1) Ques_2, I had added under advantages the additional point that going for a future whilst not cancelling the forward means if prices rise again, the forward will pay-off hence the net payoff is hedged. I thought this was an important comment, but neither ASET nor the examiners' report had it. I thought the question was about closing the forward versus keeping it whilst selling futures and general 'futures vs forwards' comparisons should have been secondary even though equally worth mentioning. 2) Ques_5(i) asks to Suprisingly the examiners' solution focuses on metrics used to measure the exposre and less on those used to monitor it. I had the following additional points and would appreciate comments;- Monitor maximum counterparty to governments to ensure it is less than say 30% Monitor maximum sovereign exposure to the local government to ensure it is less than say 2/3 Compile a counterparty report regulalrly monitoring the metrics above 3) Ques_8(ii) of suggesting a Copula, the examiners recommended a Clayton copula but then went on to say Following this ASET recommended a Gumbel and so did i? Don't know if this meant i was going to get some credit. 4) Ques_7 (v) I had an additional advantage being that the model reduces parameter uncertainty since the parameters are based on simulations. For the disadvantages shown in the examiners' report I don't understand what the following comment means;-
