PRM Certification 8006 Full Course Free

An increase in coupon brings the 'average' cash flows closer, thereby decreasing duration. The higher the coupon, the lower the duration.

An increase in yield discounts the cash flows that are further away more than it does the closer cash flows, so an increase in yield decreases duration.

An increase in coupon frequency brings the bond's cash flows closer, thereby decreasing duration. Decreasing the coupon frequency has the opposite effect.

An increase in maturity pushes the payments further out, thereby increasing duration.

The riskiest tranche of a structured product is called the equity tranche. All other choices are incorrect.

An m x n FRA is an agreement to borrow money for a period starting at time m and ending at time n at the contracted rate. Therefore, the buyer of the 3 x 6 FRA has committed to borrow $1m at the beginning of 3 months and return it at the end of 6 months, ie a total borrowing period of 3 months at a rate of 5%. Of course, the $1m is never actually exchanged, and at the beginning of the 3 month period when the next three months' interest rate is known (6%), the parties merely exchange the difference in the interest. SInce this interest was only due at the end of the 6 months and is being exchanged at the 3 month time point, it will have to be discounted to its present value.

The correct answer to this question is =(1,000,000 * (6% - 5%) * 3/12)/(1 + (6%*3/12))=$2463.05. Since interest rates rose, the borrower gained as he has the right to borrow at a lower rate, and therefore the seller will pay the borrower.

(Here:

- $1m is the notional

- 6% - 5% represents the difference between the contracted and the realized interest rates

- 3/12 is the 3 month period from month 3 to 6

- Finally, we divide by the current interest rate for 3 months to present value the payment from month 6 to month 3)

A short position in a fixed rate bond and a long position in an FRN has the effect of paying fixed and receiving floating. The floating received offsets the floating payment on the borrowing, leaving the borrower with just a fixed rate outflow. Therefore the combination identified in statement I can be used to achieve the objective of paying fixed.

A collar is equivalent to a long position in an interest rate cap combined with a short position in an interest rate floor. This has the effect of setting a range within which the investor's borrowing rate will vary. In the case where the cap and floor rates are the same, the combination of a collar and a long FRN effectively produces an outcome where the holder of such positions pays a fixed rate. Therefore, an interest rate collar can be used to convert the fixed payment to a floating rate payment. [Example: Assume current interest rate is 3%, and therefore the borrower has a liability of 3% on the FRN. Assume that the borrower now buys a collar at the strike rate of 4%. Now the borrower receives 0% (=Max(3 % - 4%, 0)) on the cap part of the collar, and pays 1% on the floor part of the collar (=Max(4% - 3%, 0)). The net borrowing cost therefore is 3% paid on the FRN plus 1% paid on the collar, equal to 4%. Now if interest rates rise to say 6%, the borrower pays 6% on the FRN, and receives 2% from the collar (=Max(6% - 4%, 0) - Max(4% - 6%, 0)), creating a net cost of 6% - 2% = 4%.

A collar is often issued with an FRN to convert floating flows to fixed. Therefore combination II is an acceptable choice.

A short position in a fixed rate bond and a short position in an FRN produces a cash flow that does not produce a net fixed cash outflow when combined with the borrowing. Therefore statement III is not a valid combination.

An interest rate swap where the investor pays fixed and receives floating, when combined with a floating payment on an FRN leaves a net fixed payment, Therefore statement IV is a valid way to achieve the borrower's objective.