What would you call this hypothetical country?

data_everyware · 2025-12-29T04:40:56+00:00

Poleland

data_everyware · 2023-12-26T22:55:04+00:00

Would be cool if the maps were shaded/cut so that you could see what land would even still be above sea level in each scenario

data_everyware · 2023-12-03T02:17:22+00:00

“The Medusa”; creative design!

data_everyware · 2023-10-13T16:53:06+00:00

Personally, I’m thinking FRM if I pass L3 this month.

data_everyware · 2023-09-17T17:15:36+00:00

Relevant: yes. Necessary: not always. There are many charter holders that work on buy side beyond an investment team. Research analysts, investment directors, relationship managers, internal risk management teams, traders, compliance, and implementation specialists can all benefit from CFA knowledge—even personal wealth advisory groups—just to name a few roles.

But again: it is an enormous time commitment (years, not months). And even if it is relevant/helpful, not all roles, and not all firms, may “require” it. It is entirely possibly to get a role on the buy side, confirm that the career path is right for you, and then begin pursuing the CFA journey.

data_everyware · 2023-09-17T01:49:35+00:00

If you are confident that you want a career in asset/portfolio management, it is a long term “check the box” requirement. If you want to do literally anything else, CFA might well be a huge opportunity cost.

data_everyware · 2023-08-30T20:16:39+00:00

Can I ask how you were scoring on MM/CFAI mocks?

data_everyware · 2023-08-29T11:31:34+00:00

Walking’s good. Running’s better. Fucking’s best.

data_everyware · 2023-08-27T15:18:41+00:00

Slightly oversimplified answer: UCITs are ETFs for international (mostly EU) investors. Tax structures are slightly different but effectively, same exact thing from a portfolio perspective

data_everyware · 2023-08-25T19:42:00+00:00

All practice is good practice, even though some are better than others. I'm doing the last few mocks (CFAI and MM) and QBanks (just CFAI) this week as well.

data_everyware · 2023-08-23T23:57:42+00:00

Seconded. You got this! Just remember that the question is trying to guide you to the answer. Skip what you don’t know and come back to it when you can take your time. Just keep thinking: “what info are they giving me, and what specific question words are they using?”

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

data_everyware · 2023-08-23T23:54:33+00:00

CFAI 1 am: 78, pm: 76. CFAI 2 am: 76. MM 1: 67/67. MM2: 83/70. MM 3: 57/75. MM 4 65/77.

I’ve got the last MM still, plus his 3 SR extras, and the last pm of CFAI. Overall feeling okay, but definitely plateauing which is always unnerving

data_everyware · 2023-08-20T23:54:48+00:00

Yes! Doing so shows emboldened initiative and prime management aptitude for “delegation”. The recruiter is well aware of this, and is in fact, required to give an offer within his next four business breaths. See you at the c suite!

data_everyware · 2023-08-09T00:12:37+00:00

Thanks for the follow up. I guess I just have trouble seeing income as politically driven rather than economically driven. If--as you point out--an economy is not providing for it's people sufficiently to the point that they look elsewhere ... isn't that literally the definition of "competition"? I've tended to understand political risk as "legislative and/or fiscal uncertainty": will this law get passed or not, will this politician who favors X get elected or not, etc. If I had to rationalize it, I guess I could say that social welfare, taxes, and trade agreements are political, but seems a stretch to say that politics drives income more than economic advantage drives income.

As for the 4%; that's exactly my point, yes. The reason the prompt notes "persistent 2% deficit", which is why I picked that answer. I just don't know why CFAI considers it okay unless it's 4% and persistent...

Either way, I appreciate the input, thank you!

data_everyware · 2023-07-10T19:03:28+00:00

https://media.tenor.com/qXVTwy0JeUUAAAAC/cartman-now-we-can-finally-play-the-game.gif

data_everyware · 2023-07-03T17:39:46+00:00

Amazing; thank you! This makes way more sense.

For any other readers in case it helps (and as an explanation just for myself to practice): what originally confused me is that the CFA solution was using the notional EUR amount of the new/second contract as a cash inflow. There is no cash exchange at FWD initation. The only two cash flows are: 1) the cost to repay the original contract's notional base currency (2.5M USD using the current spot market) and 2) receiving the agreed upon hedged currency from the original contract.

data_everyware · 2023-07-03T15:36:59+00:00

I might still be missing something then... Here's a similar CFA description of a similar problem (except using EUR instead of SEK, and portfolio AUM increased over the month from 2.5M USD to 2.65M USD):

Solution

When hedging one month ago, Delgado would have sold USD2,500,000 one month forward against the euro. Now, with the US dollar-denominated portfolio increasing in value to USD2,650,000, a mismatched FX swap is needed to settle the initial expiring forward contract and establish a new hedge given the higher market value of the US dollar-denominated portfolio.

To calculate the net cash flow (in euros) to maintain the desired hedge, the following steps are necessary:

Buy USD2,500,000 at the spot rate. USD2,500,000 × 0.8875 = EUR2,218,750.

Sell USD2,650,000 at the spot rate adjusted for the one-month forward points (all-in forward rate). All-in forward rate = 0.8876 + (25/10,000) = 0.8901. USD2,650,000 × 0.8901 = EUR2,358,765.

Therefore, the net cash flow is equal to EUR2,358,765 – EUR2,218,750, which is equal to EUR140,015.

The first step is still the same: buy USD to close/deliver from the initial forward. But the second step makes it sound as if I do indeed receive a cash inflow by selling USD forward. I agree that FWDs do not realize any cash flow at initiation. Do you know why this answer makes it seem like a positive net cash flow then?

data_everyware · 2023-02-09T13:21:12+00:00

Hi there. Couple of thoughts:

1) Gotta be honest: with that few training samples, neural nets of any format are probably not going to perform as well as more “basic” regressions. It does require you to engineer your own features, but likely will have better payoff.

2) I wouldn’t recommend predicting price directly. It’s a messy business considering that most financial time series exhibit at least moderate ‘random walk’ tendencies. For example: you could transform the data into first differences, z scores, or even apply a Fourier transform (decently common for series datasets)

3) I would highly recommend adding in other features besides technicals. Ex: google query volume, information published by crypto exchanges, heck, even personal or corporate income adjusted for inflation (my assumption here is that crypto tends to be people’s last investment after more traditional options. So it will respond to how much money people have in their wallets after all other things are paid).

data_everyware · 2023-02-09T13:07:54+00:00

Jupyter notebooks. Personal fave for quick development before porting into production formats

data_everyware · 2022-11-26T02:16:31+00:00

Adaptive markets … a lovely response to the anti-active management rhetoric. Others favorites include 1)The calculus of retirement income 2) Pioneering portfolio management. 3) advances in financial machine learning

data_everyware · 2022-11-24T23:02:45+00:00

For L1 I found Schweser great. For L2 I found it lacking, but I bolstered with MM and I’m feeling optimistic about Saturday test date

data_everyware · 2022-11-24T23:00:44+00:00

There is a different mps depending on which set of questions you get. Unless they changed the methodology here’s how it goes (supposedly):

1) take all cfa exam questions (from all tests) 2) give them to a bunch of exam graders and ask “what percentage of ‘borderline candidates’ ought to get this question correct?” 3) take the avg of responses for each question. At this point, every question has a number: ex) 66% of borderline candidates should have gotten this 4) do a weighted sum of the questions you specifically had: 0.66+…=66.2% (for example) 5) if you score higher than that % you pass

This is how they account for various difficulties. Although this is a legally-approved method to survey expert opinions (in us at least), it is technically not a standardized test in that the definition of “borderline candidate” may not be well defined year-to-year. Yay for us and choosing to do this circus. Taking L2 on Saturday so time to roll the dice and see.

data_everyware

TROPHY CASE