Absolute Free CFA-Level-II Exam Practice for Comprehensive Preparation 

MediSoft Inc. develops and distributes high-tech medical software used in hospitals and clinics across the United States and Canada. The firm's software provides an integrated solution to monitoring, analyzing, and managing output from a variety of diagnostic medical equipment including MRls, CT scans, and EKG machines. MediSoft has grown rapidly since its inception ten years ago, averaging 25% growth in sales over the last decade. The company went public three years ago. Twelve months after their IPO, MediSoft made two semiannual coupon bond offerings, the first of which was a convertible bond. At the time of issuance, the convertible bond had a coupon rate of 7.25%, par value of $1,000, a conversion price of $55.56, and ten years until maturity. Two years after issuance, the bond became callable at 102% of par value. Soon after the issuance of the convertible bond, the company issued another series of bonds which were putable, but contained no conversion or call features. The putable bonds were issued with a coupon of 8.0%, par value of $1,000, and 15 years until maturity. One year after their issuance, the put feature of the putable bonds became active, allowing the bonds to be put at a price of 95% of par value, and increasing linearly over five years to 100% of par value. MediSoft's convertible bonds are now trading in the market for a price of $947 with an estimated straight value of $917. The company's putable bonds are trading at a price of $1,052. Volatility in the price of MediSoft's common stock has been relatively high over the last few months. Currently the stock is priced at $50 on the New York Stock Exchange and is expected to continue its annual dividend in the amount of $1.80 per share.

High-tech industry analysts for Brown & Associates, a money management firm specializing in fixed-income investments, have been closely following MediSoft ever since it went public three years ago. In general, portfolio managers at Brown & Associates do not participate in initial offerings of debt investments, preferring instead to see how the issue trades before considering taking a position in the issue. Since MediSoft's bonds have had ample time to trade in the marketplace, analysts and portfolio managers have taken an interest in the company's bonds. At a meeting to discuss the merits of MediSofVs bonds, the following comments were made by various portfolio managers and analysts at Brown & Associates:

'Choosing to invest in MediSoft's convertible bond would benefit our portfolios in many ways, but the primary benefit is the limited downside risk associated with the bond. Since the straight value will provide a floor for the value of the convertible bond, downside risk is limited to the difference between the market price of the bond and the straight value.'

'Decreasing volatility in the price of MediSoft's common stock as well as increasing volatility in the level of interest rates are expected in the near future. The combined effects of these changes in volatility will be a decrease in the price of MediSoft's putable bonds and an increase in the price of the convertible bonds. Therefore, only the convertible bonds would be a suitable purchase.'

Assuming that portfolio managers at Brown & Associates purchased the convertible bonds, how many years would it take to recover the premium per share?

O'Connor's annual dividend history is shown in Exhibit 1.

De Jong is also considering whether or not she should value O'Connor using a free cash flow model instead of the dividend discount model.

The output from the regression appears in Exhibit 2.
De Jong determines that employing the CAPM to estimate the required return on equity suffers from the following sources of error:
* Estimation of the model's inputs (e.g., the market risk premium). The company's dividend payment schedule.
* The accuracy of the beta estimate.
* Whether or not the model is the appropriate one to use.
De Jong observes that two reputable statistical analysis firms estimate betas for O'Connor stock at 0.85 and 1.10. She concludes that the differences between her beta estimate and the published estimates resulted from her use of standard errors in her regression to correct for serial correlation; the other firms did not make a similar adjustment.
De Jong considers using adjusted beta in her analysis. Typically, her company uses 1/3 for the value of .

She determines that her adjusted beta forecast will be closer to the mean reverting level using this value than it would be using a value of 1/3.
Is De Jong correct with respect to her conclusions regarding the causes of the differences between her beta estimate for O'Connor and the published beta estimates, and her strategy for adjusting her beta estimate to more quickly approach the mean reverting level of beta?

Lauren Jacobs, CFA, is an equity analyst for DF Investments. She is evaluating Iron Parts Inc. Iron Parts is a manufacturer of interior systems and components for automobiles. The company is the world's second largest original equipment auto parts supplier, with a market capitalization of $1.8 billion. Based on Iron Parts's low price-to-book value ratio of 0.9* and low price-to-sales ratio of 0.15x, Jacobs believes the stock could be an interesting investment. However, she wants to review the disclosures found in the company's financial footnotes. In particular, Jacobs is concerned about Iron Parts's defined benefit pension plan. The following information for 2007 and 2008 is provided.

Iron Parts has adopted SFAS No. 158, Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pensions and Other Postretirement Plans.
Jacobs wants to fully understand the impact of changing pension assumptions on Iron Parts's balance sheet and income statement. In addition, she would like to compute Iron Parts's economic pension expense.
Which of the following best describes the effect(s) of the change in Iron Part's expected return on the plan assets, all else equal?