8006 Sample Questions Answers

Price quotes for futures where one of the currencies is the US dollar follow the convention of using the number of US dollars one unit of the foreign currency can buy. (For JPY, 100 Yen is used.)

In the forward market, the same convention as is used in the spot market is used.

In the spot market, prices are expressed as the number of units of the foreign currency that 1 USD can buy, except for GBP, EUR, AUD and NZD where it is the other way round (ie, number of USDs that 1 of each of these currencies can buy).

Explanation:

The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is given by the average cost of debt and equity, weighted by their proportions in the capital structure. The cost of debt should be considered after taxes, as interest is a tax deductible expense. Therefore the WACC in this case can be calculated as = [10% x (1-25%) x 0.5] + [14% x 0.5] = 10.75%

In this case, we can estimate the duration of the bond as follows: we know that a 10 bps increase in rates causes the price to move to $94.50, and a 10 bps decrease causes the price to increase to $95.60. Thus, over the range of the 20 bps, the average change in price per basis point is ($95.60 - $94.50)/20 bps = $1.10/20 = $0.055/basis point, or $0.055* 100 = $5.5 for 100 basis points (ie 1%). We know that modified duration is equivalent to the percentage change in the bond price as a result of a 1% change in interest rates. A 1% change in the interest rates leading to a $5.5 change in a bond priced at $95 equates to $5.5/$95 = 5.79%, in other words the modified duration is roughly equal to 5.79 years.

In fact if we know the price of a bond at any two different interest rates, we can make an estimate of modified duration. Modified duration is just the first derivative with respect to price, and given two prices and the associated yields, we can easily calculate modified duration to be the ratio of the change in price to the change in interest rates. In this question, we are given both an up move and a down move. Using this estimation, only one data point (ie, either the up price or the down price) in addition to the starting point ($95) would have been enough to come to a rough estimate of modified duration. You will notice that the modified duration would be slightly different if we were to use the high point and the starting point (ie $95.60 and $95), and the starting point and the lower point ($95 and $94.50). The difference is due to convexity. The decrease in price is lower than the increase in price - and this is due to the convexity of the bond.

All the statements are correct, and represent the relationships between the values of the Greek variables for calls and puts for the same option. It is important to know why as the PRM exam often asks tough questions about the Greeks.

Statement I is correct because of the put-call parity. According to the put-call parity,

Value of call - Value of put = Spot price - Exercise price discounted to the present

Now the delta of the spot is 1, and that of the discounted price is zero. Therefore

Delta of Call - Delta of Put = 1 - 0, or by rearranging we get the equation in statement I.

Statements II and III are correct as the gamma and vega of both the spot price and the discounted price are zero. Therefore using the put-call parity, we can say

Gamma of Call - Gamma of Put = 0 - 0, and

Vega of Call - Vega of Put = 0 - 0

Rearranging, we get statements II and III.

Statement IV is correct because of the following relationship between theta of call and theta of put:

Theta of Put = Theta of Call + rKe^(-rt).

Since rKe^(-rt) can only be a positive number, theta of put can only exceed the theta of a call. However, since theta is generally negative, it often implies that the theta of a call is the larger absolute number.

Additional explanation for the last point: Assume rKe^(-rt) =+1 and theta of a put is -5 (completely hypothetical)

Now Theta of Put = Theta of Call + rKe^(-rt)

Ie -5 = -6 + 1

Now -5 is the larger number than -6. In other words, theta of put exceeds that of the call in a pure mathematical sense, which is what I mean when I say “theta of put can only exceed the theta of call”. But if you ignore the sign, then theta of call is larger at 6 when compared to 5. Therefore the theta of the put is greater than the theta of the call – which is what the answer says.

Everything else remaining the same, an increase in the rate of dividends causes the value of call options to fall and the value of put options to rise. Therefore, Choice 'b' is the correct answer. (In the exam, the question could address either a call or a put option, so be aware of the answer in either case).

To understand this, consider how dividends are accounted for when valuing an option using the Black Scholes model. Future dividends are discounted to the present using the risk free rate and this discounted value is reduced from the spot price used in the BSM valuation. Effectively, this reduces the spot price used in the BSM formula. When the spot price reduces, and the exercise price remains the same, then the value of the call option goes down. In the same way, when spot price is reduced by the present value of dividends (and the exercise price stays the same), obviously the put option becomes more valuable. Therefore an increase in the rate of dividends increases the value of the put option.

There is another intuitive way to think about this: A call option is like a long position in the stock, but the holder of the call option is not entitled to receive dividends (unlike the holder of the stock). Since the holder of the call option has to forego the dividends, he is willing to pay less for the option; or in other words, the value of the call reduces.

In the same way, a put option is like having a short position in the stock. The holder of the short position has to borrow the stock in order to get into the short position in the first place. When dividends are paid, the holder of the short stock position has to make good any dividends that might be paid to the lender of the stock. The holder of a put option does not have to make any such payments. Therefore the put option is more valuable, and the existence of dividends (or an increase in dividends) increases the value of the put option.

(Try this out using the Black Scholes Excel model given under the tutorials by varying the spot price.)

Statement I is correct. If daily returns are not independent, variances cannot simply be added up over the period, and the square root of time rule is not appropriate to use to scale volatility.Statement II is incorrect. Statement III is correct. If daily returns are positively correlated, it means that a high return on one day will likely cause a higher return the next day, and likewise for low or negative returns. Intuitively, it means that a 'trend' will be created and volatility will be higher than in a case where daily returns were not correlated. Therefore statement II is not correct. By the same logic, negative correlation between daily returns would mean a higher return on one day would likely be followed by lower returns the next day, ie a reversion to mean will result causing the volatility to be lower than the case when the returns are uncorrelated. (The correlation between the daily returns is called the 'autocorrelation coefficient'.)Statement IV is false because while the random walk of prices does imply independence, it says nothing about the expected value of returns. It does not imply that the returns will have an expected value of zero (or any other value).Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer and the rest are incorrect.

A cash or nothing call is one that pays a fixed amount if the underlying exceeds a certain threshold, or nothing. An asset or nothing call is the same as the cash or nothing call except that instead of paying a fixed amount, it 'pays' the asset. Therefore the payoff profile of a long asset or nothing call has the same payoff as a long cash or nothing call and a long vanilla call.

This is best considered by building payoff diagrams which will show how the two positions are economically equivalent. Choice 'd' is the correct answer, and the rest are not.

Repos are collateralized borrowing arrangements. They are used for providing short term funding. They are not used for managing credit risk exposures. They are also used by central banks as part of their money market operations. They are also useful for facilitating short positions, for example, in corporate bonds where the party desirous of shorting the bond may 'borrow' the bond on repo in order to be able to sell it short.

Explanation:

The correct answer is the index value times the contract size, in this case 1500 x 50.

One way to think about index futures is this: Consider equity index trading as trading in the shares of a company whose share price is equal to a number of dollars which is the same as the index. If the 'contract multiplier' for a index futures contract is 50, that means the futures contract is for 50 shares of such a fictitious company. Therefore the notional value of the contract will be 15000 x 50, and Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

A hedge based on portfolio duration alone makes the assumption that the price/yield relationship is linear, and ignores the convexity or non-linearity of the price/yield relationship. As prices change beyond small changes, the non-linear effect kicks in, which can be offset by making a convexity adjustment to the hedge. Therefore statements I and II are correct.

Statement III is incorrect - negative convexity has an adverse effect on bond prices regardless of whether prices rise or fall.

Statement IV is correct, a bond hedge based on duration alone may be mismatched along the yield curve (eg, hedging a 10 year maturity bond with a 3 year futures contract, even though of identical total durations), which is based upon the implicit assumption that all rates will move together (ie parallel shifts).

Treasury bond futures do not specify which bond can be used to effect delivery, but allow the seller to pick from a number of available bonds. As a result, one of these eligible bonds emerges as being the 'cheapest' to deliver, and this CTD bond is determined by the basis between the cash price of the bond and the futures spot price as adjusted by the conversion factor for this specific bond. (ie, basis = Cash Price of the Bond - (Futures Price x Conversion Factor).)

The bond with the lowest basis is generally the CTD. In the given question, the three basis calculations are:

1) 97 - (0.9 x 105) = 2.5

2) 101 - (1 x 105) = -4

3) 106 - (1.1 x 105) = -9.5

Since the third bond with a quote of 106 has the lowest basis, Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Since the stock is selling for $100 spot, its 3 month forward price for you would be $100*(1 + 6%*3/12) = $101.50. Since the forward is priced at $104, it is 'rich' compared to the spot and should be sold. A profitable trade would be to buy the spot and sell the forward.

Imagine you borrow $100 and buy the stock, and simultaneously sell the forward. At the end of 3 months, you will receive $104 in return from the forward, and be obliged to return the initial $100 borrowed together with interest of $1.50 for the three months. You would make a riskless profit of $2.50 per share in three months. Thus Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Note that the treasury yield is irrelevant, what matters is the rate at which you can finance the trade which is 6% per annum.

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.

The optimal hedge ratio answers the question of how much of the hedge to buy to hedge a given position. If 103.11.e1 is the standard deviation of the asset to be hedged, and 103.11.e2 is the standard deviation the asset being used to hedge against price movements in x, then the minimum variance hedge ratio is given by the expression 103.11.e3. In this question, correlation = 0.00378/(6%*7%) = 0.9. The minimum variance hedge ratio is given by (6%/7%)*0.9 = 0.77

He should therefore hold 0.77 x $10m /$100k = 77 contracts.

[We can also do a direct covar based calculation for the min variance hedge ratio as follows:

103.11.a3

= 0.00378 / (0.07 * 0.07) = 0.7714]

The security market line is generally shown graphically with returns on the y-axis and the asset's beta on the x-axis. The correct answer is Choice 'a'.

Note the difference between the SML and the CML (the capital markets line). The CML is the transformation line joining the risk free rate on the y-axis and the portfolio with the maximum Sharpe ratio on the efficient frontier, and expresses the relationship between risk and return.

The forward rate from year 2 to year 3 in this case can be derived as =(1.05^3/1.04^2) - 1, or 7.03%. All other answers are incorrect.

Investors have differing view of the market, which means differing view of expected returns, correlations and volatilities. Not only do they have differing views, these views change frequently as new information reveals itself. Accordingly, each investor has their own version of the efficient frontier. Once investors have determined their efficient frontiers, they will determine the extent of risk they wish to hold. If they had identical views, they would have held the same portfolio. But they do not, and if they did, there would be very little trading in the markets.

All the above statements are true except statement I which is false due to differing investor expectations.

(Re statement IV: If investors have different risk appetites, their portfolio will vary in the split between the risky and the riskfree assets. But inside the 'risky' assets bundle the proportion of the assets will be identical. Ie, they would express their varying risk appetites by varying how much of the risky bundle and the riskfree asset they hold, but inside the risky bundle the proportion of the different risky assets will be the same.)

Choice 'd' is the correct answer. Continuously compounded returns are given by the log of S2/S1. The expression (S2 - S1)/S1 gives discrete returns, not continuously compounded returns.

Note that the question is only asking for the return over the given time period, not annualized returns. So t is not relevant here. If we had to find annualized returns, and t were expressed in years, then the annualized return would have been (1/t)*ln(S2/S1).

Also refer to the tutorial on interest rates and compounding for more information on continuously compounded rates.

Convexity is nothing but the second derivative with respect to price - or in other words, it is the first derivative of the modified duration. If we could determine two data points for modified duration, we can determine convexity too.

The modified duration is the percentage change in bond price from a 1% change in yield.

In this case, for the up move, the modified duration can be calculated as follows:

Change in price for 10 bps change in yield = $0.60/$95 =0.006316

Change in price for a 1% change in yield = 0.006316 * 10 = 0.06316

Therefore modified duration = 0.06316 * 100 = 6.316

For the down move in price, the modified duration is similarly $0.50/$95 * 10 * 100 = 5.263.

The convexity therefore is the difference between these two modified durations divided by the change in interest rates - note that these two points are separated by 10 basis points and not 20. Therefore convexity is (6.32 - 5.26)/0.1% = 1052.6.

[Note on how duration was calculated: In this case, we can estimate the duration of the bond as follows: we know that a 10 bps increase in rates causes the price to move to $94.50, and a 10 bps decrease causes the price to increase to $95.60. Thus, over the range of the 20 bps, the average change in price per basis point is ($95.60 - $94.50)/20 bps = $1.10/20 = $0.055/basis point, or $0.055* 100 = $5.5 for 100 basis points (ie 1%). We know that modified duration is equivalent to the percentage change in the bond price as a result of a 1% change in interest rates. A 1% change in the interest rates leading to a $5.5 change in a bond priced at $95 equates to $5.5/$95 = 5.79%, in other words the modified duration is roughly equal to 5.79 years.

In fact if we know the price of a bond at any two different interest rates, we can make an estimate of modified duration. Modified duration is just the first derivative with respect to price, and given two prices and the associated yields, we can easily calculate modified duration to be the ratio of the change in price to the change in interest rates. In this question, we are given both an up move and a down move. Using this estimation, only one data point (ie, either the up price or the down price) in addition to the starting point ($95) would have been enough to come to a rough estimate of modified duration. You will notice that the modified duration would be slightly different if we were to use the high point and the starting point (ie $95.60 and $95), and the starting point and the lower point ($95 and $94.50). The difference is due to convexity. The decrease in price is lower than the increase in price - and this is due to the convexity of the bond.]

Credit derivatives can indeed be used for reducing credit exposures, earning credit risk premiums and getting market exposure without taking cash market positions. They cannot be used for reducing interest rate risks, as they pay out only when agreed 'credit events' take place. Changes in interest rates are not a credit event. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A utility function provides a description of an individual or a firm's risk attitude. It expresses how risk seeking or risk averse they are. The utility function would provide for changes between risk seeking and risk averse behavior, for example, as an individual becomes richer, he may seek (or shun) risk more than before. A utility function incorporates all of this, and a logarithmic utility function is represented by u(x) = ln(x).

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.

For a deep in the money option, the option value changes in line with the value of the underlying because at this point the option is effectively behaving like the underlying. Therefore its delta is the same as the delta of the underlying, ie 1. In the same way, its gamma will be the same as the gamma of the underlying, which is 0. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

A rise in interest rates will cause fixed rate bond prices to fall. It will not affect the floating rate notes as their rates are going to float with the changes in interest rates. Inflation linked bonds will only be affected by changes in real interest rates, and even in a situation where the rise in interest rates is happening due to an increase in the real rates, a long position would hurt. As interest rates rise, the coupon payable on the inverse floater would fall, hurting a long position.

Of the given alternatives, the only position that would benefit from a rise in interest rates is the short position in fixed rate bonds. Hence Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

An increase in volatility increases the value of the option, and so do increases in the price of the underlying and the risk free rate. However, since a European option can only be exercised at expiry, an increase in the time to expiry may not necessarily increase the value of the option as it may increase the uncertainty around a more certain payout.

Consider the extreme case of a deep in the money European call option that has 1 day left to expiry, and a payout is certain. Now imagine the time to expiry is increased by say, 6 months. Now the payout is no longer certain as no one knows what the value of the underlying will end up at after 6 months. In such a case, the value of the option would decline. But this applies only to a European option. An American option, which can be exercised any time, will not be affected by this reasoning.

The crack spread is the difference between the price of refined products and crude oil. An option on the crack spread can protect a refiner from both a fall in the price of its output and a rise in the price of its inputs. Calendar spreads are options with different maturities. Crude oil futures and swaps only protect against an adverse change in the price of crude, and not that of refined products. Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

This question addresses the key differences between futures and forward contracts. Forward contracts are over the counter (OTC) instruments, while futures are exchange traded. Therefore Choice 'b' is not a true statement.

Futures contracts require an initial margin to be paid to the exchange, and gains and losses to be settled daily, while forward contracts generally settle only at the maturity of the contract. Therefore Choice 'a' is a true statement.

The exchange is the counterparty in a futures contract, and through its system of initial and variation margins guarantees the performance of the contract. Futures therefore have very little credit risk when compared to forwards. Therefore Choice 'c' is a true statement.

Because futures gains and losses give rise to daily cash flows, while the P&L on forward contracts is settled only at the end of the contract, the timing differences create small pricing differences between the two. Therefore Choice 'd' is a true statement.

The Sharpe ratio is the ratio of the excess returns of a portfolio to its volatility. It provides an intuitive measure of a portfolio's excess return over the risk free rate. The Sharpe ratio is calculated as [(Portfolio return - Risk free return)/Portfolio standard deviation].

The Treynor ratio is similar to the Sharpe ratio, but instead of using volatility in the denominator, it uses the portfolio's beta. Therefore the Treynor Ratio is calculated as [(Portfolio return - Risk free return)/Portfolio's beta]. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer.

Jensen's alpha is another risk adjusted performance measure. It considers only the 'alpha', or the return attributable to a portfolio manager's skill. It is the difference between the return of the portfolio, and what the portfolio should theoretically have earned. Any portfolio can be expected to earn the risk free rate (rf), plus the market risk premium (which is given by [Beta x (Market portfolio's return - Risk free rate)]. Jensen's alpha is therefore the actual return earned less the risk free rate and the beta return. Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

Refer to the tutorial on risk adjusted performance measures for more details.

This question highlights the difference between zero rates, yield-to-maturity and forward rates. Forward rates are from one point in time to another, for example say from year 4 to 5 in the future. A zero rate is from time 0, or now, to a point in time in the future. The zero rate is dependent on the forward rates for all the different periods from now to the future. The yield curve represents the various zero rates at different points in time, and if it is upward sloping it means forward rates for years further out are greater than the years prior. That is what causes the zero rate yields to increase over time and the curve to slope upwards. So the forward rate from year 9 to 10 will certainly be higher than the 10 year zero rate.

The yield-to-maturity for a bond is the rate at which the payments on the bond discount to be equal to the current bond price. It is therefore the average rate that applies to the bond. This average is based upon the different zero rates for the years in which bond holders receive payments. Since coupons are smaller than the payment at maturity, the zero rate that applies to the payment at maturity will have the most impact on the numerical value of the bond's yield-to-maturity. Also affecting the yield-to-maturity will be the values of the coupon payments, which will be discounted at lower rates when the yield curve is upward sloping. So the yield-to-maturity will be an average lower than the 10 year zero. Since the 10 year zero will be lower than the forward rate from t=9-10, the yield-to-maturity will be the lowest rate of the three.

All the choices listed are valid assumptions underlying the BSM option valuation formula except that the BSM formula is based upon the option being exercisable only at expiry. The assumption is that early exercise is not permitted. In other words, BSM applies to European options and not American options. Therefore Choice 'd' represents the correct answer as it is not an assumption underlying Black Scholes.

From the put-call parity, we know that Call - Put = Stock - Bank deposit. Since the bank deposit has a zero Gamma, and the Gamma of the Stock itself is also 0, we get the relationship Gamma of Call - Gamma of Put = 0. Therefore, if the Gamma of a call option is 0.08, the Gamma of the corresponding put option is also 0.08.

Security A 'dominates' security B, ie it offers the most return per unit of volatility. However, because it is less volatile, its returns are likely to be more concentrated around its mean compared to Security B which will have 'fatter tails' compared to Security A. Therefore Security B will offer a much better chance of making the desired 25% return. Of course, this also means that Security B is much more likely to lose a lot more money than Security A. However, if the portfolio manager is only interested in maximizing his chances of making a 25% or greater return, he should select Security B. The answer can be verified using Excel's Normdist formula, and probability of exceeding 25% will be given by [=1-NORMDIST(0.25,0.1,0.1,TRUE)] for Security A and =1-NORMDIST(0.25,0.1,0.2,TRUE)] for Security B. A combined portfolio of the two will have a return of 10% and variance less than that of Security B (or at the most equal to the weighted average of the two variances, even if their correlation is 1), which means a combined portfolio will also have a lower probability of exceeding a 25% return.

This question reflects how portfolio managers may be tempted to make sub-optimum decisions for their investors by swinging for the fences by taking large bets, for example, when they have had a big drawdown and have to make it up to the high water mark levels before they earn performance fees.

There was no event such as the CDO squeeze in 2008. (Quite on the contrary, securitized products were selling at distressed prices.).

The silver squeeze of 1979-80 (Hunt brothers), the Chicago fire of 1872 (leading to a short squeeze on wheat), and the wheat squeeze (Hutchingson) of 1866 are real historical events that led to short squeezes in commodity markets. Choice 'b' is therefore the correct answer.

For the PRM exam, you should try to remember the event broadly, and the commodity involved.

A forward contract is a derivative contract, and has a delta of 1. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. This is because the value of a forward contract is given by S - Ke^(-rt), where S is the current spot price, r the risk free rate, K the forward price, and t the time to maturity. As S changes from S to (S + δS), the value changes to (S + δS) - Ke^(-rt), ie the change in value is exactly δS in response to a change in the price of the underlying by δS. Therefore the forward contract has a delta of 1.

All other choices are incorrect.

Note that this is different from the delta of a futures contract which is different from 1, and equal to e^(rt), a number greater than 1.

The forward price for a commodity is nothing but the spot price plus carrying costs till the maturity date of the forward contract. Any increase in carrying costs therefore has the effect of increasing the forward price. Note that carrying costs include interest cost in respect of funding the position, costs of storage, less any convenience yield.

Increase in the carrying costs will not affect the spot prices.

This is a two step problem:

First, calculate the bond price using the yield information, then

Second, once you know the bond price, calculate the 18 month zero rate using the bootstrap method.

Step 1: Bond valuation: All variables required for pricing the bond are known. The coupon payments will be $1.50 in 6 months and 1 year from now, and a final paymento of $101.50 will be received in an year's time. This can be discounted at the yield provided as follows, and summed together to get the bond price of $97.14.

Step 2: Boot strapping: Discount the 6 month and 12 month coupons at the zero rates for those periods, and subtract the total of these PVs from the bond price. These work out to 1.5/(1+2%/2) = 1.485, and 1.5/(1+3%/2)^2=1.456. That gives us the present value, $97.14 - $1.485 - 1.456 = $94.203, which grows to the final payment of $101.50 at the end of 18 months. The zero rate inherent in this price can then be worked out as we know that (1+r/2)^3 = 101.5/94.203, or r = 5.03%.

When hedging one fixed income security with another, the question as to how much of the hedge to buy (or sell) (ie the hedge ratio) for a given primary position is determined by their respective basis point values, which in turn are determined by their duration. Therefore, when hedging a long maturity bond with a PV01 of $3 with a short maturity bond that has a PV of $1, we will need to buy 3 times the notional value of the short maturity bond to achieve the same sensitivity to interest rates as the longer maturity bond.

Additionally, we may also expect the interest rates on the hedge to move differently from the interest rates on the primary instrument being hedged, and this needs to be accounted for as well as part of the hedge ratio calculation. This is called the yield beta and is calculated as change in yield for primary position/change in yield for the hedge security.

The hedge ratio is determined both by the yield beta and the BPVs of the two securities. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The efficient frontier is a two dimensional plot with volatility and returns on its axes. For a given level of return, it helps identify the portfolio with the lowest volatility. From the other axis, it helps identify the portfolio with the highest return for a given level of volatility.

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Note that in the exam you may be asked the question slightly differently.

A protective put is a put option purchased to protect against the fall in value of a long position. If the price of the underlying in respect of the long position goes down, the put options helps limit losses. If the price of the underlying goes up, the premium paid on the puts is lost but the investor gets to keep the entire upside from the rise in the price.

Therefore statements I, III and IV are correct. Statement II is not correct as any decline in the value of the underlying is offset by the gain from the put, which is the entire idea behind a protective put.

A repo, or a repurchase agreement, is the lending of securities in return for cash, with an agreement to buy the securities back at a later date at the borrowed amount plus interest. It is a form of collateralized borrowing. A 'reverse repo' is exactly the opposite of a repo transaction, ie where cash is lent and securities borrowed. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. In any repo transaction, the counterparty will therefore always have a 'reverse repo' position.

A reverse repo is a useful transaction - not merely for the purpose of lending short term funds, but more importantly to enable short positions. For example, if an investor wishes to short a bond, he can borrow the bond on a 'reverse repo' and sell it. Of course, he will have to return the bond when the reverse repo matures, but hopefully by that time prices of the bond would have fallen to allow him to do so profitably. Short positions in physical bonds are nearly always facilitated by reverse repos.

The 'running yield' refers to the coupon rate divided by the current price. In this case, it is 6/96 = 6.25%. Remember that the running yield is also called the current yield.

The highest possible transformation line, ie the transformation line with the maximum slope, is the transformation line joining the risk free rate on the y-axis and the portfolio with the maximum Sharpe ratio on the efficient frontier. This line is called the 'capital markets line'. Investors can pick any point on this line according to their risk appetite, and doing so would maximize the return they can obtain for their desired level of risk. The capital markets line is tangential to the efficient frontier. The Sharpe ratio stays constant throughout the CML. Therefore statement IV is not true, while the rest are.

Futures initial margins are determined by the exchange. SPAN is the name of a framework the CME uses to determine margins. Only Choice 'd' is correct.

According to the dividend discount model, the spot share prices represent the present value of all the future cash flows from the stock. If held till perpetuity, this becomes an annuity equal to the dividend, growing at its expected growth rate. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Choice 'c' would represent the total market cap, and not the value per share that the question asks.

Contingent premium options are options where no premiums are due upfront, and are due only at expiry and only if the option finishes in the money. (If this sounds too good to be true, remember that at expiry it is possible that the premiums due exceed the payoffs from the option. So there is no free lunch.) For this reason they are also called pay-later options.

They are simple combinations of a vanilla option and the 'right' number of cash-or-nothing options. The buyer of a contingent premium option has effectively purchased a vanilla option and sold enough number of cash-or-nothing options so that the net premium due at inception is zero.

Therefore statement I, II and III are correct and Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Explanation:

If the spot rate is 1.1010 and the forward is 1.1040, the swap rate is 30 "points" (= 1.1040 - 1.1010). The annualized swap premium is the swap premium divided by the spot rate, and therefore =0.0030/1.1010 =0.27%, or 27 basis points.

Swaps rates are calculated such that the swap's value at inception is zero. Therefore statement I is correct and statement II is incorrect. OTC swaps are not standardized, in fact they are customized by the parties to suit their needs, which is why they are over-the-counter. Therefore statement III is incorrect. It is correct that interest rate and commodity swaps are the most traded, and statement IV is correct.

Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The operating free cash flows can be considered a perpetual annuity with a given growth rate.

The value of a perpetuity of a periodic cash flow of 'c', with a discount rate 'r' and growth rate 'g' is given by c/(r - g). In the given case, the company can be considered as providing a perpetual annuity which provides an annual cash flow of $100 which are growing at 2.5% (equal to the GDP's growth rate, as given), and whose cost of capital, or the discount rate to use, is 7.5%

Therefore the value of the firm in this case is given by $100/(7.5% - 2.5%) = $2,000. Recall that the value of the firm is equal to the Operating Free Cash Flow/Weighted Average Cost of Capital (OFCF/WACC). Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Statement I is true. Consider the Black Scholes PDE 202.23.e1

and substitute delta = 0 (as this is a delta neutral portfolio), and we get the result 202.23.e.

Since r is generally small, and σ and S are positive, theta will be negative when gamma is positive and vice versa.

Statement II is incorrect. The gamma of a call and a put are equal and do not add to 1. The relationship described applies to delta, and not gamma.

Statement III is correct because positive gamma means that the portfolio gains both from an increase and a decrease in the value of the underlying, given delta neutrality. (Generally, a positive gamma is a good thing, but like everything else, it does not come free. A trader can choose to keep their portfolio gamma positive, but in doing so he or she would be giving up premiums from options they would have sold to neutralize the gamma.)

Statement IV is correct because the only way to hedge gamma and vega is through other options positions as only options have gamma and vega. If only one tradeable option is available, it would be possible to hedge either the gamma or the vega, but not both, as achieving neutrality in one will upset the neutrality of the other. The only way to simultaneously hedge the two would be to use two different options on the underlying, and determine the number of options to be traded (using a system of simultaneous equations).

A utility function provides a description of an individual or a firm's risk attitude. It expresses how risk seeking or risk averse a firm or an individual is. The utility function would explain differences between risk seeking and risk averse behavior, for example, as an individual becomes richer, he may seek (or shun) risk more than before. A utility function incorporates all of this, and therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The delivery price of a futures contract is given by Se^(rt), just as in the case of a forward contract. However, a key difference is that a forward is settled at maturity whereas a futures contract pays out the P&L daily. So if the spot price increases from S to δS, the holder of a futures contract immediately receives the change in the delivery price without any discounting to the present. That is, the holder of the futures contract receives (S + δS)e^(rt) - Se^(rt) = δSe^(rt) right away. Therefore the delta of a futures contract is e^rt, which given positive non-zero values of r and t can only be greater than zero.

Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer. Note the difference from a forward contract where this difference is not received till the delivery date, therefore making the delta of the forward contract to be equal to 1.

The profit potential from the conversion of convertible bonds into stock is limited by the issuer's option to call the security at short notice. Generally, the convertible debt security is convertible into a certain number of shares, and the debt holder will generally not convert the security to shares unless there is a profit to be made. The 'premium' is irrelevant, because as long as the premium exists, the debt holder has no incentive to convert, as he would be better off buying the shares in the market. It is only when share prices go beyond a level that it becomes advantageous convert the security into shares. However, the prospect of granting cheap shares to the debt holders is not too appealing to the issuer, and as soon as the share price goes beyond a point where the value of the shares exceeds the face value of the debt the issuer has an incentive to exercise its option to call the security.

Therefore the profit potential from the conversion of convertible bonds into shares is limited by the issuer's option to call the security, and Choice 'a' is the correct answer. The 'premium', or interest rates, or volatility are irrelevant.

Implied volatilities are the same for calls and puts with similar exercise and strike prices. If not, it would offer an arbitrage opportunity. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The swap can be valued by valuing the two individual components of the swap.

The fixed rate bond equivalent in the swap is valued at =4/1.05 + 104/(1.06^2) = $96,369,154.

The FRN component will be valued at par as we are at a point where the rate has just been reset, ie $100m.

The investor is paying the fixed rate, and is therefore short the bond. He/she is receiving LIBOR, and is therefore long the FRN. The value of the swap to the investor therefore is +$100,000,000-$96,369,154 = $3,630,846

Detailed explanation:

An Interest Rate Swap exchanges fixed interest flows for floating rate flows. The floating rate leg is tied to some reference rate, such as LIBOR. The parties exchange net cash flows periodically. Conceptually, an interest rate swap is the combination of a fixed coupon bond and a floating rate note. The party receiving the fixed rate is long the fixed coupon bond and short the FRN, and the party receiving the floating rate is long the FRN and short the fixed coupon bond.

An interest rate swap can be valued as the difference between the two hypothetical bonds. FRNs sell for par at issue time as they pay whatever the current rate is, subject to periodic resets. Therefore immediately after a payment is made on a swap, the value of the FRN component is equal to its par value. The bond can be valued by discounting its cash flows. The difference between the two represents the value of the swap. When the swap is entered into, the fixed rate leg is set in such a way that the value of the hypothetical bond is equal to that of the FRN, and therefore the swap is valued at zero. The rate at which the fixed rate leg is set is called the swap rate. Over its life, market rates change and the value of the fixed coupon bond equivalent in our swap diverges from par (whereas the FRN stays at par - at least right after payments are exchanged and the new floating rate is set for the next period). Thus the swap acquires a non-zero value.

There are two ways to value a swap. If interest rates for the future are known, the bond and the FRN can be valued and their difference will be equal to the value of the swap. Sometimes, the current swap rates are known. In such a case, the swap can be valued by imagining entering into an opposite swap at the new swap rate, which will leave a residual fixed cash flow for the remaining life of the swap. This residual cash flow can be valued and that represents the value of the swap. For example, if a 4 year swap was entered into exchanging an annual fixed 5% payment on a notional of $100m for a floating payment equal to LIBOR, and at the end of year 1 the swap rate is 6%, then the party paying fixed can choose to enter into a new swap to receive 6% and pay LIBOR. All cash flows between the old and the new swap will offset each other except a net receipt of 1% for the next 3 years. This cash flow can be valued using the current yield curve and represents the value of the swap.

The buyer of the FRA gets to borrow $100m at 10% per annum for 6 months at the end of 6 months from the contract date. Thus, the interest due is $100m * 10% * 6/12 = $5m. However, at the end of the 6 months (when the notional borrowing period begins), the spot rate is 12%. The interest due on a borrowing at the spot rate would be $100m * 12% * 6/12 = $6m. Since the buyer gets to borrow cheaper than the going rate, he or she has made a gain of $1m on the FRA. However, this amount is not due immediately, it is due at the end of the 6 month borrowing period (ie, 12 months from the date the contract was entered into). The seller of the FRA can make the buyer whole by paying the buyer the present value of $1m due in 6 months time, which is $1m/(1 + 12%*6/12) = $1m/1.06 = $943,396.

Thus, Choice 'd' is the correct answer. Remember that the FRA gets settled at the beginning of the notional borrowing period as all future cash flows, and the applicable discount rates are known with certainty. The buyer and the seller do not need to wait for the entire period to get over first. The cash settlement allows the buyer to borrow at the market rate and still have the same net borrowing cost as he or she had initially contracted for in the FRA.

The minimum variance hedge ratio answers the question of how much of the hedge to buy to hedge a given position. It minimizes the combined volatility of the primary and the hedge position. The minimum variance hedge ratio is given by the expression [ σ(x) / σ(y) ] * ρ(x,y)]. Effectively, this is the same as the beta of the primary position with respect to the hedge.

In this case, the hedge ratio is = 10%/9% * 0.9 = 1

Treasury bond futures do not specify which bond can be used to effect delivery, but allow the seller to pick from a number of available bonds. As a result, one of these eligible bonds emerges as being the 'cheapest' to deliver, and this CTD bond is determined by the basis between the cash price of the bond and the futures spot price as adjusted by the conversion factor for this specific bond. (ie, basis = Cash Price of the Bond - Futures Price x Conversion Factor)

The bond with the lowest basis is generally the CTD - therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The price of a treasury bill can be calculated as [Future value / (1 + yield x days-to-maturity/365)] = 100/(1+5%*90/365) = $98.78.

The lowest achievable standard deviation will be lowest when the assets are perfectly negatively correlated, ie when correlation = -1. In the case of the above choices, the lowest correlation is -0.33, which is the correct choice.

T-bill futures and fed futures are very short term futures contracts, and unlikely to provide much of a hedge against a rise in interest rates. FRAs however are customized and would be the right instrument for the borrower to hedge his interest rate risk. A long FRA position gives him the right to borrow at an agreed rate in the future. This rate will not change regardless of the changes in interest rates, and therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

The effectiveness of the hedge is solely determined by the correlation between the position being hedged, and the position being used as the hedge. A hedge can be perfect when correlation is 1, and will be less than perfect when it is anything other than 1.The effectiveness of the optimal hedge is given by the formula √(1-ρ2), where ρ is the correlation between the two. Therefore Choice 'a' is the correct answer. Standard deviations affect the hedge ratio, not the effectiveness of the hedge.

(Note: In other texts, hedge effectiveness is explained to be measured by ρ2, which is essentially the same as √(1-ρ2), both expressions being functions of ρ. You can use either, being aware that one measures the variance explained, and the other is a measure of the unexplained variance.)

Explanation:

Notional principals are not exchanged at the start and the end of an FRA. In fact, if the notional principals were to be exchanged, it would increase credit risk and not decrease it by introducing settlement risk. Therefore Choice 'd' is incorrect.

All other choices correctly describe various aspects of an FRA.

A total return swap allows an investor or a financial institution to gain exposure to an asset or a portfolio without actually having to go long in those positions. The counterparty provides the return from the exposure and receives LIBOR plus a spread in exchange. Effectively, the counterparty has funded the investor's position for a fixed interest rate, therefore a TRS is essentially a funding arrangement. However, the structure of a TRS may also have other consequences that are relevant for tax and accounting - the assets under a TRS are not held on the balance sheet of the investor receiving the total return. Statement I is correct as the TRS helps gain an exposure without having to fund the position with cash.

Repos are useful for shorting corporate bonds. The investor desirous of shorting a corporate bond would sell the bond in the market, and immediately borrow the bond from someone else using a repo to deliver to the party he has sold the bond to. Repos are used extensively to cover short bond positions, and therefore statement II is correct.

Statement III is not correct as counterparty risk continues to exist with a TRS. The counterparty may fail to provide the agreed returns, and the risk exists.

Statement IV is correct as the bank that borrows funds using a repo continues to hold the underlying assets on its balance sheet. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

All the choices list inputs into the determination of futures prices. Therefore volatility in any of them affects the volatility of futures prices. Of course, the largest contributor to the volatility is the volatility of the spot price of the underlying. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

The tax advantage of debt is an important input into a decision on the financial structure of a firm. Increasing debt increases the fixed expenses of a business that must be paid out of current cash flows, thereby increasing the cost of financial distress. CFOs consider the volatility of their earnings, outlook for the future and the possibility of financial distress at varying levels of debt, so that certainly is an input into the debt-equity tradeoff. Holding higher levels of equity increases financial flexibility for financing new investments or acquisitions, and depending upon their plans for such activities, they may decide to hold a certain level of equity versus debt.

The agency costs of equity refer to the cost to shareholders arising from the management acting in its own interest rather than that of shareholders - and this is irrelevant to a decision on capital structure. Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

Selling July corn futures would be the cheapest and most appropriate risk management strategy for this corn farmer trying to hedge his risk against falling prices. When June comes, he can close out the futures contracts and any loss or gain on the futures contract would be approximately equal to the change in the spot price of corn from January to June.

Buying corn futures is a bad idea because that would require the farmer to buy corn, which would only add to his expected stock of corn expected from the harvest. The same applies to buying a call option on corn. In the same way, selling a put option would be inappropriate because the buyer of the this put would have the right to sell corn to the farmer at the exercise price, which is not what we want. Therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

We calculate the minimum variance hedge ratio as 0.9*20/24 = 0.75; and multiply this by the ratio of the [units required to be hedged] to the [units per futures contract], ie 0.75*20000/5000 = 3. Therefore the right quantity of contracts to sell is 3 contracts. Since the corn farmer has an obligation to sell in November, he or she can sell the futures now and lock a price in. The price locked in will be equal to the futures price, plus the basis (ie the difference between the spot and the futures price) in November.

Therefore the correct answer is to sell 3 December corn futures contracts and close these out prior to delivery in November when the November spot price will be realized. If prices have fallen, the loss on the spot trade will be made up by the profit on the hedge in the form of the futures, and also the other way round.

A higher coupon brings forward the cash flows of a bond, thereby lowering duration. Therefore statement I is true. The lower the duration the lower the convexity. Therefore a higher coupon leads to lower duration and therefore lower convexity. Thus statement II is true.

Bonds do not have negative modified duration, therefore statement III is false.

If the bond is callable, it leads to negative convexity as a fall in interest rates is likely to induce the issuer to call the bond and re-issue at the new lower interest rates (much like refinancing mortgages when interest rates fall), therefore the upside from a fall in rates is limited. This creates 'negative convexity'. Thus statement IV is correct.

As a bond approaches maturity, its value will be driven less by the time value of money or its coupons, and more by its redemption value, ie the par. Therefore as maturity approaches, its value converges to its par value and this phenomenon is called pull to par.

The LIBOR square is a (rare) derivative contract which pays, as mentioned in the question, the square of the interest rate move between two dates. If LIBOR at inception is y, and upon settlement is x, the contract pays (x - y)^2 for x > y; and -(x - y)^2 for x < y.

For any question that involves calculating delta or gamma, and the payoff is described in terms of variables as is the case here, remember that delta is always the first derivative and gamma is the second derivative. For this question, let us calculate the second derivative and see what the gamma is:

If x > y, then the payoff is (x - y)^2

The first derivative wrt x is 2(x - y)

The second derivative wrt x is 2.

ie, the gamma is 2

If x < y, then the payoff is -(x - y)^2

The first derivative wrt x is -2(x - y)

The second derivative wrt x is -2.

ie, the gamma is -2

If x = y, then the payoff is 0. Both the first and the second derivatives are zero. ie the gamma is 0.

Based on the above, we see that the contract can have a gamma of either 0, +2 or -2. 1 is not a possible value for gamma, and therefore Choice 'b' is the correct answer.

Macaulay duration is the weighted average of the present value of payments received on a bond, weighted by the year in which the payments are received. If the yield curve changes shape, it will change the present values of the coupons and therefore also the Macaulay duration. Statement I is therefore not correct. However, if the bond were to be a zero-coupon bond, changes in the curve will not affect its duration so long as the interest rate at maturity stays constant.

Modified duration = Macaulay Duration/(1 + rate/compounding frequency). Therefore modified duration will change if the compounding frequency changes, assuming the nominal rate of interest for the coupons are identical. Therefore statement II is correct.When rates are expressed as continuously compounded rates, modified duration and Macaulay duration will be identical. This intuitively follows from the formula for modified duration: Modified duration = Macaulay Duration/(1 + rate/compounding frequency). For continuously compounded rates, the compounding frequency approaches infinity, so the denominator approaches 1, leaving modified duration equal to the Macaulay duration. Therefore statement III is correct.

Convexity is higher for a bond that has its payments spread out compared to a bond that has its payments concentrated at a single point in time. For a bond with a higher coupon, the higher coupons have the effect of spreading the present value of the bond over a longer period, when compared to a bond with lower coupons where the payment is comparatively more concentrated at the maturity. Therefore Convexity is higher for a bond with a lower coupon when compared to a similar bond with a higher coupon. Statement IV is not correct.

The duration matched hedge is the best hedge for the bond manager. Matched durations in the bond portfolio and the hedge positions will ensure that any decline in the bond portfolio due to interest rate changes is matched by a rise in the futures position. Hedging dollar-to-dollar will not work unless the bonds and the futures contracts are identical in duration terms. For example, if the duration of the portfolio is 7 years, and each futures contract has a duration of 3.5 years, then selling $1m in value will only cover half the risk. Choice 'b' is the right answer.

For fixed income portfolios where standard cash flow discounting models are not available, duration calculations are based upon estimated price moves in response to a change in rates. Recall that we define duration as the percentage change in price expected for a 1% change in yield. In this case, we have three price points known to us:

Line | Price | Yield

a | $102 | r - 45bps

b | $100 | r

c | $ 97 | r + 45bps

(where r is the current yield)

The change in price from line a to line c is $102m - $97m = $5m. We use the middle point, ie $100m, to calculate the percentage change. Therefore the percentage change in price is $5m/$100m = 5%.

The change in yield between lines a and c is 90 basis points [=(r+45bps) - (r-45bps)]. In other words, the change in price is 5% for a 90 bps change in yield. So the duration can be calculated as 5/(90/100) = 5.56. The other answers are incorrect.

Remember the four basic axioms underlying the principal of maximum expected utility:

- Transitivity, ie if A is preferred over B, and B is preferred over C, then A must be preferred over C;

- Continuity, ie if A is preferred over B, and B is preferred over C, then B is on a continuum between A and C such that we can be indifferent between receiving B, or a lottery offering either A or C with probabilities p & 1-p respectively.

- Independence, ie choices are not affected by the way they are presented

- Stochastic dominance, ie a gamble that offers a greater probability of a preferred out come will be preferred.

In this case, the first axiom is being violated. Therefore Choice 'c' is the correct answer.

The no-arbitrage futures price for the stock is the current spot price plus the carrying cost for one year, which in this case is $100 * 10% =$10. Therefore the no-arbitrage futures price for the stock is $110. ($100*(1+10%), or $100 + $10.)

This question requires us to use the CAPM.

Recall that according to CAPM the expected return on an asset = The risk free rate + β x Market risk premium.

Using the beta and expected return of security A, we can determine the market risk premium to be (8% - 3%)/1.2 = 4.1667%. The excess return is the return over the risk free rate, and for security B, this is nothing but the beta multiplied by the market risk premium. Therefore the correct answer is 4.1667% x 1.5 = 6.25%. Note that this is the 'excess return', and not the total return. (Total return will include the risk free rate).

When using a futures contract to hedge a position, the correct way to determine the number of futures contracts to use is to use the following formula. This adjusts for the 'tailing the hedge' adjustment required as a result of the daily settlement feature of futures contracts.

Minimum Variance Hedge Ratio x Dollar Value of Position / Dollar Value of Single Futures Contract

When using forward contracts to hedge a position, no adjustment to tail the hedge is required (as settlement happens only at the end), and the number of units of the exposure when compared to the number of units per contract should be used. The formula in the case of forward contracts is:

Minimum Variance Hedge Ratio x Units in Position Held / Units in Single Futures Contract

In practice however, the difference between the above two formulae is de-minimis; and for the exam you should be okay to use either of the above two to determine the number of contracts - unless the question is directed to testing your knowledge of the 'tailing the hedge' adjustment.

Professional management that acts as the agent of the shareholders is not likely to protect debt holders from a transfer of wealth to the shareholders. All other mechanisms listed are intended to offset the agency cost for debt holders, ie the expected cost that shareholders and management will transfer wealth away to the detriment of the debt holders.

The buyer of an FRA is considered 'long', and a 3 x 6 FRA allows him or her to borrow funds at the agreed rate starting at the end of month 3 till the end of month 6. (ie, 3 x 6 indicates that the borrowing period commences at 3 months, and ends at 6 months, for a period of 6 - 3 = 3 months). The seller has exactly the opposite position, ie he or she is committed to lend funds at the agreed rate for 3 months starting at the end of 3 months from today (for a 3 x 6 FRA). [Note that the obligation to borrow or lend in and FRA does not mean that either parties will actually do that, instead they will just exchange cash flows to get to get to an identical economic situation.]

Since the seller, or the short, is committed to lending in the future starting 3 months from now, it is akin to borrowing now for 3 months, and investing the borrowed amount for 6 months. During the first 3 months, the amounts borrowed and lent 'cancel' out (conceptually) and after the 3 months the short returns the amount borrowed, and is left with just the net amount lent, ie the FRA.

Thus the correct answer is Choice 'd'. Choice 'b' describes the position of the FRA buyer. Choice 'a' and Choice 'c' are nonsensical.

Energy derivative markets are still not very liquid, and experience high price volatility. This high volatility is responsible for most of the risk in these markets. Choice 'd' is the correct answer.

An easy way to analyze the impact on convexity is to think about the impact on duration. If the change causes duration to increase, it would cause the convexity to increase too, and if it causes the duration to decrease, it would reduce convexity as well.An increase in yields reduces duration, and therefore reduces convexity.

An increase in maturity increases duration, and therefore increases convexity.

An increase in the coupon rate reduces duration, and therefore reduces convexity.

An increase in duration increases convexity.

Therefore statements II and IV represent situations where convexity increases.

A utility function is graphed with utility on the y-axis and the variable driving utility (generally wealth) along the x-axis.

A concave utility function, ie a function with a downward sloping curve, indicates risk aversion. A convex utility function indicates a risk seeking attitude and a straight line (ie no curvature) indicates a risk neutral attitude.