开发者:上海品职教育科技有限公司 隐私政策详情

应用版本:4.2.11(IOS)|3.2.5(安卓)APP下载

卢天悦 · 2023年08月09日

可以说两个的active risk差不多,但是legend的active share要大很多吗

NO.PZ2023010903000070

问题如下:

After answering a few additional questions, Swanson provides Rizzitano with a one-page document comparing the Legends Fund to the Kingston Fund. The information in this document is displayed in Exhibit 1. Swanson notes that the Kingston Fund is the Legends Fund's closest competitor and employs a very similar investment philosophy focused on quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano that the document demonstrates that the Legends Fund has a much more efficient portfolio structure than the Kingston Fund.

Identify two fund characteristics in Exhibit 1 that support Swanson's comment regarding the Legends Fund's relatively efficient portfolio structure.

选项:

解释:

Answer:

An efficient, well-constructed portfolio should have 1) risk exposures that align with investor expectations, and 2) low idiosyncratic(unexplained) risk relative to total risk.

The investment philosophies of both the Legends Fund and the Kingston Fund focus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions provided in Exhibit 1 suggest that quality is a significant factor exposure for the Legends Fund at-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fund at -0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.

In addition, the amount of idiosyncratic risk is much higher as a percentage of total risk for the Kingston Fund, at 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legends Fund. This also supports Swanson's statement.

如题

1 个答案
已采纳答案

笛子_品职助教 · 2023年08月10日

嗨,爱思考的PZer你好:


可以说两个的active risk差不多,但是legend的active share要大很多吗


Hello,亲爱的同学~

可以这么说,相同active risk,active share越大,越risk -efficiency

----------------------------------------------
努力的时光都是限量版,加油!

youmima · 2023年08月14日

是不是问哪个是efficient portfolio structure,要分析的是well-constructed portfolio的特点; 问哪个更加risk -efficiency, 要分析的active share和active risk呢?

506623496 · 2024年01月21日

同问,是不是问哪个是efficient portfolio structure,要分析的是well-constructed portfolio的特点; 问哪个更加risk -efficiency, 要分析的active share和active risk呢?

  • 1

    回答
  • 2

    关注
  • 384

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. 第一个问题如题,想从risk anstructucharacteristipromise以及 A risk-efficient livery methology的角度答题。首先描述quality factor的contribution更大,因此满足第一条risk anstructucharacteristipromise另外就是Active share / active risk更大,因此满足A risk-efficient livery methology。第二个问题我看解析都没提 risk-efficient livery methology,反而提了unexplainereturn?请问讲义里关于Risk efficient的定义中的4条,哪里看出了需要unexplainereturn?

2024-08-12 00:58 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. quality factor contribution是负数,如何理解这是align with investor expectation的?为何说负数更大的反而是更好的呢

2024-05-28 00:11 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2023010903000070 问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. 这道题为什么不从active risk和active share了呢

2024-02-04 23:04 2 · 回答

NO.PZ2023010903000070问题如下 After answering a few aitionquestions, Swanson provis Rizzitano with a one-page cument comparing the Legen Funto the Kingston Fun The information in this cument is splayein Exhibit 1. Swanson notes ththe Kingston Funis the Legen Funs closest competitor anemploys a very similinvestment philosophy focuseon quality. Swanson tells Rizzitano ththe cument monstrates ththe Legen Funha mumore efficient portfolio structure ththe Kingston Fun Intify two funcharacteristiin Exhibit 1 thsupport Swanson's comment regarng the Legen Funs relatively efficient portfolio structure. Answer:efficient, well-constructeportfolio shoulhave 1) risk exposures thalign with investor expectations, an2) low iosyncratic(unexplaine risk relative to totrisk.The investment philosophies of both the Legen Funanthe Kingston Funfocus on the quality risk factor. However, the factor risk contributions proviin Exhibit 1 suggest thquality is a significant factor exposure for the Legen Funat-12.2% but is insignificant for the Kingston Fun-0.2%. This supports Swanson's statement.In aition, the amount of iosyncratic risk is muhigher a percentage of totrisk for the Kingston Fun 12.2%, versus just 4.2% for the Legen Fun This also supports Swanson's statement. 能贴一下讲义来源截图吗,谢谢

2024-01-29 09:40 1 · 回答