Assignment Solutions (7th edition) CHAPTER 2 FINANCIAL MARKETS AND INSTRUMENTS

Assignment Solutions (7th edition) CHAPTER 2 FINANCIAL MARKETS AND INSTRUMENTS 10. a. The index at t = 0 is (60 + 80 + 20)/3 = 53.33. At t = 1, it is (70+70+25)/3 = 55, for a rate of return of 3.13%. b. Stock Q P0 Market Value P1 Market Value A 200 60 12,000 70 14,000 B 500 80 40,000 70 35,000 C 600 20 12,000 25 15,000 The index at t=0 is (12,000+40,000+12,000)/100=640. At t=1, it is also 640, so the rate of return is zero. c. Before splits After splits Stock P0 Q P0 Q P1 A 60 200 30 400 35 B 80 500 20 2,000 17.5 C 20 600 20 600 25

After the splits the index has to remain unchanged so the divisor (which initially was 3) has to be reset. The sum of the three prices after the split is 70, while the index value before splits was 53.33. therefore 70/d=53.33 and the new divisor must be 1.3125. The index at t=1 is (35+17.5+25)/1.3125 = 59.05 for a return of 10.71%. d. The total market value of A and B as well as that of the market remain unchanged after the two splits so that the return on the value-weighted index is not affected by the splits (and it is zero). 11. a. The index at t = 0 is (90 + 50 + 100)/3 = 80. At t = 1, it is 250/3 = 83.333, for a rate of return of 4.17%. b. In the absence of a split, stock C would sell for 110, and the index would be 250/3 = 83.333. After the split, stock C sells at 55. Therefore, we need to set the divisor d such that 83.333 = (95 + 45 + 55)/d, meaning that d = 2.34. c. The return is zero. The index remains unchanged, as it should, since the return on each stock separately equals zero. 12. a. Total market value at t = 0 is (9,000 + 10,000 + 20,000) = 39,000. Market value at t = 1 is (9,500 + 9,000 + 22,000) = 40,500. Rate of return = 40,500/39,000 1 = 3.85%. b. The return on each stock is as follows: ra= 95/90 1 =.0556 rb= 45/50 1 =.10 rc=110/100 1 =.10 The equally-weighted average is.0185 = 1.85%

c. The geometric average return is [(1.0556)(.90)(1.10)]1/3 1 =.0148 = 1.48%. CHAPTER 3 TRADING ON SECURITIES MARKETS 7. The broker is to attempt to sell Barrik as soon as a sale takes place at a price of $38 or less. Here, the broker will attempt to execute if a sale takes place at the bid price, but may not be able to sell at $38, since the bid price is now $37.80. 8. The broker is instructed to attempt to sell your Kinross stock as soon as the Kinross stock trades at a bid price of $38 or less. Here, the broker will attempt to execute, but may not be able to sell at $38, since the bid price is now $37.85. The price at which you sell may be more or less than $38 because the stop-loss becomes a market order to sell at current market prices. If the bid has sufficient quantity you are likely to get $37.85, however. 9. a. The buy order will be filled at the best limit-sell order, $50.25. b. At the next-best price, $51.50. c. You should increase your position. There is considerable buy pressure at prices just below $50, meaning that downside risk is limited. In contrast, sell pressure is sparse, meaning that a moderate buy order could result in a substantial price increase. 12. Cost of purchase is $80 x 250 = $20,000. You borrow $5,000 from your

broker, and invest $15,000 of your own funds. Your margin account starts out with a net worth of $15,000. a. (i) Net worth rises by $2,000 from $15,000 to $88 x 250 $5,000 = $17,000. Percentage gain = $2,000/$15,000 =.1333 = 13.33% (ii) With unchanged price, net worth remains unchanged. Percentage gain = zero (iii) Net worth falls to $72 x 250 $5,000 = $13,000. Percentage gain = =.1333 = 13.33% The relationship between the percentage change in the price of the stock and the investor s percentage gain is given by: % gain = % change in price x = % change in price x 1.333 For example, when the stock price rises from 80 to 88, the percentage change in price is 10%, while the percentage gain for the investor is 1.333 times as large, 13.33%: % gain = 10% x = 13.33%

b. The value of the 250 shares is 250P. Equity is 250P 5000. You will receive a margin call when: 250P 5,000 =.3 250P or when P = $28.57 c. The value of the 250 shares is 250P. But now you have borrowed $10,000 instead of $5,000. Therefore, equity is only 250P $10,000. You will receive a margin call when 250 P 10,000 =.3 or when P = $57.14 250 P With less equity in the account, you are far more vulnerable to a margin call. d. The margin loan with accumulated interest after one year is $5,000 x 1.08 = $5,400. Therefore, equity in your account is 250P $5,400. Initial equity was $15,000. Therefore, your rate of return after one year is as follows: (i) (250 $88 $5,400) $15,000 =.1067, or 10.67%. $15,000 (ii) (250 $80 $5,400) $15,000 =.0267, or 2.67%. $15,000 (iii) (250 $72 $5,400) $15,000 =.160, or 16.0%. 15,000

The relationship between the percentage change in the price of Intel and investor s percentage return is given by: % gain = x 8% x For example, when the stock price rises from 80 to 884, the percentage change in price is 10%, while the percentage gain for the investor is 10% x 8% x = 10.67% e. The value of the 250 shares is 250P. Equity is 250P 5,400. You will receive a margin call when 250P 5,400 =.3 250P 13. or when P = $30.86 a. The gain or loss on the short position is ( 250 x P). Invested funds are $15,000. Therefore, rate of return = ( 250 x P)/15,000. The returns in each of the three scenarios are: (i) rate of return = ( 250 x 8)/15,000 =.1333 = 13.33% (ii) rate of return = ( 250 x 0)/15,000 = 0 (iii) rate of return = [ 250 x ( 8)]/15,000 = +.1333 = +13.33% b. Total assets in the margin account are $20,000 (from the sale of the stock) + $15,000 (the initial

margin) = $35,000; liabilities are 250P. A margin call will be issued when 35,000 250 P =.30, or when P = $107.69. 250 P c. (aa.) With a $2 dividend, the short position must also pay $2/share x 250 shares = $500 on the borrowed shares. Rate of return will be ( 250 x P 500)/15,000. (i) rate of return = ( 250 x 8 500)/15,000 =.167 = 16.7% (ii) rate of return = ( 250 x 0 500)/15,000 =.033 = 3.33% (iii) rate of return = [ 250 x ( 8) 500]/15,000 = +.100 = +10.0% (bb.) Total assets (net of the dividend repayment) are $35,000 500, and liabilities are 250P. A margin call will be issued when 35,000 500 250 P =.30, or when P = $106.15 250 P 14. a. $55.50 b. $55.25 c. The trade will not be executed since the bid price is less than the price on the limit sell order.

d. The trade will not be executed since the asked price is greater than the price on the limit buy order. 20. (d) The broker will attempt to sell after the first transaction at $55 or less.

CHAPTER 4 RETURN AND RISK: ANALYZING THE HISTORICAL RECORD 4. E(r) =.35 44% +.30 14% +.35 ( 16%) = 14%. Variance =.35 (44 14)2 +.30 (14 14)2 +.35 ( 16 14)2 = 630 Standard deviation = 25.10% The mean is unchanged, but the standard deviation has increased, as the probabilities of the high and low returns have increased. 16. 11.4 17. The probability that the economy will be neutral is 0.50, or 50%. Given a neutral economy, the stock will experience poor performance 30% of the time. The probability of both poor stock performance and a neutral economy is therefore: 0.30 x 0.50 = 0.15 = 15% 18. a. Probability Distribution of HPR on the Stock Market and Put STOCK State of the Economy Boom PUT Ending price Probability.25 Ending + $4 dividendhpr $144 44% Value 0 HPR 100%

Normal Growth.50 114 Recession.25 84 14% 16% 0 100% $30 150% Remember that the cost of the stock is $100 per share, and that of the put is $12. b. The cost of one share of stock plus a put is $112. The probability distribution of HPR on the stock market plus put is: State of the c. 19. Stock + Put + $4 dividend Economy Probability Ending Value HPR Boom.25 $144 Normal Growth.50 114 1.8 Recession.25 114 1.8 28.6% (144 112)/112 (114 112)/112 Buying the put option guarantees you a minimum HPR of 1.8% regardless of what happens to the stock's price. Thus, it offers insurance against a price decline. The probability distribution of the dollar return on CD plus call option is: Economy Call Boom Probability Combined Value Ending Value CD Ending Value.25$ 114 (107.55x1.06) $30 Normal Growth.50 114 0 $144 114 Recession.25 114 0 114

CHAPTER 5 RISK AVERSION AND CAPITAL ALLOCATION TO RISKY ASSETS 7. 3. [Utility for each portfolio = E(r).005 x 4 x σ2. We choose the portfolio with the highest utility value.) 8. 4. [When investors are risk neutral, A = 0, and the portfolio with the highest utility is the one with the highest expected return.] 9. b 13. Expected return =.3 8% +.7 18% = 15% per year. Standard deviation =.7 28% = 19.6% 14. Investment proportions: 30.0% in T-bills.7 27% =.7 33% =.7 40% = 15. 18.9% in stock A 23.1% in stock B 28.0% in stock C Your reward-to-variability ratio = =.3571 Client's reward-to-variability ratio = =.3571 16.

30 25 CA L (Slope =.3571) 20 E(r) 15 % Client P 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 σ ( % ) 17. a. E(rC) = rf + [E(rP) rf] y = 8 + l0y If the expected return of the portfolio is equal to 16%, then solving for y we get: 16 = 8 + l0y, and y = =.8 Therefore, to get an expected return of 16% the client must invest 80% of total funds in the risky portfolio and 20% in T-bills. b. Investment proportions of the client's funds: 20% in T-bills, c..8 27% = 21.6% in stock A.8 33% = 26.4% in stock B.8 40% = 32.0% in stock C σc =.8 σp =.8 28% = 22.4% per year

18. a. σc = y 28%. If your client wants a standard deviation of at most 18%, then y = 18/28 =.6429 = 64.29% in the risky portfolio. b. E(rC) = 8 + 10y = 8 +.6429 10 = 8 + 6.429 = 14.429% 19. a. y* = = = =.3644 So the client's optimal proportions are 36.44% in the risky portfolio and 63.56% in Tbills. b. E(rC) = 8 + 10y* = 8 +.3644 10 = 11.644% σc=.3644 28 = 10.20% 20. a. Slope of the CML = =.20 The diagram is on the following page. b. My fund allows an investor to achieve a higher mean for any given standard deviation than would a passive strategy, i.e., a higher expected return for any given level of risk.

CML and CAL 18 16 CA L: Slope =.3571 Expected Retrun 14 12 10 CML: Slope =.20 8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30 Standard Deviation 21. a. With 70% of his money in my fund's portfolio the client gets a mean return of 15% per year and a standard deviation of 19.6% per year. If he shifts that money to the passive portfolio (which has an expected return of 13% and standard deviation of 25%), his overall expected return and standard deviation become: E(rC) = rf +.7[E(rM) rf] In this case, rf = 8% and E(rM) = 13%. Therefore, E(rC) = 8 +.7 (13 8) = 11.5% The standard deviation of the complete portfolio using the passive portfolio would be: σc =.7 σm =.7 25% = 17.5% Therefore, the shift entails a decline in the mean from 14% to 11.5% and a decline in

the standard deviation from 19.6% to 17.5%. Since both mean return and standard deviation fall, it is not yet clear whether the move is beneficial or harmful. The disadvantage of the shift is that if my client is willing to accept a mean return on his total portfolio of 11.5%, he can achieve it with a lower standard deviation using my fund portfolio, rather than the passive portfolio. To achieve a target mean of 11.5%, we first write the mean of the complete portfolio as a function of the proportions invested in my fund portfolio, y: E(rC) = 8 + y(18 8) = 8 + 10y Because our target is: E(rC) = 11.5%, the proportion that must be invested in my fund is determined as follows: 11.5 = 8 + 10y, y = =.35 The standard deviation of the portfolio would be: σc = y 28% =.35 28% = 9.8%. Thus, by using my portfolio, the same 11.5% expected return can be achieved with a standard deviation of only 9.8% as opposed to the standard deviation of 17.5% using the passive portfolio. b. The fee would reduce the reward-to-variability ratio, i.e., the slope of the CAL. Clients will be indifferent between my fund and the passive portfolio if the slope of the afterfee CAL and the CML are equal. Let f denote the fee. Slope of CAL with fee = = Slope of CML (which requires no fee) = =.20. Setting these slopes equal we get: =.20 10 f = 28.20 = 5.6 f = 10 5.6 = 4.4% per year

22. a. The formula for the optimal proportion to invest in the passive portfolio is: y* = With E(rM) = 13%; rf = 8%; σm = 25%; A = 3.5, we get y* = =.2286 b. The answer here is the same as in 9b. The fee that you can charge a client is the same regardless of the asset allocation mix of your client's portfolio. You can charge a fee that will equalize the reward-to-variability ratio of your portfolio with that of your competition. CHAPTER 6 OPTIMAL RISKY PORTFOLIOS 4. The parameters of the opportunity set are: E(rS) = 20%, E(rB) = 12%, σs = 30%, σb = 15%, ρ =.10 From the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient we generate the covariance matrix [note that Cov(rS,rB) = ρσsσb]: Bonds Bonds Stocks 225 45 Stocks 45 900 The minimum-variance portfolio is found by applying the formula:

w (S) = Min = =.1739 w (B) =.8261 Min The minimum variance portfolio mean and standard deviation are: ) =.1739 20 +.8261 12 = 13.39% E(r Min σ Min = [Wσ+ Wσ+ 2WSWBCov(S,B)]1/2 = [.17392 900 +.82612 225 + 2.1739.8261 45]1/2 = 13.92% 5. 6. % in stocks % in bonds Exp. return Std. Dev 0.00% 100.00% 12.00 15.00 17.39% 82.61% 13.39 13.92 20.00% 80.00% 13.60 13.94 40.00% 60.00% 15.20 15.70 45.16% 54.84% 15.61 16.54 60.00% 40.00% 16.80 19.53 80.00% 20.00% 18.40 24.48 100.00% 0.00% 20.00 30.00 minimum variance tangency portfolio

The graph approximates the points: 13.9% 16.5 7. E(r) σ Min. Variance Portf. 13.4% Tangency Portfolio 15.6 The proportion of stocks in the optimal risky portfolio is given by: WS = [E(rS ) rf ]σb2 [E(rB ) rf ]Cov(B,S) [E(rS ) rf ]σb2 + [E(rB ) rf ]σs2 [E(rS ) rf + E(rB ) rf ]Cov(B,S) = =.4516 WB =.5484 The mean and standard deviation of the optimal risky portfolio are: E(rp) =.4516 20 +.5484 12 = 15.61% σp = [.45162 900 +.54842 225 + 2.4516.5484 45]1/2 = 16.54% 8. The reward-to-variability ratio of the optimal CAL is: 15.61 8 = =.4601 16.54 9. a. If you require your portfolio to yield a mean return of 14% you can find the corresponding standard deviation from the optimal CAL. The formula for this CAL is: E(rC) = rf + σc = 8 +.4601σC

Setting E(rC) equal to 14% we find that the standard deviation of the optimal portfolio is 13.04%. b. To find the proportion invested in T-bills we remember that the mean of the complete portfolio, 14%, is an average of the T-bill rate and the optimal combination of stocks and bonds, P. Let y be the proportion in this portfolio. The mean of any portfolio along the optimal CAL is: E(rC) = (l y) rf + y E(rp) = rf + y [E(rp) rf] = 8 + y (15.61 8) Setting E(rC) = 14% we find: y =.7884, and 1 y =.2116, the proportion in T-bills. To find the proportions invested in each of the funds we multiply.7884 by the proportions of the stocks and bonds in the optimal risky portfolio: Proportion of stocks in complete portfolio =.7884.4516 =.3560 Proportion of bonds in complete portfolio =.7884.5484 =.4324 10. Using only the stock and bond funds to achieve a portfolio mean of 14% we must find the appropriate proportion in the stock fund, ws, and wb = 1 ws in the bond fund. The portfolio mean will be: 14 = 20wS + 12(1 ws ) = 12 + 8wS ws =.25 So the proportions will be 25% in stocks and 75% in bonds. The standard deviation of this portfolio will be: σp = (.252 900 +.752 225 + 2.25.75 45)1/2 = 14.13%. This is considerably larger than the standard deviation of 13.04% achieved using Tbills and the optimal portfolio.

17. a. Restricting the portfolio to 20 stocks rather than 40-50 will increase the risk of the portfolio, but possibly not by much. If, for instance, the 50 stocks in a universe had the same standard deviation, σ, and the correlations between each pair were identical with correlation coefficient ρ (so that the covariance between each pair would be ρσ2), the variance of an equally weighted portfolio would be (see Appendix A, equation 8A.4), σ= σ2 + ρσ2 The effect of the reduction in n on the second term would be relatively small (since 49/50 is close to 19/20 and ρσ2 is smaller than σ2, but the denominator of the first term would be 20 instead of 50. For example, if σ = 45% and ρ =.2, then the standard deviation with 50 stocks would be 20.91%, and would rise to 22.05% when only 20 stocks are held. Such an increase might be acceptable if the expected return is sufficiently increased. b. Hennessy could contain the increase in risk by making sure that he maintains reasonable diversification among the 20 stocks that remain in his portfolio. This entails maintaining a low correlation among the remaining stocks. For example, in part (a), with ρ =.2, the increase in portfolio risk was minimal. As a practical matter, this means that Hennessy would need to spread his portfolio among many industries; concentrating on just a few would result in higher correlation among the included stocks. 18. Risk reduction benefits from diversification are not a linear function of the number of issues in the portfolio. Rather, the incremental benefits from additional diversification are most important when you are least diversified. Restricting Hennesey to 10 instead of 20 issues would increase the risk of his portfolio by a greater amount than would reducing the size of the portfolio from 30 to 20 stocks. In our example, restricting the number of stocks to 10 will increase the standard deviation to 23.81%. The increase in standard deviation of 1.76% from giving up 10 of 20 stocks is greater than the increase of 1.14% from giving up 30 stocks when starting with 50.

19. The point is well taken because the committee should be concerned with the volatility of the entire portfolio. Since Hennessey's portfolio is only one of six well-diversified portfolios and smaller than the average, the concentration in fewer issues could have a minimal effect on the diversification of the total fund. Hence, unleashing Hennessey to do stock picking may be advantageous. CHAPTER 7 THE CAPITAL ASSET PRICING MODEL 6. Not possible. Portfolio A has a higher beta than B, but its expected return is lower. Thus, these two portfolios cannot exist in equilibrium. 7. Possible. If the CAPM is valid, the expected rate of return compensates only for systematic (market) risk represented by beta rather than for the standard deviation which includes nonsystematic risk. Thus, A's lower rate of return can be paired with a higher standard deviation, as long as A's beta is lower than B's. 8. Not possible. The SML for this situation is: E(r) = 10 + β(18 10) Portfolios with beta of 1.5 have an expected return of E(r) = 10 + 1.5 (18 10) = 22%. A's expected return is 16%; that is, A plots below the SML (αa = 6%), and hence, is an overpriced portfolio. This is inconsistent with the CAPM. 9. Not possible. The SML is the same as in problem 10. Here, portfolio A's required return is: 10 +.9 8 = 17.2%, which is still higher than 16%. A is overpriced with a negative alpha: αa = 1.2%. 10. Possible. Portfolio A has a lower excess return than the market portfolio, but there is no data on its beta, which can be consistent with the SML.

13. Since the stock's beta is equal to 1.2, its expected rate of return is 6 + 1.2(16 6) = 18% E(r) =.18 = P = $53 1 14. Assume that the $1,000 is a perpetuity. If beta is.5, the cash flow should be discounted at the rate 6 +.5 (16 6) = 11% PV = 1000/.11 = $9,090.91 If, however, beta is equal to 1, the investment should yield 16%, and the price paid for the firm should be: PV = 1000/.16 = $6,250 The difference, $2,840.91, is the amount you will overpay if you erroneously assumed that beta is.5 rather than 1. If the cash flow lasts only one year: PV(beta=0) = 1000/1.11 = 900.90 PV(beta=1) = 1000/1.16 = 862.07

with a difference of $38.83. For n-year cash flow the difference is 1000PA(11%,n)-1000PA(16%,n). 15. Using the SML: 4 = 6 + β(16 6) β = 2/10 =.2 18. a. Disagree. Both portfolios may be on the capital market line, reflecting different attitudes towards risk without any one being superior to the other b. Unsystematic risk is firm-specific risk, not related to market factors. Since it can be diversified away it should not affect the expected return. 19. According to the CAPM the expected return on the two stocks should be as follows: Furhman: 5 + 1.5x(11.5-5) = 14.75% Garten : 5 +.8x(11.5-5) = 10.2% Furhman CAPM return of 14.75% is higher than Wilson s forecast of 13.25%, implying that the stock is overvalued. Garten s CAPM return of 10.2% is lower than Wilson s forecast of 11.25% implying that the stock is undervalued. CHAPTER 8 INDEX MODELS AND THE ARBITRAGE PRICING THEORY

3. a. The two figures depict the stocks' security characteristic lines (SCL). Stock A has a higher firm-specific risk because the deviations of the observations from the SCL are larger for A than for B. Deviations are measured by the vertical distance of each observation from the SCL. b. Beta is the slope of the SCL, which is the measure of systematic risk. Stock B's SCL is steeper, hence stock B's systematic risk is greater. c. The R2 (or squared correlation coefficient) of the SCL is the ratio of the explained variance of the stock's return to total variance, and the total variance is the sum of the explained variance plus the unexplained variance (the stock's residual variance). R2 = Since stock B's explained variance is higher (its explained variance is βσ, which is greater since its beta is higher), and its residual variance σ2(eb) is smaller, its R2 is higher than stock A's. d. Alpha is the intercept of the SCL with the expected return axis. Stock A has a small positive alpha whereas stock B has a negative alpha; hence stock A's alpha is larger. e. The correlation coefficient is simply the square root of R2, so stock B s correlation with the market is higher. 4. a. Firm-specific risk is measured by the residual standard deviation. Thus, stock A has more firm-specific risk: 10.3% > 9.1%. b. Market risk is measured by beta, the slope coefficient of the regression. A has a larger beta coefficient: 1.2 >.8.

c. R2 measures the fraction of total variance of return explained by the market return. A's R2 is larger than B's:.576 >.436. d. The average rate of return in excess of that predicted by the CAPM is measured by alpha, the intercept of the SCL. αa = 1% is larger than αb = 2%. e. Rewriting the SCL equation in terms of total return (r) rather than excess return (R): ra rf = α + β(rm rf) ra = α + rf(1 β) + βrm The intercept is now equal to: α + rf(1 β) = 1 + rf (l 1.2) Since rf = 6%, the intercept would be: 1 1.2 =.2%. 5. The standard deviation of each stock can be derived from the following equation for R2: R= = Therefore, σ= = = 980 σa = 31.30% For stock B σ= = 4800 σb = 69.28%

6. The systematic risk for A is βσ=.702 202 = 196 and the firm-specific risk of A (the residual variance) is the difference between A's total risk and its systematic risk, 980 196 = 784 B's systematic risk is: βσ= 1.22 202 = 576 and B's firm-specific risk (residual variance) is: 4800 576 = 4224 7. The covariance between the returns of A and B is (since the residuals are assumed to be uncorrelated): Cov(rA,rB) = βa βb σ=.70 1.2 400 = 336 The correlation coefficient between the returns of A and B is: ρab = = =.155 8. Note that the correlation coefficient is the square root of R2: ρ = Cov(rA,rM) = ρσaσm =.201/2 31.30 20 = 280 Cov(rB,rM) = ρσbσm =.121/2 69.28 20 = 480

9. The non-zero alphas from the regressions are inconsistent with the CAPM. The question is whether the alpha estimates reflect sampling errors or real mispricing. To test the hypothesis of whether the intercepts (3% for A, and 2% for B) are significantly different from zero, we would need to compute t-values for each intercept. 10. For portfolio P we can compute: σp = [.62 980 +.42 4800 + 2.4.6 336]1/2 = [1282.08]1/2 = 35.81% βp =.6.70 +.4 1.2 =.90 σ2(ep) = σ βσ= 1282.08.902 400 = 958.08 Cov(rP, rm) = βpσ=.90 400 = 360 This same result can also be attained using the covariances of the individual stocks with the market: Cov(rP, rm) = Cov(.6rA+.4rB, rm) =.6 Cov(rA, rm) +.4 Cov(rB, rm) =.6 280 +.4 480 = 360 11. Note that the variance of T-bills and their covariance with any asset are zero. Therefore, for portfolio Q σq = wσ+ wσ+ 2 wp wm Cov(rP, rm) σq = [.52 1282.08 +.32 400 + 2.5.3 360]1/2

= [464.52]1/2 = 21.55% βq =.5.90 +.3 1 + 0 =.75 σ2(eq) = σ βσ= 464.52.752 400 = 239.52 Cov(rQ,rM) = βqσ=.75 400 = 300 30. a. E(r) = 6 + 1.2 6 +.5 8 +.3 3 = 18.1% b. Surprises in the macroeconomic factors will result in surprises in the return of the stock: Unexpected return from macro factors = 1.2 (4 5) +.5(6 3) +.3 (0 2) =.3% 31. The APT required (i.e., equilibrium) rate of return on the stock based on rf and the factor betas is: required E(r) = 6 + 1 6 +.5 2 +.75 4 = 16% According to the equation for the return on the stock, the actually expected return on the stock is 15% (because the expected surprises on all factors by definition are zero). Because the actually expected return based on risk is less than the equilibrium return, we conclude that the stock is overpriced. 32. b. CHAPTER 9 MARKET EFFICIENCY

1. Zero. If not, one could use returns from one period to predict returns in later periods and make abnormal profits. 2. c. This is a predictable pattern in returns which should not occur if the weak-form EMH is valid. 3. c. This is a classic filter rule which should not work in an efficient market. 4. b. This is the definition of an efficient market. 5. c. The P/E ratio is public information and should not be predictive of abnormal security returns. 6. b. Semi-strong efficiency implies that market prices reflect all publicly available information concerning past trading history as well as fundamental aspects of the firm. 7. a. The full price adjustment should occur just as the news about the dividend becomes publicly available. 8. d. If low P/E stocks consistently provide positive abnormal returns, this would represent an unexploited profit opportunity that would provide evidence that investors are not using all available information to make profitable investments.

9. c. In an efficient market, no securities are consistently overpriced or underpriced. While some securities will turn out after any investment period to have provided positive alphas (i.e., risk-adjusted abnormal returns) and some negative alphas, these past returns are not predictive of future returns. 10. c. A random walk implies that stock price changes are unpredictable, using past price changes or any other data. 11. d. A gradual adjustment to fundamental values would allow for strategies based on past price movements to generate abnormal profits. CHAPTER 15 SECURITY ANALYSIS 9. Using a two-stage dividend discount model, the current value of a share of Sundanci is calculated as follows. D3 D1 D2 (k g ) V0 = + + 1 2 (1 + k ) (1 + k ) (1 + k ) 2 $0.5623 $0.3770 $0.4976 (0.14 0.13) = + + = $43.98 1.141 1.14 2 1.14 2 where: E0 = $0.952 D0 = $0.286 E1 = E0 (1.32)1 = $0.952 1.32 = $1.2566 D1 = E1 0.30 = $1.2566 0.30 = $0.3770

E2 = E0 (1.32)2 = $0.952 (1.32)2 = $1.6588 D2 = E2 0.30 = $1.6588 0.30 = $0.4976 E3 = E0 (1.32)2 1.13 = $0.952 (1.32)3 1.13 = $1.8744 D3 = E3 0.30 = $1.8743 0.30 = $0.5623 10. a. Free cash flow to equity (FCFE) is defined as the cash flow remaining after meeting all financial obligations (including debt payment) and after covering capital expenditure and working capital needs. The FCFE is a measure of how much the firm can afford to pay out as dividends, but in a given year may be more or less than the amount actually paid out. Sundanci's FCFE for the year 2000 is computed as follows: FCFE = Earnings after tax + Depreciation expense Capital expenditures Increase in NWC = $80 million + $23 million $38 million $41 million = $24 million FCFE per share = FCFE/number of shares outstanding = $24 million/84 million shares = $0.286 At the given dividend payout ratio, Sundanci's FCFE per share equals dividends per share. b. The FCFE model requires forecasts of FCFE for the high growth years (2001 and 2002) plus a forecast for the first year of stable growth (2003) in order to allow for an estimate of the terminal value in 2002 based on perpetual growth. Because all of the components of FCFE are expected to grow at the same rate, the values can be obtained by projecting the FCFE at the common rate. (Alternatively, the components of FCFE can be projected and aggregated for each year.) The following table shows the process for estimating Sundanci's current value on a per share basis. Free Cash Flow to Equity Base Assumptions Shares outstanding: 84 million Required return on equity (r): 14% Actual Projected Projected Projected 2000 2001 2002 2003 27% 27% 13% $1.5355 $1.7351 Growth rate (g) Earnings after tax Total Per share $80 $0.952 $1.2090

Plus: Depreciation expense $23 $0.274 $0.3480 $0.4419 $0.4994 Less: Capital expenditures $38 $0.452 $0.5740 $0.7290 $0.8238 Less: Increase in net working capital $41 $0.488 $0.6198 $0.7871 $0.8894 Equals: FCFE $24 $0.286 $0.3632 $0.4613 $0.5213 Terminal value $52.1300* Total cash flows to equity $0.3632 $52.4913** Discounted value $0.3186*** $40.3904*** Current value per share $40.7090**** *Projected 2002 Terminal value = (Projected 2003 FCFE)/(r g) **Projected 2002 Total cash flows to equity = Projected 2002 FCFE + Projected 2002 Terminal value ***Discounted values obtained using r = 14% ****Current value per share = Sum of Discounted Projected 2001 and 2002 Total cash flows to equity c. i. The DDM uses a strict definition of cash flows to equity, i.e. the expected dividends on the common stock. In fact, taken to its extreme, the DDM cannot be used to estimate the value of a stock that pays no dividends. The FCFE model expands the definition of cash flows to include the balance of residual cash flows after all financial obligations and investment needs have been met. Thus the FCFE model explicitly recognizes the firm s investment and financing policies as well as its dividend policy. In instances of a change of corporate control, and therefore the possibility of changing dividend policy, the FCFE model provides a better estimate of value. The DDM is biased toward finding low P/E ratio stocks with high dividend yields to be undervalued and conversely, high P/E ratio stocks with low dividend yields to be overvalued. It is considered a conservative model in that it tends to identify fewer undervalued firms as market prices rise relative to fundamentals. The DDM does not allow for the potential tax disadvantage of high dividends relative to the capital gains achievable from retention of earnings. ii. Both two-stage valuation models allow for two distinct phases of growth, an initial finite period where the growth rate is abnormal, followed by a stable growth period that is expected to last indefinitely. These two-stage models share the same limitations with

respect to the growth assumptions. First, there is the difficulty of defining the duration of the extraordinary growth period. For example, a longer period of high growth will lead to a higher valuation, and there is the temptation to assume an unrealistically long period of extraordinary growth. Second, the assumption of a sudden shift form high growth to lower, stable growth is unrealistic. The transformation is more likely to occur gradually, over a period of time. Given that the assumed total horizon does not shift (i.e., is infinite), the timing of the shift form high to stable growth is a critical determinant of the valuation estimate. Third, because the value is quite sensitive to the steady-state growth assumption, over- or under-estimating this rate can lead to large errors in value. The two models share other limitations as well, notably difficulties in accurately forecasting required rates of return, in dealing with the distortions that result from substantial and/or volatile debt ratios, and in accurately valuing assets that do not generate any cash flows. 11. a. The formula for calculating a price earnings ratio (P/E) for a stable growth firm is the dividend payout ratio divided by the difference between the required rate of return and the growth rate of dividends. If the P/E is calculated based on trailing earnings (year 0), the payout ratio is increased by the growth rate. If the P/E is calculated based on next year s earnings (year 1), the numerator is the payout ratio. P/E on trailing earnings: P/E = [payout ratio (1 + g)]/(r g) = [0.30 1.13]/(0.14 0.13) = 33.9 P/E on next year's earnings: P/E = payout ratio/(r g) = 0.30/(0.14 0.13) = 30.0 b. The P/E ratio is a decreasing function of riskiness; as risk increases the P/E ratio decreases. Increases in the riskiness of Sundanci stock would be expected to lower the P/E ratio. The P/E ratio is an increasing function of the growth rate of the firm; the higher the expected growth the higher the P/E ratio. Sundanci would command a higher P/E if analysts increase the expected growth rate. The P/E ratio is a decreasing function of the market risk premium. An increased market risk premium would increase the required rate of return, lowering the price of a stock relative to its earnings. A higher market risk premium would be expected to lower Sundanci's P/E ratio. 12. a. The sustainable growth rate is equal to: plowback ratio return on equity = b ROE where b = [Net Income (Dividend per share shares outstanding)]/net Income ROE = Net Income/Beginning of year equity In 2000:

b = [208 (0.80 100)]/208 = 0.6154 ROE = 208/1380 = 0.1507 Sustainable growth rate = 0.6154 0.1507 = 9.3% In 2003: b = [275 (0.80 100)]/275 = 0.7091 ROE = 275/1836 = 0.1498 Sustainable growth rate = 0.7091 0.1498 = 10.6% b. i. The increased retention ratio increased the sustainable growth rate. Retention ratio = [Net Income (Dividend per share shares outstanding)]/net Income Retention ratio increased from 0.6154 in 2000 to 0.7091 in 2003. This increase in the retention ratio directly increased the sustainable growth rate because the retention ratio is one of the two factors determining the sustainable growth rate. ii. The decrease in leverage reduced the sustainable growth rate. Financial leverage = (Total Assets/Beginning of year equity) Financial leverage decreased from 2.34 (= 3230/1380) at the beginning of 2000 to 2.10 at the beginning of 2003 (= 3856/1836) This decrease in leverage directly decreased ROE (and thus the sustainable growth rate) because financial leverage is one of the factors determining ROE (and ROE is one of the two factors determining the sustainable growth rate). 13. a. The formula for the Gordon model is: V0 = [D0 (1 + g)]/(r g) where: D0 = dividend paid at time of valuation g = annual growth rate of dividends r = required rate of return for equity In the above formula, P0, the market price of the common stock, substitutes for V0 and g becomes the dividend growth rate implied by the market: P0 = [D0 (1 + g)]/(r g)

Substituting, we have: 58.49 = [0.80 (1 + g)]/(0.08 g) g = 6.54% b. Use of the Gordon growth model would be inappropriate to value Dynamic s common stock, for the following reasons: i. The Gordon growth model assumes a set of relationships about the growth rate for dividends, earnings, and stock values. Specifically, the model assumes that dividends, earnings, and stock values will grow at the same constant rate. In valuing Dynamic s common stock, the Gordon growth model is inappropriate because management s dividend policy has held dividends constant in dollar amount although earnings have grown, thus reducing the payout ratio. This policy is inconsistent with the Gordon model assumption that the payout ratio is constant. ii. It could also be argued that use of the Gordon model, given Dynamic s current dividend policy, violates one of the general conditions for suitability of the model, namely that the company s dividend policy bears an understandable and consistent relationship with the company s profitability. CHAPTER 20 ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 15. a. Stock A (i) Stock B Alpha is the intercept of the regression 1% 2% Appraisal ratio = )αp/σ(ep).0971.1047 (iii) Sharpe measure* = (rp rf)/σp.4907.3373 (iv) Treynor measure** = (rp rf)/ β p 8.833 10.500 (ii)

* To compute the Sharpe measure, note that for each stock, rp rf can be computed from the right-hand side of the regression equation, using the assumed parameters rm = 14% and rf = 6%. The standard deviation of each stock's returns is given in the problem. ** The beta to use for the Treynor measure is the slope coefficient of the regression equation presented in the problem. b. (i) If this is the only risky asset, then Sharpe s measure is the one to use. A s is higher, so it is preferred. (ii) If the stock is mixed with the index fund, the contribution to the overall Sharpe measure is determined by the appraisal ratio; therefore, B is preferred. (iii) If it is one of many stocks, then Treynor s measure counts, and B is preferred. 17. a. Treynor = (17 8)/1.1 = 8.2 18. d. Sharpe = (24 8)/18 =.888 32. a. Bogey:(0.60 2.5%) + (0.30 1.2%) + (0.10 0.5%) = 1.91% Actual:(0.70 2.0%) + (0.20 1.0%) + (0.10 0.5%) = 1.65% Underperformance: 0.26% b. Security Selection: (1) (2) (3) = (1) (2)

Differential return Market within market (Manager index) Manager's portfolio weight performance Equity 0.5% 0.70 0.35% Bonds 0.2% 0.20 0.04% Cash 0.0% 0.10 0.00% Contribution of security selection: c. Contribution to 0.39% Asset Allocation: (1) Excess weight Market (2) Index (3) = (1) (2) Contribution to (Manager benchmark) Return Equity 0.10% 2.5% 0.25% Bonds 0.10% 1.2% 0.12% Cash 0.00% 0.5% 0.00% Contribution of asset allocation: performance 0.13% Summary: Security selection 0.39% Asset allocation 0.13% Excess performance 0.26% CHAPTER 21 PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

11 Alphas, α a. Expected excess return αi = ri [rf + βi(rm rf) ] E(ri) rf αa = 20 [8 + 1.3(16 8)] = 1.6% 20 8 = 12% αb = 18 [8 + 1.8(16 8)] = 4.4 18 8 = 10% αc = 17 [8 + 0.7(16 8)] = 3.4 17 8 = 9% αd = 12 [8 + 1.0(16 8)] = 4.0 12 8 = 4% Stocks A and C have positive alphas, whereas stocks B and D have negative alphas. The variances are σ= 3364 σ= 3600 σ= 5041 σ= 3025 b. To construct the optimal risky portfolio, we first need to determine the active portfolio. Using the Treynor-Black technique, we construct the active portfolio A.000476.6142 B.000873 1.1265 C.000944 1.2181 D.001322 1.7058 Total.000775 1.0000 Do not be disturbed by the fact that the positive alpha stocks get negative weights and vice versa. The entire position in the active portfolio will turn out to be negative, returning everything to good order. With these weights, the forecast for the active portfolio is: α =.6142 1.6 + 1.1265 ( 4.4) 1.2181 3.4 + 1.7058 ( 4.0) = 16.90% β =.6142 1.3 + 1.1265 1.8 1.2181.70 + 1.7058 1 = 2.08

The high beta (higher than any individual beta) results from the short position in relatively low beta stocks and long position in relatively high beta stocks. σ = (.6142)2 3364 + 1.12652 5041 + ( 1.2181)2 3600 + 1.70582 3025 = 21809.6 σe = 147.68% Here, again, the levered position in stock B (with the high σe), overcomes the diversification effect, and results in a high residual standard deviation. The optimal risky portfolio has a proportion w* in the active portfolio as follows: w0 = = =.05124 The negative position is justified for the reason given earlier. The adjustment for beta is w* = = =.0486 Because w* is negative, we end up with a positive position in stocks with positive alphas and vice versa. The position in the index portfolio is: 1 (.0486) = 1.0486 c. To calculate Sharpe's measure for the optimal risky portfolio we need the appraisal ratio for the active portfolio and Sharpe's measure for the market portfolio. The appraisal ratio of the active portfolio is: A = α / σe = 16.90/147.68 =.1144 and A2 =.0131 Hence, the square of Sharpe's measure, S, of the optimized risky portfolio is : 2 S2 = S+ A2 = ( ) +.0131 =.1341 and S =.3662

Compare this to the market's Sharpe measure, SM = 8/23 =.3478 The difference is.0184. Note that the only-moderate improvement in performance results from the fact that only a small position is taken in the active portfolio A because of its large residual variance. We calculate the "Modigliani-squared", or M2 measure, as follows: E(rP*) = rf + SP σm = 8% +.3662 23% = 16.423% M2 = E(rP*) E(rM) = 16.423% 16% = 0.423% d. To calculate the exact makeup of the complete portfolio, we need the mean excess return of the optimal risky portfolio and its variance. The risky portfolio beta is given by βp = wm + wa βa = 1.0486 + (.0486)2.08 =.95 E(RP) = αp + βpe(rm) =.0486( 16.90) +.95 8 = 8.42% σ= βσ+ σ= (.95 23)2 + (.0486)2 21809.6 = 528.94 σp = 23.00% Since A = 2.8, the optimal position in this portfolio is: y = =.5685 In contrast, with a passive strategy y = =.5401

which is a difference of.0284. The final positions of the complete portfolio are: Bills M: A: B: C: D: 1.5685 = 43.15%.5685 l.0486 = 59.61.5685 (.0486)(.6142) = 1.70.5685 (.0486)(1.1265) = 3.11.5685 (.0486)( 1.2181) = 3.36.5685 (.0486)(1.7058) = 4.71 100.00 Note that M may include positive proportions of stocks A through D. 12. a. If a manager is not allowed to sell short he will not include stocks with negative alphas in his portfolio, so that A and C are the only ones he will consider. α σ A: 1.6 3364.000476.3352 C: 3.4 3600.000944.6648.001420 1.0000 The forecast for the active portfolio is: α =.3352 1.6 +.6648 3.4 = 2.80% β =.3352 1.3 +.6648 0.7 = 0.90

σ=.33522 3364 +.66482 3600 = 1969.03 σe = 44.37% The weight in the active portfolio is: w0 = = =.0940 and adjusting for beta w* = = =.0931 The appraisal ratio of the active portfolio is A = α /σe = 2.80 / 44.37 =.0631 and hence, the square of Sharpe's measure is: S2 = (8/23)2 +.06312 =.1250 and S =.3535, compared to the market's Sharpe measure SM =.3478. When short sales were allowed (problem 4), the manager's Sharpe measure was higher,.3662. The reduction in the Sharpe measure is the cost of the short sale restriction. We calculate the "Modigliani-squared", or M2 measure, as follows: E(rP*) = rf + SP σm = 8% +.3535 23% = 16.1305% M2 = E(rP*) E(rM) = 16.1305% 16% = 0.1305% versus.423% when short sales were allowed. The characteristics of the optimal risky portfolio are:

βp = wm + wa βa = 1.0931 +.0931.9 =.99 E(RP) = αp + βpe(rm) =.0931 2.8 +.99 8 = 8.18% σ= βσ+ σ= (.99 23)2 +.09312 1969.03 = 535.54 σp = 23.14% With A = 2.8, the optimal position in this portfolio is: y = =.5455 The final positions in each asset are: Bills 1.5455 = 45.45% M:.5455 (1.0931) = 49.47% A:.5455.0931.3352 = 1.70% C:.5455.0931.6648 = 3.38% 100.00% b. The mean and variance of the optimized complete portfolios in the unconstrained and short-sales constrained cases, and the passive strategy are: E(RC) Unconstrained Constrained 159.36.5685 8.42 = 4.79.5455 8.18 = 4.46 σ.56852 528.93 = 170.95.54552 535.54 =

Passive.5401 8.00 = 4.32.54012 529.00 = 154.31 The utility level, E(rC).005Aσis: Unconstrained Constrained Passive 8 + 4.79.005 2.8 170.95 = 10.40 8 + 4.46.005 2.8 159.36 = 10.23 8 + 4.32.005 2.8 154.31 = 10.16 CHAPTER 22 MANAGED FUNDS 4. Stock Value A 7,000,000 B 12,000,000 C 8,000,000 D 15,000,000 Total 42,000,000 Net asset value = = $10.49 5. Value of stocks sold and replaced = $15,000,000

Turnover rate = =.357 = 35.7% 6. a. NAV = = $39.40 b. Premium or discount = = =.086 The fund sells at an 8.6% discount from NAV 7. Rate of return = = $12.10 $12.50 + $1.50 =.088 = 8.8% $12.50 10. Open-end funds are obligated to redeem investor's shares for net asset value, and thus must keep cash or cash-equivalent securities on hand in order to meet potential redemptions. Closed-end funds do not need the cash reserves because they do not have to worry about redemptions. Their investors instead sell their shares to other investors when they wish to cash out. 18. Suppose that finishing in the top half of all managers is purely luck and that the probability of doing so in any year is exactly 1/2. Then the probability that a particular manager would finish in the top half of the sample 5 years in a row is (1/2)5 = 1/32. We would then expect to find that 350 x (1/32) = 11 managers finish in the top half for five consecutive years. This is precisely what we found. Thus, we should not conclude that the consistent performance after 5 years is proof of skill: we would expect to find 11 managers exhibiting precisely this level of "consistency" even if performance is due solely to luck. 19. a. After 2 years, each dollar invested in a fund with a 4% load and a portfolio return equal to r will grow to: $.96 x (1 + r.005)2. Each dollar invested in

the GIC will grow to $1 x (1.06)2. If the mutual fund is to be the better investment, then the portfolio return, r, must satisfy:.96 x (1 + r.005)2 > (1.06)2.96 x (1 + r.005)2 > 1.1236 (1 + r.005)2 > 1.1704 1 + r.005 > 1.0819 1 + r > 1.0869 or r >.0869 = 8.69%. b. If you invest for 6 years, then the portfolio return must satisfy:.96 x (1 + r.005)6 > (1.06)6 = 1.4185 (1 + r.005)6 > 1.4776 1 + r.005 > 1.0672 1 + r > 1.0722 r > 7.22% The cutoff return is lower because the "fixed cost," i.e., the one-time front-end load is spread out over a greater number of years. c. With an other charge instead of a front-end load, the portfolio must earn a rate of return, r, that satisfies: 1 + r.005.0075 > 1.06

In this case, r must exceed 7.25% regardless of the investment horizon.