantages of REF vs EF
- averaging process >> more stable frontier >> minor input changes >> minor effects on REF
- portfolios more diversified
- less rebalancing because existing portfolio likely to be statistically same as EF portfolio >> less turnover >> less cost
Asset Allocation | disadvantages of REF vs RF
- lack of sound theoretical basis
- same as MVO, historical data may not forecast future outcomes
Asset Allocation | Black-Litterman: unconstrained BL model (UBL)
- manager picks global index as portfolio template
- adjusts weights based on manager’s expectations of asset classes
Asset Allocation | Black-Litterman: BL model (BL)
- manager selects global index >> historical weights, std devs, corrs
- reverse optimization / back solve / back out expected return (mkt consensus), market risk premium and cov of the assets (mkt consensus???)
- adjusts returns and std dev based on manager’s opinions
- generate MVO (mean variance optimization) based on adjusted values
• no negative weights (short sales)
• more systematic/mathematical than UBL
• assumes financial mkts equilibrium
Asset Allocation | Black-Litterman: pros of BL model
- mkt consensus exp return (only model that does not require estimates of exp return)
- more diversification
- less sensitive to input changes
Asset Allocation | ALM - risk graph
similar to CAL, but Y = expected surplus; X = st dev of surplus
Asset Allocation | ALM with other models
BL and monte carlo can both be used to help set ALM asset weights
Asset Allocation | how do I find the return, st dev and asset allocations of two combined portfolios
- R = W1 * R1 + W2 * R2
- SD = W1 * SD1 + W2 * SD2 (approx when corr = 1)
- portfolio 1 weight * asset A weight in portfolio 1 + portfolio 2 weight * asset A weight in portfolio 2 = new asset weight
Asset Allocation | ALM: MSVP
minimum surplus variance portfolio (min var and lowest surplus)
Asset Allocation | Exerience Based Technique (EBT)
- process of elimination using IPS
- 60/40 equity/bonds is mix for avg investor
Asset Allocation | Mean variance optimization (MVO): 6 strengths
- optimization programs to find EF are inexpensive and commercially available
- typically no negative weights
- cash is included in risky assets
- widely accepted
- easy to adapt to Roy’s
- EF model can be simplified with corner portfolios
Asset Allocation | Mean variance optimization (MVO): 5 weaknesses
- number and nature of required estimates
- estimation bias in exp returns
- static 1 period approach
- output may be under diversified
- ouput can be very sensitive to inputs
Asset Allocation | Resampled efficient frontier (REF): strengths
- EF more stable (less impact from small input changes)
- more diversified than traditional MVO
- commerially available software
Asset Allocation | Resampled efficient frontier (REF) : weaknesses
- no theoretical basis
- inputs based on historical data
Asset Allocation | Black-Litterman: strength
- Theo justifiable way to address input sensitivity & incorporate manager’s views
- more stable SAA
- more diversification
- unconstrained or constrained (better)
- constrained quantifies and begins with mkt consensus returns, then let’s manager adjust
- commercially available
Asset Allocation | Black-Litterman: weaknesses
- inputs based on historical data
- complex
Asset Allocation | monte carlo simulation: strengths
- stats tool to augment other approaches
- incorporates path dependency
- prob distribution can be used to answer liklihood to meet/miss returns
- can be used to model liabilities and surplus
- commercially available
Asset Allocation | monte carlo simulation: weaknesses
- complex
- false confidence due to complexity; only as good as assumptins, inputs
Asset Allocation | ALM: strengths
- allocation of assets based on liabilities
- surplus frontier; surplus vs risk
- commercially available
- otherwise similar to MVO
Asset Allocation | ALM: weaknesses
• same as MVO
- number and nature of required estimates
- estimation bias in exp returns
- static 1 period approach
- output may be under diversified
- ouput can be very sensitive to inputs
Asset Allocation | experience based technique (EBT): strengths
- uses decades of experience
- easy to understand; consistent with more complex approaches
- inexpensive
Asset Allocation | experience based technique (EBT): weaknesses
- too simple for some investors
- rules can be contradictory
Asset Allocation | Corner portfolios
- on the efficient frontier of MVO
- not clear how they are defined, but they are portfolios on the EF, which linear combination can be used to calculate other portfolios of a specific return or risk
my note:
don’t forget to use compound calc on returns if ‘compounding’ or ‘multiperiod’ are mentioned
Asset Allocation | market portfolio on EF and sharpe ratio
the portfolio with the highest sharpe ratio ~ market portfolio
Asset Allocation | if a higher return than the mkt portfolio is required without borrowing
- pick a portfolio on the EF with the required return
- can use corner portfolios to approx the new portfolio return, std dev and asset allocations
Asset Allocation | differences between individuals and institutions
- wealth accumulation is to meet goals like retirement and college (???)
- structure of income and wealth accumulation
- longevity risk
- mortality risk
Asset Allocation | EXAMPLE of ndividual human and financial capital by age
• Example; none of the inputs are true in all cases, eg.
◎ HC = 100% bond
◎ retire at 60
◎ etc.
• HC is always 100% like a bond
• age 30: 10/90 FC/HC; FC: 100% eqty >> TC (total cap): 10/90 equity/bond
• age 50: 60/40 FC/HC; FC: 83.3 eqty / 16.6 bond >> TC: 50/50
• age 60: 100/0 FC/HC; FC: 50/50 >> TC: 50/50
Asset Allocation | reasons for international investment
- reduced risk through low correlation
- higher returns (if low corr and domestic is down, int’l might be up)
Asset Allocation | foreign asset risk
- volatility of foreign asset value
- volatility of foreign currency value
Asset Allocation | 5 correlation factors between countries
- govt regulations
- tech specialization
- fiscal policy
- monetary policy
- culture & social differences
Asset Allocation | effect of int’l diversification on the efficient frontier (EF)
shifts curve up (same risk, higher return)
Asset Allocation | effect of adding int’l bonds to a int’l stock portfolio
• positive
• 3 factors:
◎ corr of global bond mkts
◎ corr of bonds to the stock portfolio
◎ if currency is hedged
Asset Allocation | Return on foreign asset equation
Rdom = Rlc + S + S * Rlc
Rdom = return in investor currency(DC)
Rlc = return in local currency OF ASSET
S = %chg in FC(foreign currency)
• Local currency is NOT domestic currency!
Asset Allocation | risk of foreign asset (volatility of return)
VARdom = VARfa + VARfc + 2 * SDfa * SDfc * Corr(fa, fc)
VARdom = var of domestic return
VARfa = var of foreign asset value
VARfc = var of foreign currency value
SD = standard deviation
Corr = correlation
• weights for both are 1, so can be dropped
Asset Allocation | Standard dev of domestic return will always be less/greater than
SD = stand dev fa = foreign asset value fc = foreign currency value
Asset Allocation | what is the contribution of currency risk
• =SDdom - SDfa
◎ SD = stand dev
◎ dom = domestic return
◎ fa = foreign asset value
Asset Allocation | currency risk not a major negative in foreign investment
- combined risk of currency and foreign assets < sum of currency risk + foreign assets risk
- currency risk can be hedged
- reduced thru diversification across multiple countries
• half the risk of foreigh stock risk (tho 2x bond risk)
• currency value mean reverts and dictated by fundamentals
Asset Allocation | argument against domestic-foreign asset diversification
• correlations have increased over time
• correlations among markets increase during volatile times when diversification is most important
• reason corr has increased:
◎ more trade
◎ capital mkt integration
◎ foreign corp are not multi-national and do not offer diversifcation
◎ capital mobility
Asset Allocation | convergence
as volatility increases, correlations increase (due to economic forces)
• empirical evidence is mixed; some crises have it, others do not
exam note: be able to argue both sides of ‘corr increases when mkt volatility increases’
Asset Allocation | 7 reasons investors don’t invest internationally
- transaction costs
- regs
- taxes
- currency risk
- political risk
- mkt efficiency
- unfamiliarity
asset Allocation | barriers to int’l investment: transaction costs
- trading costs often higher outside US (eg. brokerage comm)
- stamp taxes
- price impact fees (on large block trades)
- custodial costs (multiple layers)
- record keeping and accounting costs
- management costs
- altogether: 10-12 basis pts
- alternative: ADR’s for smaller investors (not great for large investors)
asset Allocation | barriers to int’l investment: regulations
- domestic regs limiting foreign investment (eg. pension fund regs)
- foreign regs limiting “foreign” investment in their companies (eg. many emerging mkts limit % owned of their companies)
Asset Allocation | barriers to int’l investment: taxes
• eg. foreign country withholding taxes on dividends for a period of months is nuisance
Asset Allocation | barriers to int’l investment: currency
- costs of accounting and trading (eg. converting)
- increased return volatility, tho this can be hedged
Asset Allocation | barriers to int’l investment: political risk
• eg.
◎ govt led currency devaluation
◎ nationalization
◎ special regs on foreign investors
Asset Allocation | barriers to int’l investment: market efficiency
- illiquidity of emerging mkts
- capital controls (eg. restricting withdrawl from country)
- lack of info
- integrity (insider trading)
Asset Allocation | barriers to int’l investment: unfamiliarity
fear of the unknown >> belief that foreign investments are riskier
Asset Allocation | global vs international investing
- corps are less conglomerate (across industries) and more int’l (across countries) than in the past
- global diversification = country diversification + industry diversification
Asset Allocation | Emerging markets traits
• good investments due to high return (in part from lack of integration), and low corr to developed mkts
• higher return and volatility
• not normal dist; large left tail
• crises persist longer
• high corr with other emerging mkts during crises
• common issues:
◎ unstable govt and social order
◎ undeveloped infrastructure
◎ poor education
◎ corrupt govt
◎ currency and asset value often pos corr
Asset Allocation | Emerging markets: 7 investability issues
- reg limits on amount of stocks foreigners can own in aggregate or in a company
- low free float due to govt ownership >> illiquidity
- restrictions on cap repatriation
- discriminatory taxation on foreigners
- restrictions on currency conversions
- reg req authorized investor status
- low liquidity