Free · Updated Daily

CFA Exam Question of the Day

Sharpen your prep with a fresh set of CFA® questions, updated daily.

14 September 2026

Subject: Ethics and Professional StandardsProxy Voting Policy Application

Vignette

Heather Russell, a Level II CFA candidate and portfolio manager at Apex Global Investments, manages a large-cap equity fund for institutional clients. She is reviewing a proxy ballot for TechGrowth Corp, a significant holding. The board recommends voting against a shareholder proposal to split the CEO and Chair roles, arguing it would incur 15 basis points (bps) of additional administrative cost. However, independent governance research suggests splitting the roles could improve long-term shareholder value by mitigating oversight risk, potentially boosting the stock's long-term performance by an estimated 50-75 bps.

Question

Given Apex Global's fiduciary duty to its clients and the CFA Institute Code of Ethics, Heather's most appropriate action regarding the TechGrowth Corp proxy vote is to:

Select an Answer

Abstain from voting to avoid potential conflicts of interest, given the differing recommendations and uncertain long-term benefits.
Consult with TechGrowth Corp's management to better understand their rationale, before making a final decision in line with Apex Global's internal policy.
Vote with the board's recommendation to avoid the immediate 15 bps administrative cost, prioritizing short-term fund performance metrics.
Vote for the shareholder proposal, determining that the potential long-term value creation for clients outweighs the immediate, quantifiable administrative cost.

Rationale:
A portfolio manager's primary duty is to act with loyalty, prudence, and care in the best long-term interests of their clients. This fiduciary responsibility extends to proxy voting, where votes are considered client assets that must be exercised to maximize client wealth. In this situation, the independent governance research indicates a significant potential for long-term shareholder value creation (50-75 bps) by splitting the CEO and Chair roles, which substantially outweighs the immediate, quantifiable administrative cost (15 bps) cited by the board. Fulfilling fiduciary duty requires evaluating all available information and making a decision that prioritizes the client's long-term financial interests. Voting with the board's recommendation, prioritizing short-term fund performance metrics, would violate the manager's fiduciary duty by prioritizing immediate cost avoidance over the potential for substantial long-term value creation for clients. Blindly following management's recommendation without independent assessment is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty and prudence. Abstaining from voting would be a dereliction of fiduciary duty. Proxy votes are valuable assets belonging to clients, and a manager has an obligation to exercise these rights in a manner consistent with the clients' best interests, not to avoid making a decision. Consulting with TechGrowth Corp's management to better understand their rationale, while generally a good practice for due diligence, is not the most appropriate action here. The vignette already provides sufficient information, including the board's rationale and independent research highlighting the long-term benefits. Further consultation with management, who have a vested interest in their recommendation, would likely not provide new, unbiased information that alters the ethical imperative to prioritize clients' long-term interests based on the information already presented. The manager has enough information to make a decision consistent with their fiduciary duty.

13 September 2026

Subject: Portfolio ManagementBacktesting and Simulation

Vignette

Paisley Ellison, a junior quantitative analyst at 'Apex Capital Management', is presenting the backtest results for a new high-frequency trading strategy to her portfolio manager, Mr. Thorne. The strategy shows an impressive Sharpe Ratio of 1.85 over the full 7-year historical period. However, Paisley’s internal analysis reveals that the strategy's performance significantly deteriorated, with a Sharpe Ratio of only 0.95, during the most recent 18 months due to increased market fragmentation and liquidity shifts, a fact she attributes to a structural regime shift. Mr. Thorne, keen to secure additional client mandates, suggests presenting only the first 5.5 years of the backtest, arguing that the recent period is 'anomalous' and not representative of the strategy's true potential.

Question

Considering Mr. Thorne's suggestion and the CFA Institute Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct, what is the most appropriate action for Paisley Ellison to take regarding the backtest presentation for Level II candidates?

Select an Answer

Refuse to present any backtest results until the model is re-optimized to specifically address the recent market conditions, thereby delaying the client presentation.
Insist on presenting the full 7-year backtest results, clearly highlighting the regime shift and its impact on recent performance, and provide a reasoned explanation for why the recent period may or may not be representative of future expectations.
Present the 5.5-year backtest as requested, but include a brief footnote acknowledging the existence of more recent data and its lower performance, without explicitly detailing the regime shift or its implications.
Present only the 5.5-year backtest as suggested by Mr. Thorne, focusing on the impressive historical Sharpe Ratio, and verbally explain the recent underperformance to Mr. Thorne in private.

Rationale:
The most appropriate action is to present the full 7-year backtest with complete transparency regarding the regime shift and its impact. This adheres strictly to CFA Institute Standard I(C) Misrepresentation and Standard V(A) Diligence and Reasonable Basis. Members must not knowingly make any misrepresentations relating to investment analysis and must have a reasonable and adequate basis for their analysis. Omitting or selectively presenting data, even with the belief that a period is 'anomalous', constitutes a misrepresentation if it is material to the client's understanding of the strategy's true performance and risks, especially when a structural regime shift has been identified. Full disclosure allows clients to make informed decisions. Presenting the 5.5-year backtest with a brief footnote, while acknowledging recent data, still represents a selective presentation that does not fully convey the material information regarding the strategy's recent deterioration and the identified regime shift. It falls short of the full transparency required by the Standards. Refusing to present any results until re-optimization, while demonstrating diligence, is not the most appropriate immediate action for existing analysis. Paisley's ethical duty is to accurately report the *current* backtest findings, including its limitations and recent performance degradation. Delaying the presentation entirely avoids this duty and may not be necessary if the issue is presentation, not the underlying model's validity for certain market conditions. Presenting only the 5.5-year backtest and privately discussing the underperformance with Mr. Thorne is a clear violation of Standard I(C) Misrepresentation and Standard III(A) Loyalty, Prudence, and Care to clients. The client is not receiving a complete and fair representation of the strategy's performance, which prioritizes the firm's interests (securing mandates) over the client's right to full information.

12 September 2026

Subject: Current Issues in Financial MarketsCentral Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)

Question

A global systemically important bank (G-SIB) is conducting a forward-looking stress test on its liquidity profile in anticipation of a widely adopted retail Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). The CBDC is structured as a direct central bank liability, offering a secure, low-yield alternative to commercial bank deposits. The bank's current liquidity position shows: * Total retail deposits: $900 billion (split as $700 billion stable, insured operational; $200 billion less stable, uninsured non-operational). * Current High-Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA): $300 billion. * Current Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR): 115%. * Current Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR): 130%. The bank's internal models project that a significant portion of its retail funding base will migrate to the CBDC within a 30-day stress period: 10% of stable operational deposits and 20% of less stable non-operational deposits. To replace this lost funding, the bank plans to increase its reliance on short-term wholesale funding from other financial institutions. Under current regulatory standards (Basel III), stable operational retail deposits have a 5% LCR run-off rate and a 95% NSFR Available Stable Funding (ASF) factor. Less stable non-operational retail deposits have a 10% LCR run-off rate and a 90% NSFR ASF factor. Short-term (less than 1 year) wholesale funding from financial institutions is subject to a 100% LCR run-off rate and a 0% NSFR ASF factor. Assume all other balance sheet items and their associated Required Stable Funding (RSF) factors remain constant. As the Lead Risk Officer, you need to determine the most significant immediate quantitative impact on the bank's regulatory liquidity ratios from this projected CBDC-induced shift in funding structure.

Select an Answer

A significant decline in the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) by approximately 25.0 percentage points, primarily due to the complete loss of ASF from replacing retail deposits with zero-ASF short-term wholesale funding.
A substantial increase in the bank's overall capital requirements (Pillar 1 RWA) by over 15%, driven by the higher risk-weights assigned to new wholesale funding liabilities.
A negligible change in the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) as the reduced outflow from lost retail deposits is largely offset by a commensurate increase in HQLA from the central bank's CBDC operations.
A decline in the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) by approximately 40.0 percentage points due to a substantial increase in net cash outflows.

Rationale:
The most significant immediate quantitative impact in this scenario is on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). First, calculate the projected deposit outflows: Stable operational deposits outflow = $700 billion * 10% = $70 billion. Less stable non-operational deposits outflow = $200 billion * 20% = $40 billion. The total deposit outflow, which needs to be replaced by new funding, is $70 billion + $40 billion = $110 billion. Next, determine the impact on LCR's Net Cash Outflows (NCO). The bank's original NCO can be calculated as HQLA / Original LCR = $300 billion / 1.30 = $230.769 billion. The change in NCO results from two factors: a reduction in outflows from lost retail deposits and a substantial increase in outflows from the new wholesale funding. Reduction in outflows from lost retail deposits: ($70 billion * 5% run-off) + ($40 billion * 10% run-off) = $3.5 billion + $4.0 billion = $7.5 billion. Increase in outflows from new wholesale funding: The $110 billion needed to replace lost deposits, when sourced from short-term wholesale funding from financial institutions, is subject to a 100% LCR run-off rate. Thus, it adds $110 billion * 100% = $110 billion to outflows. Net change in NCO = $110 billion (increase from new funding) - $7.5 billion (decrease from lost deposits) = $102.5 billion increase. New NCO = Original NCO + Net change in NCO = $230.769 billion + $102.5 billion = $333.269 billion. New LCR = HQLA / New NCO = $300 billion / $333.269 billion = 0.90016 or approximately 90.0%. Therefore, the LCR declines from 130% to approximately 90.0%, a drop of about 40.0 percentage points. The option suggesting a significant decline in NSFR by approximately 25.0 percentage points is incorrect. While the NSFR will indeed decline due to the loss of high-ASF retail deposits (a total of $102.5 billion in ASF lost) being replaced by zero-ASF wholesale funding, the precise percentage point decline cannot be determined with the information provided (lacking original absolute ASF/RSF values). Even with reasonable assumptions for RSF, the percentage point impact on NSFR is typically less severe than the LCR impact in such a scenario, making 25% an overestimation for a distractor. The option suggesting a negligible change in LCR due to an increase in HQLA is incorrect. CBDC adoption drains deposits, which are liabilities, from commercial banks. This does not directly result in an increase in HQLA for the commercial bank; rather, it typically necessitates the bank to either draw down HQLA or seek alternative, often more expensive, funding sources. The option mentioning a substantial increase in capital requirements is incorrect because while significant shifts in funding structure can have indirect impacts on capital (e.g., through profitability or if new funding sources lead to higher operational risk), the immediate quantitative impact described in the scenario is focused on liquidity ratios (LCR and NSFR), not directly on Pillar 1 Risk-Weighted Assets (RWA) requirements. Wholesale funding liabilities generally do not carry higher risk weights in the same way assets do for capital calculations.

11 September 2026

Subject: Market Risk Measurement and ManagementThe Evolution of Short Rates and the Shape of the Term Structure

Question

A large investment bank's Market Risk department is analyzing the yield curve in light of recent macroeconomic developments. The central bank has emphatically communicated a commitment to maintaining its benchmark policy rate at the current 0.25% for at least the next 18 months to support economic recovery. Concurrently, market surveys and inflation-linked bond breakeven rates indicate a significant and sustained increase in long-term inflation expectations, pushing average expected inflation over the next 5-10 years to 3.0%. Considering these conflicting signals – credible short-term policy rate anchoring versus elevated long-term inflation expectations – what is the most likely immediate impact on the implied forward rates beyond the 18-month horizon, and how should a risk manager interpret this for managing interest rate exposure?

Select an Answer

The implied forward rates will remain largely stable across all maturities, as the central bank's firm commitment to the current policy rate overrides market inflation expectations, signaling a belief that inflation will be transitory. This implies minimal immediate changes to interest rate risk.
The forward curve beyond 18 months will show significantly higher implied short rates, reflecting elevated liquidity premiums and market expectations of eventual policy tightening to combat inflation, leading to a steeper yield curve. A risk manager should anticipate increasing duration risk for long-term fixed-income portfolios.
The yield curve will invert, with long-term rates falling below short-term rates, as investors flock to long-duration assets to lock in current yields before future inflation erodes returns. This suggests a reduced duration risk for longer-term bonds.
The entire forward curve will flatten as market participants believe the central bank will fail to control long-term inflation, leading to a general repricing of all future short rates upwards, compressing the spread between short and long maturities.

Rationale:
The correct interpretation involves understanding how central bank credibility interacts with market expectations and term structure theories. The central bank's credible forward guidance effectively anchors the very short end of the yield curve, keeping current and near-term forward rates (up to 18 months) low. However, rising long-term inflation expectations mean that beyond this 18-month horizon, market participants anticipate that the central bank will eventually need to raise policy rates significantly to combat inflation. This expectation of higher future short rates, combined with a liquidity premium demanded for longer maturities, will cause the long end of the yield curve to rise more steeply than the short end, resulting in a significantly steeper yield curve. For a risk manager, a steeper yield curve, particularly driven by higher long-term rates, implies increasing duration risk for long-term fixed-income portfolios, as these assets will be more sensitive to the anticipated rise in longer-term interest rates. The option suggesting the entire forward curve will flatten misinterprets the interaction. While long-term inflation expectations would push all rates up, the explicit central bank anchoring of the short end means the curve will steepen, not flatten, as the long end rises more significantly. The option stating that implied forward rates will remain stable across all maturities incorrectly assumes that central bank credibility for the short-term policy rate automatically negates long-term market inflation expectations. Market participants will differentiate between current policy and future expectations beyond the guidance horizon. The option proposing an inverted yield curve is incorrect. An inverted curve typically signals expectations of future economic slowdowns and falling interest rates, which directly contradicts the scenario of rising long-term inflation expectations that would demand higher, not lower, long-term yields. Also, investors flocking to long-duration assets would typically *lower* yields, not increase them, and an inverted curve would imply lower expected future rates, not higher ones driven by inflation.

10 September 2026

Subject: Liquidity and Treasury Risk Measurement and ManagementLiquidity Risk Measurement

Question

GlobalConnect Bank, a large international institution, is preparing its quarterly LCR report. The Chief Risk Officer has tasked the Liquidity Risk Manager with a rigorous review of certain complex items that could significantly impact the bank's liquidity profile under stress. The following information is relevant for the 30-day LCR horizon: **Assets:** * Unencumbered Level 1 HQLA (excluding items below): $500 million * Level 1 HQLA (sovereign bonds) pledged as initial margin for a centrally cleared derivative portfolio: $100 million. This margin is segregated at a third-party custodian and can be accessed by GlobalConnect Bank if the counterparty defaults, but GlobalConnect Bank cannot withdraw it for other general liquidity needs while the derivative position is open. * Level 2A HQLA (corporate bonds, 50% haircut): $200 million, all unencumbered. * Interbank deposits maturing in 15 days, from a highly-rated institution: $50 million **Liabilities/Outflows:** * Operational deposits from non-financial corporate clients: $400 million (LCR outflow rate: 25%) * Non-operational deposits from non-financial corporate clients: $300 million (LCR outflow rate: 40%) * Unsecured wholesale funding maturing in 20 days: $150 million (LCR outflow rate: 100%) * Net aggregate derivative liabilities (MTM negative) requiring no additional collateral under current market conditions: $75 million (LCR outflow rate: 5% of negative MTM) * Undrawn committed credit facilities totaling $200 million to non-financial corporate clients. These clients also hold $50 million of the non-operational deposits mentioned above. The LCR outflow rate for these undrawn facilities is 10%. As the Lead Risk Manager, what is GlobalConnect Bank's Adjusted Available HQLA and Total Net Cash Outflows for the LCR calculation, based on these items?

Select an Answer

Adjusted Available HQLA: $600 million; Total Net Cash Outflows: $323.75 million
Adjusted Available HQLA: $600 million; Total Net Cash Outflows: $343.75 million
Adjusted Available HQLA: $700 million; Total Net Cash Outflows: $343.75 million
Adjusted Available HQLA: $700 million; Total Net Cash Outflows: $323.75 million

Rationale:
To correctly determine GlobalConnect Bank's LCR components, two key calculations must be performed: Adjusted Available HQLA and Total Net Cash Outflows. **Adjusted Available HQLA Calculation:** 1. **Unencumbered Level 1 HQLA:** $500 million. 2. **Pledged Level 1 HQLA (initial margin):** $100 million. Although this is Level 1 HQLA and segregated, it is *pledged* as collateral and therefore *encumbered*. Encumbered assets do not qualify as available HQLA for LCR purposes, as they cannot be freely used for general liquidity needs within the 30-day horizon. Thus, this $100 million is excluded. 3. **Level 2A HQLA:** $200 million. After a 50% haircut, this contributes $200 million * (1 - 0.50) = $100 million. 4. **L2 Cap Check:** The total Level 1 HQLA is $500 million. The total Level 2A HQLA (after haircut) is $100 million. The preliminary total HQLA is $500 + $100 = $600 million. The Level 2 HQLA cap is 40% of total HQLA, which is 0.40 * $600 million = $240 million. Since the actual Level 2A HQLA of $100 million is less than the $240 million cap, no further adjustment is needed. 5. **Interbank deposits maturing in 15 days:** These are cash inflows, not HQLA. They are excluded from the HQLA calculation. **Total Adjusted Available HQLA = $500 million + $100 million = $600 million.** **Total Net Cash Outflows Calculation:** 1. **Operational deposits:** $400 million * 0.25 = $100 million. 2. **Non-operational deposits:** $300 million * 0.40 = $120 million. 3. **Unsecured wholesale funding:** $150 million * 1.00 = $150 million. 4. **Net derivative liabilities:** $75 million * 0.05 = $3.75 million. 5. **Undrawn committed credit facilities:** $200 million * 0.10 = $20 million. This is a separate outflow and not related to the classification of the non-operational deposits, even if held by the same clients. **Gross Cash Outflows = $100 + $120 + $150 + $3.75 + $20 = $393.75 million.** 6. **Cash Inflows (Interbank deposits):** $50 million. 7. **Inflow Cap:** Cash inflows are capped at 75% of gross cash outflows. The cap is 0.75 * $393.75 million = $295.3125 million. Since the actual inflows of $50 million are less than the cap, the full $50 million is used. **Total Net Cash Outflows = Gross Cash Outflows - Capped Inflows = $393.75 million - $50 million = $343.75 million.** The option including pledged Level 1 HQLA in available HQLA is incorrect because it mistakenly includes the $100 million of Level 1 HQLA pledged as initial margin. Pledged assets are encumbered and do not count towards available HQLA for LCR purposes. The option ignoring undrawn committed credit facilities is incorrect because it fails to include the $20 million outflow from these facilities in the total gross outflows. These facilities represent a potential future call on liquidity and must be included in the outflow calculation. The option reflecting both errors is incorrect as it combines both the error of including pledged HQLA and the error of omitting the outflow from undrawn committed credit facilities.