Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Solutions Manual
July 9, 2004
Springer
Berlin Heidelberg NewYork
Hong Kong London
Milan Paris Tokyo
2
Probability and Statistical Models
1. (a)
E(0.1X + 0.9Y ) = 1.
3. The likelihood is
n
Y 1 1 2
L(σ 2 ) = √ e− 2σ2 (Yi −µ) .
i=1 2πσ 2
whose solution is
n
1X
σ2 = (Yi − µ)2 .
n i=1
4. Rearranging the first equation, we get
Then using
σXY = E(XY ) − E(X)E(Y )
and
2
σX = E(X 2 ) − E(X)2
we get
σXY
β1 = 2 ,
σX
and substituting this into (2.1) we get
σXY
β0 = E(Y ) − 2 E(X).
σX
5.
N
! N
X X
E(wT X) = E wi Xi = wi E(Xi ) = wT {E(X)}.
i=1 i=1
Next
"N #2
T 2 X
T T
Var(w X) = E w X − E(w X) = E wi {Xi − E(Xi )}
i=1
1
The solution to this problem is algebraically simpler if we treat σ 2 rather than σ
as the parameter.
2 Probability and Statistical Models 3
X N
N X N X
X N
= E [wi wj {Xi − E(Xi )}{Xj − E(Xj )}] = wi wj Cov(Xi , Xj ).
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1
One can easily check that for any N × 1 vector X and N × N matrix A
N X
X N
X T AX = Xi Xj Aij ,
i=1 j=1
whence
N X
X N
wT COV(X)w = wi wj Cov(Xi , Xj ).
i=1 j=1
6. Since
n
n n 1 X
log{L(µ, σ 2 )} = − log(2π) − log(σ 2 ) − 2 (Yi − µ)2
2 2 2σ i=1
and Pn
i=1 (Yi − Y )2
2 = n,
σ
bM L
it follows that
2 n 2
log{L(Y , σ
bM L )} = − {1 + log(2π) + log(b
σM L }.
2
Next, the solution to
( n
)
∂ ∂ n n 1 X 2
0= log{L(0, σ 2 )} = − log(2π) − log(σ 2 ) − 2 Y
∂σ 2 ∂σ 2 2 2 2σ i=1 i
n
n 1 X 2
=− + Y ,
2σ 2 2(σ 2 )2 i=1 i
Pn
solves nσ 2 = i=1 Yi2 so that
n
2 1X 2
σ
b0,M L = Y .
n i=1 i
7. (a)
8. (a) Since
σXY
Yb = E(Y ) + 2 {X − E(X)}.
σX
and E{X − E(X)} = 0 by Problem 7. it follows that E(Yb ) = E(Y )
so that E{Yb − Y } = 0 − 0 = 0.
(b)
σ2
E(Y − Yb )2 = E {Y − E(Y )}2 + XY 4 {X − E(X)}
2
σX
σXY h i
−2 2 E {(Y − E(Y )}{X − E(X)}
σX
σ2 2
σXY 2
σXY
= σY2 + XY
2 − 2 2 = σ 2
Y 1 − 2 2 = σY2 1 − ρ2XY .
σX σX σX σY
9.
Z a a
3 x3 x4
E(XY ) = E(X ) = dx = =0
−a 2a 8a −a
and
E(x2 ) = (0.95)(12 ) + (0.05)(102 ) = 5.9500.
Therefore, the kurtosis is
1502.9
= 42.45.
5.952
2 Probability and Statistical Models 5
(b) One has that E(X 4 ) = 3p + 3(1 − p)σ 4 and E(X 2 ) = p + (1 − p)σ 2 so
that the kurtosis is
3{p + (1 − p)σ 4 }
.
p2 + 2p(1 − p)σ 2 + (1 − p)2 σ 4
3{p + (1 − p)σ 4 } 3
lim = .
σ→∞ p2 2 2
+ 2p(1 − p)σ + (1 − p) σ 4 1−p
Therefore, by letting σ get very large and p get close to 1, the kurtosis
can be made arbitrarily large. Suitable σ and p such that the kurtosis
is greater than 10,000 can be found by fixing p such that 3/(1 − p) >
10, 000 that then increasing σ until the kurtosis exceeds 10,000.
(d) There is an error in the second sentence of part (d). The sentence
should be “Show that for any p0 < 1, no matter how close to 1, there
is a p > p0 and a σ, such that the normal mixture with these values
of p and σ has a kurtosis at least M .” This result is similar to part
(c). One can always find a p > p0 such that 3/(1 − p) > M and with
this value of p, the kurtosis will converge to a value greater than M
as σ increases to ∞.
12. The conditional CDF is
P (c < X ≤ x)
P (X ≤ x|X > c) =
P (x > c)
P (X ≤ x) − P (X ≤ c) Φ(x/σ) − Φ(c/σ)
= = .
1 − P (X ≤ x) 1 − Φ(c/σ)
The conditional PDF is
d Φ(x/σ) − Φ(c/σ) (d/dx)Φ(x/σ) − Φ(c/σ) φ(x/σ)
= = .
dx 1 − Φ(c/σ) 1 − Φ(c/σ) σ{1 − Φ(c/σ)}
so the log-likelihood is
Pn
i=1 Xi
log{L(θ)} = −n log(θ) − .
θ
Thus the MLE solves
6 2 Probability and Statistical Models
Pn Pn
d Xi −n Xi
0= −n log(θ) − i=1 = + i=12
dθ θ θ θ
whose solution is X.
14. (a) The CDF is
y−2 y−2
P (Y ≤ y) = P (3X − 2 ≤ y) = P X≤ =
3 3
for 2 < y < 3. For y ≤ 2, the CDF is 0 and for y > 5 the CDF is 1.
The PDF is 1/3 for 2 < y < 5 and 0 elsewhere. The median is solution
to 1/2 = (y − 2)/3, that is, 3.5.
√
(b) The CDF is y for 0 < y < 1, 0 for y ≤ 0, and 1 for y > 1. The PDF
is (1/2)y −1/2 for 0 < y < 1 and 0 elsewhere. The 1st quartile is 1/4
and the third quartile is (3/4)2 .
15. (a) The CDF is (x − 1)/4 for 1 < x < 5 so the 0.1-quantile solves 0.1 =
(x − 1)/4 so that x = 1.4.
(b) The 0.1-quantile of X −1 solves 0.1 = P (X −1 ≤ x) = P (X ≥ x−1 ) =
1 − (x−1 − 1)/4 or 0.9 = (x−1 − 1)/4. Thus, the 0.1-quantile of X −1
is 1/4.6.
16. There is an inconsistency in the notation: σ
bXY should be changed to sXY .
(a)
n
1 X
s2d = {(Xi,1 − X 1 ) − (Xi,2 − X 2 )}2
n − 1 i=1
n
2 X
= s21 + s22 − {(Xi,1 − X 1 )(Xi,2 − X 2 )} = s21 + s22 − 2s1,2 .
n − 1 i=1
1. (a)
P2 + D2 56.2
R2 = −1= − 1.
P1 51
(b)
P4 + D4 P3 + D3 P2 + D2
R4 (3) = −1
P3 P2 P1
58.25 53.25 56.2
= − 1.
53 56 51
(c)
P3 + D3 53.25
r3 = log = log .
P2 56
6. Data before 1998 should not be used to test the Super Bowl theory, since
these data were already used to formulate the hypothesis. To test the
hypothesis one would need to collect data for a number of years past
1998. Once this is done, there are a number of ways to test the Super
Bowl theory. One way would be the independent samples t-test, the first
sample being the years when the a former NFL wins the Super Bowl and
the second sample being the years when a former AFL team wins. The
null hypothesis would be H0 : µ1 = µ and the alternative would be H1 :
µ1 > µ2 since the Super Bowl theory predicts that µ1 > µ2 .
Defining bull and bear markets can be tricky, as Malkiel discusses. He
mentions the possibility that the market could be down for most of the
year but then recovers at the end of the year. Is this a bull or bear market?
One possibility is to define a bull (bear) market to occur if the net return
for the year is positive (negative).
Let p1 and p2 be the probabilities of bull markets in years when a former
NFL, respectively, former AFL team wins. To test if a former NFL team
winning predicts a bull market, we could test the null hypotheses H0 :
p1 = 1/2 versus H1 : p1 > 1/2. Similarly to test whether a former AFL
team winning predicts a bear market we could test H0 : p2 = 1/2 versus
H1 : p2 < 1/2.
Another set of hypotheses to test is the null hypothesis H0 : p1 = p2 versus
the alternative H1 : p1 > p2. These could be easily tested by a likelihood
ratio test.
4
Time Series Models
1. (a) The process is stationary since φ = 0.7 so that |φ| < 1. Strictly speak-
ing, the process is only stationary if it started in the stationary distri-
bution. If the process has been operating for a reasonably long time
(say 10 time periods) we can assume that it has converged to the sta-
tionary distribution. In the remaining parts of the problem we will
assume that it is in the stationary distribution.
(b)
5
µ= .
1 − 0.7
(c)
2
γ(0) = .
1 − 0.72
(d)
2(0.7|h| )
γ(h) = .
1 − 0.72
2. (a) Var(Y1 ) = γ(0) = σ2 /(1 − φ2 ) = 2/(1 − (.3)2 ) = 2.198.
(b)
Similarly, γ(1) = (−θ1 + θ1 θ2 )σ2 , γ(2) = −θ2 σ2 , and γ(k) = 0 for k ≥ 3.
The autocorrelation function is ρ(0) = 1, ρ(1) = (−θ1 +θ1 θ2 )/(1+θ12 +θ22 ),
ρ(2) = −θ2 /(1 + θ12 + θ22 ), and ρ(k) = 0 for k ≥ 3.
6. (a) Again, assume that µ = 0. Then using the hint
Then
ρ(3) = (0.4)(0.3810) + (0.2)(0.0476) = 0.16192.
7. The covariance between t−i and t+h−j is σ2 if j = i + h and is zero
otherwise. Therefore,
X∞ X∞ X∞
σ 2 φ|h|
Cov i
t−i φ , t+h−j φ j = σ2 φi φi+h = 2 .
i=0 j=0 i=1
1−φ
8.
9. (a) The series in the bottom panel is such that its first difference is non-
stationary and tend to wander. In fact, its first difference is the series
in the middle panel. We can see that the the first difference spends
long periods where it is always positive and also long periods where
it is always negative. During a period when the first difference is pos-
itive the series is constantly moving upward. Similarly, when the first
4 Time Series Models 13
1. (a)
(85)(300)
w= .
(85)(300) + (35)(100)
(35)(100)
1−w = .
(85)(300) + (35)(100)
(b)
nj Pj
wj = PN .
k=1 nk Pk
4. The equation
RP = w1 R1 + · · · + wN RN (5.1)
is true if RP is a net or gross return, but (5.1) not in general true if RP
is a log return. However, if all the net returns are small in absolute value,
16 5 Portfolios
then the log returns are approximately equal to the net returns and (5.1)
will hold approximately.
Let us go through an example first. Suppose that N = 3 and the initial
portfolio has $500 in asset 1, $300 in asset 2, and $200 in asset 3, so the
initial price of the portfolio is $1000. Then the weights are w1 = 0.5,
w2 = 0.3, and w3 = 0.2. (Note that the number of shares being held
of each asset and the price per share are irrelevant. For example, it is
immaterial whether asset 1 is $5/share and 100 shares are held, $10/share
and and 50 shares held, or the price per share and number of shares are
any other values that multiply to $500.) Suppose the gross returns are 2,
1, and 0.5. Then the price of the portfolio at the end of the holding period
is
500(2) + 300(1) + 200(0.5) = 1400
and the gross return on the portfolio is 1.4 = 1400/1000. Note that
1.4 = w1 (2) + w2 (1) + w3 (0.5) = (0.5)(2) + (0.3)(1) + (0.2)(0.5).
so (5.1) holds for gross return. Since a net return is simply the gross return
minus 1, if (5.1) holds for gross returns then in holds for net returns, and
vice versa. The log returns in this example are log(2) = 0.693, log(1) = 0,
and log(0.5) = − log(2) = −0.693. Thus, the right hand side of (5.1) when
R1 , . . . , RN are log returns is
(0.5 − 0.2)(0.693) = 0.138
but the log return on the portfolio is log(1.4) = 0.336 so (5.1) does not
hold for log returns. In this example, equation (5.1) is not even a good
approximation because two of the three net returns have large absolute
values.
Now let us show that (5.1) holds in general for gross returns and hence
for net returns. Let P1 , . . . , PN be the prices of assets 1 through N in the
portfolio. (As in the example, Pj is the price per share of the jth asset
times the number of shares in the portfolio.) Let R1 , . . . , RN be the net
returns on these assets. The jth weight is equal to the ratio of the price
of the jth asset in the portfolio to the total price of the portfolio which is
Pj
wj = PN .
i=1 Pi
At the end of the holding period, the price of the jth asset in the portfolio
has changed from Pj to Pj (1+Rj ), so that the gross return on the portfolio
is
PN N
! N
j=1 Pj (1 + Rj )
X Pj X
PN = PN (1 + R j ) = wj (1 + Rj ),
i=1 Pi j=1 i=1 Pi i=j
1. (a)
E(Yi |Xi = 1) = 3.
√
σYi |Xi =1 = 0.6.
(b)
3−3 1
P (Yi ≤ 3|Xi = 1) = Φ √ = .
0.6 2
2. The likelihood is
n
Y
1 1
L(β0 , β1 , σ 2 ) = √ exp − 2 (Y − β0 − β1 Xi )
i=1 2πσ 2 2σ
(n
)
−n/2 −1 1 X 2
= (2π) σ exp − 2 (Yi − β0 − β1 Xi ) .
2σ i=1
Since the i are independent of the Xi by (6.2) and since we are condition-
ing on the Xi we can treat the wi as fixed weights. Therefore, by (2.55)
and the independence of the i (by (6.1)) we have that
20 6 Regression
n
X
Var(βb1 ) = wi2 Var(i ).
i=1
= 0.9770.
The VIFs
Pn are both 1/(1 − 0.9770)
Pn= 43.48.
(b) Since i=1 (Xi − X)3 = 0 and i=1 (Xi − X) = 0,
Cov((Xi − X), (Xi − X)2 )
n n
! n
!
1X 3 1X 1X 2
= (Xi − X) − (Xi − X) (Xi − X) = 0.
n i=1 n i=1 n i=1
so the correlation between (Xi − X) and (Xi − X)2 is 0. The VIFs are
both 1.
5. (a) R2 = Corr(Y, Yb ) = 0.25.
(b)
residual error SS residual error SS
0.25 = R2 = 1 − =1− .
total SS 100
Therefore residual error SS = 75.
(c) Regression SS = total SS − residual error SS = 100 − 75 = 25.
(d)
residual error SS 75
s2 = = = 2.885.
n−p−1 30 − 4
6. For this problem, R2 = 1 − (residual error SS)/50. Also,
2 10
σ
b,M = = 0.1667
66 − 5 − 1
Therefore, the values of R2 and Cp are as in the table below. Based solely
on this information, the model to choose would be the one with the small-
est value of Cp which is the model with 4 predictors. However, the model
with all five predictors has nearly the same value of Cp and might be used.
The final decision should depend upon subject matter knowledge.
6 Regression 21
Number Residual R2 Cp
of predictors error SS
3 12.0 0.7600 14.0
4 10.2 0.7960 5.2
5 10.0 0.8000 6.0
7. No, we cannot accept that both β1 and β2 are zero. It is usually the case
that X and X 2 are highly correlated. Therefore, either one can serve as a
proxy for the other, which means that it is not necessary for both to be in
the model. The p-value for β1 tests whether X can be dropped given that
X 2 is in the model, and similarly the p-value for β2 tests whether X 2 can
be dropped given that X is in the model. We can conclude that either X
or X 2 can be dropped, that is, that either β1 or β2 is zero. However, we
cannot conclude that both X and X 2 can be dropped, that is, that both
β1 and β2 are zero. To conclude that both β1 and β2 are zero we could fit
the model Yi = β0 + β1 Xi + i and test if β1 is zero.
8. The least-squares estimator βb1 solves
n n n
!
d X 2
X X
2
0= (Yi − β1 Xi ) = − Yi Xi − β1 Xi .
dβ1 i=1 i=1 i=1
Therefore Pn
b Yi Xi
β1 = Pi=1
n 2
.
i=1 Xi
9. Since the fits are Ybi = βb0 + βb1 Xi , this plot has the same shape as a plot
of the residuals versus Xi . The curved pattern suggest that E(Yi ) is not
linear in Xi . A good remedial action would be to add a quadratic term to
the model.
10.
Source df SS MS F P
Regression 2 2.1045 1.0523 3.8853 0.05
error 12 3.2500 0.2708
total 14 5.3545
R-sq = 0.3930
11. The change in the value of the portfolio as ∆y10 , ∆y20 , and ∆y30 change
is approximately
F30 P30 DUR30 ∆y30 −F20 P20 DUR20 (βb1 ∆y30 +βb2 ∆y10 )+F10 P10 DUR10 ∆y10 .
In order for this quantity to be zero for all values of ∆y10 and ∆y30 , F10
and F30 should solve the equations
and
F10 P10 DUR10 − F20 P20 DUR20 βb2 = 0.
In these equations, all other quantities besides F10 and F30 are known.
7
The Capital Asset Pricing Model
1.
16 − 6
β= = 10/5 = 2.
11 − 6
2. (a) Solve for w: µr = µf + w(µM − µf ) or 0.11 = 0.07 + w(0.14 − 0.07).
Therefore, w = 4/7.
(b) σR = (4/7)(0.12) = 0.069.
3. (a) The expected return is 0.04 + (0.10 − 0.06)(0.05)/(0.12) = 0.0567.
(b) β = 0.004/(0.122 ) = 0.2778.
(c) The expected return is 0.04 + (0.2778)(0.10 − 0.04) = 0.1390.
4. Let X = (R1,t , . . . , RN,t )T , ω 1 = (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . , 0) with the “1” in the
jth place, and ω 2 = (w1,M , . . . , wN,M )T . Then ω T T
1 X = Rj,t and ω 2 X =
PN
i=1 wi,M Rit . Also,
N
X
ωT
1 COV(X)ω 2 = wi,N σi,j .
i=1
1. (a) The initial price can be found either by finding the price of a repli-
cating portfolio or using risk-neutral probabilities. We will look at
replicating portfolios first. The stock price changes to 66.55 if there
are three up-steps, to 54.45 if there are two up-steps, to 44.55 if there
is one up-step, and to 35.45 if there are no up-steps. Since the exercise
price is $55, the option is worth $11.55 if there are three up-steps and
$0 otherwise. After two steps we have the following: (1) if there were
two up-steps then the portfolio should hold 0.9545 shares and −49.44
in risk-free assets. (2) if there was an up-step and a down-step or if
there were two down-steps, then the replicating portfolio should hold
0 shares and $0 in risk-free assets. After one step we have: if there was
an up-step then the portfolio should hold 0.755 shares and −35.558 in
risk-free assets but if there was a down-step then the portfolio should
hold 0 shares and $0 in risk-free assets. The initial portfolio should
have 0.596 shares and $-25.51 in risk-free assets. The price of this
portfolio is (0.596)(50) − 25.51 = 4.29. Thus, the initial price of the
option is $4.29.
The risk-neutral probability of an up-step is q = {exp(0.05)−0.9}/(1.1−
0.9) = 0.7564. The probability of three up-steps is q 3 = 0.4327. Thus
the expected value (with respect to the risk-neutral probabilities) of
the option is (0.4327)(11.55) = 4.9976. The discounted expected value
is 4.9976 exp{−(3)(0.05)} = 4.30. Therefore, the initial price of the op-
tion is $4.30. (This differs slightly from the price of $4.29 found before
because of rounding errors.)
(b)
q 2 (66.55 − 55) exp{(2)(0.05)} = 5.98.
(c) As stated before, initially the replicating portfolio holds 0.596 shares
of stock and −25.51 dollars of the risk-free asset.
(d) If stock goes up on the first step, the replicating portfolio would then
hold 0.755 shares of stock and −35.558 dollars of the risk-free asset.
26 8 Options Pricing
(c)
E{S4 − E(S4 |S0 , S1 , S2 )}2 = E(X3 + X4 − 0.4)2
= Var(X3 + X4 ) = (2)(0.96) = 1.92.
(Note: The practical significance of this result is that we have found
expected squared prediction error of the best predictor at time t = 2
of the random walk two steps ahead.)
(d) The risk-free rate r has not be given, so the answer must be given as
a function of r. Assume that r is the simple interest rate. The option
is worth $1 at the exercise date (t = 2) if the stock price moves up on
both of the first two steps and is worth $0 otherwise. The risk-neutral
probability of an up-step is
(1 + r) − 99
q0 =
101 − 99
at t = 0. Given an up-step at time 0, the probability of an up-step at
time t = 1 is
(1 + r) − 100
q1 =
102 − 100
The price of the call option is
q0 q1
.
(1 + r)2
(Note: (1 + r) would be replaced throughout by exp(r) if r was given as a
continuously compounded rate.)
7. The probability of an up-step is constant and equals
exp(0.03) − 0.8
q= = 0.5761.
1.2 − 0.8
(a) At t = 2 the put is worth 0, 14, or 46 dollars if there have been two
up-steps, one up- and one down-step, or two down-steps, respectively.
The value of the European put option at time t = 0 is
(14)(2)q(1 − q) + 46(1 − q)2
= 14.2226.
exp{(2)(0.03)}
(b) If there is an up-step at time t = 0 then early exercise at t = 1 is
worth nothing and so is clearly not optimal. If there is a down-step
at time 0, then early exercise at t = 1 is worth $30 and the value at
t = 1 of holding the option is worth
14q + 46(1 − q)
= 26.7490.
exp(0.03)
Therefore, early exercise is optimal at t = 1 if there had just been a
down-step.
28 8 Options Pricing
5.7887q + 30(1 − q)
= 15.5766.
exp(0.03)
(d) Let “UU” denote two up-steps and similarly for UD, DU, and DD. At
t = 2, the option is worth 44, 10, 0, and 0 at UU, UD, DU, and DD,
respectively. Thus, at time t = 0 the option is wort
44q 2 + 10qp
= 16.5433.
exp{(2)(0.03)}
√
8. Since d2 = d1 − σ T − t, d d1 /dS = d d2 /dS. Therefore, we only need to
show that
Sφ(d1 ) − Ke−r(T −t) φ(d1 ) = 0.
Next,
√
d22 = d21 − 2d1 σ T − t + σ 2 (T − t) = d21 − 2 log(S/K) − 2r(T − t)
√
and since φ(x) = exp(−x2 /2)/ 2π,
exp(−d21 /2) n o
= √ S − Ke−r(T −t) elog(S/K)+r(T −t) = 0.
2π
9.
∂2 ∂ ∂ Φ(d1 ) ∂ d1
Γ = 2
C(S, T, t, K, σ, r) = ∆(S, T, t, K, σ, r) = = φ(d1 )
∂S ∂S ∂S ∂S
and
∂ d1 S −1
= √ .
∂S σ T −t
9
Fixed Income Securities
1. (a)
Z 20
1
y20 = (−0.022+0.0003t) dt = 0.022+(0.0003)(20)/2 = 0.0250.
20 0
(b)
Z 25
1
y25 = (−0.022+0.0003t) dt = 0.022+(0.0003)(25)/2 = 0.0257.
25 0
The price is
1000 exp(−25Y25 ) = 525.3188.
2. By the summation formula for a finite geometric series we have
2T
X 2T −1
C C X 1
=
t=1
(1 + r)t 1 + r t=0 (1 + r)t
C 1 − (1 + r)−2T C
= −1
= {1 − (1 + r)−2T }.
1 + r 1 − (1 + r) r
Substituting this result into the left-hand side of the equality and simpli-
fying gives us the right-hand side.
3. (a) $50.
(b)
50 50 −38
+ 1000 − (1 + 0.04) = 1193.70.
0.04 0.04
5. (a)
18 18
+ 1000 − (1.02)−20 = 967.30.
0.02 0.02
(b) Below par because the current interest rate is higher than the coupon
rate.
6. (a) Solve for y:
25 50
+ 1000 − (1 + y)−10 .
y y
By interpolation, the yield-to-maturity is y = 0.0189.
(b) 25/1100 = 0.0227.
(c) The yield-to-maturity is below the current yield because the bond is
selling above par and there will be a loss of principal at maturity.
7.
Z 15
(0.03 + 0.001t) dt = (0.03)(15) + (0.001)(152 )/2 = 0.5625.
0
1
= (0.02)(20) + (0.001)(202 )/2 + (0.0005)(20 − 10)2 /2 = 0.0313.
20
9. (a) 1-year: price=1000(1 + 0.02/2)−2 = 980.296
3-year: price=1000(1 + 0.04/2)−6 = 887.9714
5-year: price=1000(1 + 0.045/2)−10 = 800.5101
(b) (rates unchanged)
1-year (now a 0-year): price=1000
3-year (now a 2-year): price=1000(1 + 0.03/2)−4 = 942.2
5-year (now a 4-year): price=1000(1 + 0.0425/2)−8 = 845.2
(c) (rates increase as forecasted)
1-year (now a 0-year): price=1000
3-year (now a 2-year): price=1000(1 + 0.035/2)−4 = 933.0
5-year (now a 4-year): price=1000(1 + 0.0475/2)−8 = 828.8
(d) (rates up)
1-year: return = 1000/980.296 − 1 = 0.0201
3-year: return = 933.0/887.9714 − 1 = 0.0507
5-year: return = 828.8/800.5101 − 1 = 0.0353
(e) (rates unchanged)
1-year: return = 1000/980.296 − 1 = 0.0201
3-year: return = 942.2/887.9714 − 1 = 0.0611
5-year: return = 845.2/800.5101 − 1 = 0.0558
9 Fixed Income Securities 31
(f) No it is not correct as seen in part (e) where the 5-year bond has the
highest spot rate but has a lower return than the 3-year bond. The
reason that the returns after 1 year after not equal to the spot rates
is that the n-year bond has become an n − 1-year bond so it is now
priced by discounting at the n − 1-year spot rate. Thus, although spot
rates are unchanged, the bond is not priced with the same rate as
before and the returns will not be the spot rates.
10.
N N N
d X X X
Ci exp{−Ti (yTi +δ)} =− Ci Ti exp{−Ti yTi } = − NPVi Ti
dδ i=1 δ=0 i=1 i=1
N N
! N
!
X X X
=− Ti ωi Ci exp{−Ti yTi } = −DUR Ci exp{−Ti yTi } .
i=1 i=1 i=1
However, !
N
X
Ci exp{−Ti yTi } = bond price
i=1
so
d
bond price = −DUR × bond price.
dδ
Therefore,
1. In Figures 10.6 and 10.8 the expected return can be less than the targeted
return of 12%. In such cases, the risk can be less that the optimal risk for
a 12% return because the expected return is less than 12%.
2. 500 or 5% of the values of sb,boot /s were less (more) than 0.7 (1.6). There-
fore, a 90% confidence interval is (0.7)(0.28) = 0.1969 to (1.6)(0.28) =
0.4480.
3. (a) (0.004)w + (0.0065)(1 − w) = 0.005 so that the estimated efficient
portfolio is 60% stock 1 and 40% stock 2.
(b) (0.6)2 (0.012) + (0.4)2 (0.023) + (2)(0.6)(0.4)(0.0051) = 0.0104.
(c) Actual expected return is (0.6)(0.003) + (0.4)(0.007) = 0.046. Actual
variance of return is (0.6)2 (0.01) + (0.4)2 (0.02) + 2(0.6)(0.4)(0.005) =
0.0092.
11
Value-at-Risk
1. Let RP , R1stock , and R2option be, respectively, the returns on the portfolio,
the stock, and the option on the second stock. Then
Rp = wR1stock + (1 − w)R2option
VaR(0.05, 24 hours)
µ
bP = (0.5)(7.7981)(0.0001) + (0.5)(0.0002) = 0.00049.
and
σ
bP = (0.52 )(7.79812 )(0.0172 ) + (0.52 )(0.0192 )
1/2
+(2)(0.5)(0.5)(7.981)(0.3)(0.017)(0.019) = 0.0377.
Therefore,
µ
bP = (2/3){0.5 + (0.5)(7.7981)}(0.0001) + (1/3)(0.0002) = 0.00049.
and
bP = (2/3)2 {0.5 + (0.5)(7.7981)}2 (0.0172 ) + (1/3)2 (0.0192 )
σ
1/2
+(2)(2/3)(1/3){0.5 + (0.5)(7.7981)}(0.3)(0.017)(0.019) = 0.0352.
Therefore,
7. (a) The loss is 0 if ST < 108, 100(ST − 108) if 108 < ST ≤ 112, and 400
if ST > 112.
(b) Each of the 20,000 simulated values of ST is converted into a loss
using the result of part a). Since (20, 000)(0.05) = 1000, VaR(0.05) is
the 1000th largest value of these simulated losses and ES(0.05) is the
average of the 1000 largest simulated losses.
(c) Simulate 20,000 N (0, 1) random variables, Z1 , . . . , Z20,000 . The ith
simulated value of ST is 105 exp(0.1 + 5Zi ). Use these as explained in
part b) to estimate VaR(0.05) and ES(0.05).
12
GARCH Models
1. The first equality is the definition of the expectation and the second equal-
ity is true because the integrand is symmetric about 0. Therefore, we need
only prove the third equality.
Z ∞ r Z ∞
1 −z 2 /2 2 2
2 √ ze dz = − (d/dz)e−z /2 dz
0 2π π 0
r ∞ r r
2 −z2 /2 2 2
=− e =− (0 − 1) = .
π 0 π π
2.
Z ∞ Z ∞ Z 1 Z ∞
1
fX (x)dx = 2 fX (x)dx = 2 1dx + x−2 dx
−∞ 0 4 0 1
∞
1
= 1 − x−1 = 1.
2 1
3. (a)
3
µ= = 10.
1 − 0.7
(b)
α0 1
Var(at ) = = = 2.
1 − α1 1 − 0.5
Var(at ) 2
Var(ut ) = = = 6.667.
1 − 0.7 0.3
(c)
ρy (h) = (0.7)|h| .
40 12 GARCH Models
(d)
and therefore
q
Var(a2 |u1 = 1, u0 = 0.2) = Var 2 α0 + α1 a21 a1
ρY (h) = 0.6|h| .
(c)
ρa (h) = 1 if h = 0
= 0 otherwise.
(d)
(b)
and therefore
s00 (2.5) = 2 + 2 + 0.6 = 4.6.
14
Behavioral Finance
b + Var(X − X)
Var(X) = Var(X) b = Var(X) b 2.
b + E(X − X)
3. (a) Even though the two decisions are made concurrently, people will tend
to analyze them separately. Many people will choose (A) in Decision
1 in order to be certain of a gain. People hate to lose and will often
gamble in order to avoid a certain loss. For this reason, many people
will chose (D) in Decision 2.