首页 | 学习中心 | 注册 登录
返回列表 发帖
segalm

Rank: 2

UID
223365 
帖子
266 
主题
42 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-8-7 
1# 跳转到 » 倒序看帖
打印
tT
发表于 2011-7-11 19:28 | 只看该作者

shorter PAC tranche, more protection

protection, question, shorter
it says in the CFAI book, volume 5, p. 398, the degree of protection against contraction risk increases the shorter the pac tranche.

i'm a little confused here, first of all it says that the pac B tranche has a par amount of 8 mio and then in the test it mentionts 93 mio. what is the par amount or why they add 85+ 8? because for trance C they don't do that.

sorry, im a little confused here. the question at the end is, why does the shorter PAC tranche have more protection. and what is defined as shoerter?
Is PAC A tranche shorter than PAC-B tranche? does it also depend on the par amount?
thanks
收藏 分享

maryli

Rank: 2

UID
217999 
帖子
298 
主题
148 
注册时间
2011-5-25 
最后登录
2012-9-12 
2#
发表于 2011-7-11 19:28 | 只看该作者
shorter vs. longer is based on the Avg life of the tranche.

shorter PAC Tranche - gets regular principal payments - as scheduled. Any "unscheduled" payments/prepayments are directed to the Support tranches. There is thus prepayment protection for the shorter tranche, it is not likely to expand (payments do not come in on time) or contract (payments come in too early). Given the size of support tranches, it is more than likely to be protected.

CP

TOP

brainsX

Rank: 2

UID
223405 
帖子
284 
主题
9 
注册时间
2011-7-11 
最后登录
2014-7-31 
3#
发表于 2011-7-11 19:28 | 只看该作者
if you have a tranche that finishes in a year, and one that finishes in 2 years, the 2 year tranche is a bit riskier as you may be fairly certain that prepayments will stay within the collar for the front year but the next year is more uncertain.

also the more time there is left on the tranche the more likely high prepayments will break the tranche

TOP

chaojimali

UID
217986 
帖子
344 
主题
185 
注册时间
2011-5-25 
最后登录
2012-9-12 
4#
发表于 2011-7-11 19:28 | 只看该作者
Just as a quick follow up to this question-the wider the collar on the PAC tranche, this would imply relatively more stable payments and greater protection from prepayment?

TOP

返回列表