嗨,从没放弃的小努力你好:
这种题属于开放式的问答题,基本不会在CFA的考题里出现,CFA的考题是有明确结论的,不会是这种正反两方面讨论的题目。因此本题大概看看即可。
主题干说了,他们想投资一些illiquid investments ,这样可以赚取更多的收益。
Statement 2:他们考虑投资一点流动性较差的上市公司股票(low liquidity public equity investments),因为流动性较差的上市公司股票其实和Private equity以及Real estate差不多,因为流动性较差的上市公司股票也会有liquidity premium。
首先Statement 2说low liquidity public equity有Liquidity premium,这句是正确的,我们也经常说,流动性差的股票有流动性补偿。但是,他不构成投资投资流动性较差的上市公司股票的原因(也就是不构成用该上市公司替换Private equity以及Real estate的原因)。这是下面这句的意思:
Heard’s statement on public equities is partially true, but it does not rely on a fully defensible basis for an investment recommendation.
虽然我们说对于上市公司股票来说,流动性差和高的预期收益率存在显著的正相关(即,流动性越差,Expected return越高),但是我们很难把流动性补偿从高Expected return中剥离出来。也就说,我们投资这类股票,获得的高收益可能是因为其他因素引起的,可能不是由illiquidity引起的,或者有多少是illiquidity带来的也不知道。所以题干Statement里说投资该类股票就可以获得Liquidity premium就不够准确。这是下面这句的大概意思:
While a significant body of literature documents a positive relationship between lack of liquidity and expected returns in the case of public equity, overall it is difficult to isolate the illiquidity premium with precision and separate its effects from such other risk factors as the market, value, and size in the case of equity investments
下面这句说,在计算流动性补偿时,我们使用市场指数算的liquidity premium,但是我们投资者在实际投资时只会投资一部分股票,那用市场指数算的有流动性补偿,但投资个股是否一定有流动性补偿就不好说。那这一部分股票的表现与指数的表现就可能不同,一部分股票更容易表现出个股的特质,所以投资个股是否存在那个流动性补偿也不好说。
Furthermore, estimates of the illiquidity premium are based on broad market indexes, yet an investor in these asset classes would typically invest in only a small subset of the universe with the result that individual investment experience could be very different and more susceptible to idiosyncratic factors.
----------------------------------------------就算太阳没有迎着我们而来,我们正在朝着它而去,加油!