Search results

Hi @Karim_B Howabout https://forum.bionicturtle.com/threads/computing-default-probability.9504/ (per the tag)? We do have a lot of these threads ... @Nicole Seaman can you see what we've got, ayc, thanks?

@Karim_B Thank you! ... That's disappointing to see, we reported it over a year ago :(

@jamietay I just replied here (FYI, no need to double post especially in the month before the exam when the forum is really busy) https://forum.bionicturtle.com/threads/p2-t5-410-implied-volatility-smile-and-the-implied-asset-distribution-hull.7582/page-2#post-59694

@sharman.jamie Good point, I will to include this question in my feedback memo to GARP, that I am currently writing (i.e., the utility of such memorization eludes me, especially given that Basel is always changing its mind!)

@Karim_B I don't think your math is silly, but his ULC(i) is wrong. So an awkward outcome isn't surprising. We reported this to him, his publisher and GARP when it was added to the syllabus. None of them has ever replied specifically about De Laurentis. I asked (er, begged) GARP to drop this...

@flex I recently recorded youtube videos that review yield to maturity concept, hopefully this is is helpful (my point #3 mentions that YTM is complex average of the spot rates, which implies that it must be bound by the min/max spot rates): ... it is part of the a playlist...

@flex i don't understand, i'm sorry. The full Q&A (at http://forum.bionicturtle.com/threads/l1-t4-14-yield-to-maturity-ytm.4940/) has two pages of discussion, question 14.4 has survived so far. If the term structure of spot rates is upward sloping, with 2-year spot (aka, zero) equal to 4.0%...

@flex I don't understand the question. You quoted question 14.4 but I don't see any terms that are unusual: term structure, spot rates, yield (aka, YTM), coupon. Yes, these are all conventional bond terms, if that's what you are asking.

@Rahul001 those links are working for me

Thank you @Nicole Seaman It's amazing how this seeming simple issue of "is the hedge long or short" is actually more difficult and nuanced on inspection. It's not as trivial as it seems, in part I think, because you can approach the definition of the underlying exposure in slightly different...

@perviz Investopedia's choice of asset (spot) price is not typical. Per Hull, we assume the x-axis of the implied volatility smile is strike price; or just as often K/S, but K/S is directionally the same (eg, to the right is OTM call or ITM put). Here is Hull on alternatives to strike price as...

@Bilal Ehsan We don't the time/resources to do that, sorry. (I'm here on a Sat and Sunday giving support). The Gregory changes were generally improvements (exhibits, explanations) Thanks,

Hi @maga Please see https://forum.bionicturtle.com/threads/hull-19-03.6391/ where we tried to figure this out (I did never hear back from GARP) But I think maybe I just figured out the difference only because I thought to look in McDonald. Here is the difference, I think (I will be interested...

Hi @Galaxy In all honesty, I never gave that any thought! :eek: Let's see what Tuckman says at the beginning of Chapter 9 (emphasis mine): So if I understand him, and I think he might be engaging in a bit of poetical/metaphorical license, the "science" concerns the fundamental, mathematical...

here is implied matrix (only doing this b/c it's interesting) Q1: 32.0% b/c conditional Prob(star player NOT scoring | team A wins) = 1 - 36.0% = 64%, such that joint(NOT scoring, win) = Prob(win)*Prob(not score|win) = 50%*64% = 32.0% Q2: it does not make sense, do you mean "What is the...

I completely agree with @emilioalzamora1 on this! That formatting looks like Kaplan, and indeed they have faithfully represented the assertions in Stulz Chapter 18.1 (is the source here). But this Stulz chapter is over 16 years old. Over the years, many of its assertions have proven problematic...

Hi @[email protected] Tuckman retrieves p = 0.8024 in the prior step which depends on utilizing the observed one-year bond (market) price of s(1.0) = $950.42, see top row. It's not shown directly on the exhibit above, but in six months, the current one-year bond with have a price of either...

Hi @sandrasp The existing formula sheet is entirely relevant (in Part 1 there have been approximately zero key formula changes from 2017 to 2018). The revision is almost entirely about quality, including efficiency and presentation (not new formulas). Same with most of our other ongoing updates...

Thanks @Nicole Seaman Re: the new formula sheet: it will depend on how busy the forum support keeps me. I don't want rush the quality of it, I think it's better to plan that we will issue it sometime after the May exam. @sandrasp Nicole is totally right about the practice questions. They are...

Hi @Askar M Try this https://trtl.bz/2HIXEDF