CISI IM: Managing Client Portfolios

Topic snapshot

Sample questions

These questions are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

A UK defined-benefit scheme has a known GBP 20 million liability due in 8 years. Its matching portfolio is invested mainly in short-dated sterling corporate bonds with modified duration of 3.4 years, while the liability duration is 7.9 years. Trustees want to reduce the funding ratio’s sensitivity to interest-rate moves without adding equity or credit risk. Which action is the single best way to do this?

• A. Add global equities to improve expected return before the liability falls due
• B. Sell gilt futures to reduce the portfolio’s duration further
• C. Buy CDS protection on the corporate bond holdings
• D. Reposition into long-dated sterling gilts so asset value and duration match the liability

Best answer: D

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: This is a classic immunisation case. Because the liability amount and timing are known in sterling, the best way to reduce risk is to align the portfolio’s present value and duration with the liability using high-quality long-duration bonds.

Immunisation is appropriate when a portfolio is backing a defined, bond-like liability. Here, the liability is fixed in GBP and has a much longer duration than the current asset portfolio, so if yields fall, the liability value will rise more than the assets. The best response is to lengthen asset duration and match the present value of assets to the liability, typically using high-quality sterling gilts, so both sides move more closely together as interest rates change.

• Match the liability’s present value
• Match the liability’s duration
• Rebalance over time if durations drift

Selling gilt futures would move duration in the wrong direction, while equity or credit hedges target different risks. Immunisation is most effective when liability cash flows are known and less exact when liabilities are uncertain or yield-curve shifts are non-parallel.

• Lowering duration: selling gilt futures would reduce rate sensitivity further, worsening the existing duration mismatch.
• Chasing return: adding global equities may raise expected return, but it does not hedge a fixed sterling liability and adds market risk.
• Wrong risk: CDS protection addresses credit default risk on the bond holdings, not the main problem of interest-rate and duration mismatch.

Immunisation works here because a known sterling liability is best hedged by matching the assets’ present value and duration to it.

Question 2

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

An investment manager runs a sterling corporate bond portfolio. Based on the exhibit, what is the best supported action?

Exhibit:

• Benchmark: Sterling Corporate Index

• Mandate: Securities must be rated at least BBB- by both S&P and Fitch while held

• Duration tolerance: Portfolio must stay within +/-0.5 years of benchmark

• Current duration: Portfolio 4.7 years; benchmark 4.6 years

• Holding: Alpha plc 5.0% 2029, portfolio weight 3.8%

• Rating change: BBB- / BBB- to BB+ / BB+

• Index notice: Alpha plc 5.0% 2029 will be removed at month-end

• A. Wait until the next scheduled quarterly review

• B. Sell the Alpha bond promptly and rebalance the portfolio

• C. Increase the Alpha holding before it leaves the index

• D. Keep the bond because duration is still within tolerance

Best answer: B

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: The exhibit shows two clear triggers: the bond no longer satisfies the mandate’s minimum credit rating, and the benchmark provider has announced its removal. That means the manager should act promptly to rebalance rather than rely on the fact that portfolio duration is still within tolerance.

The key concept is that portfolio monitoring must capture non-price events that force action, not just routine valuation moves. Here, Alpha plc has been downgraded from BBB- / BBB- to BB+ / BB+, so it no longer meets the mandate requirement to remain at least BBB- by both agencies while held. In addition, the bond is due to leave the benchmark at month-end, which would create benchmark mismatch if it were retained.

The duration figures are a distraction: being 0.1 years away from the benchmark is compliant, but duration compliance does not override a credit-quality breach. In this case, the rating change and benchmark review both point to prompt rebalancing.

The closest trap is focusing only on duration and missing that mandate and benchmark events can be immediate triggers.

• Duration trap: Staying within the duration band does not permit holding a bond that now fails the minimum rating rule.
• Contrarian trap: Buying more after a downgrade may be a market view, but it conflicts with the stated mandate and upcoming index removal.
• Timing trap: Waiting for a routine review ignores two explicit monitoring triggers already shown in the exhibit.

The downgrade breaches the stated minimum rating, and the benchmark deletion creates an immediate rebalancing trigger.

Question 3

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

A portfolio manager must buy a large block of a FTSE 100 share for an institutional mandate. Displaying the full order on a traditional exchange is likely to move the price, but the client also wants timely completion. Which approach best applies the manager’s fiduciary duty when choosing between a traditional exchange and alternative trading platforms?

• A. Prioritise the traditional exchange solely for its pre-trade transparency.
• B. Compare lit and alternative venues on total execution outcome, using both if that improves price and completion.
• C. Prioritise dark venues solely to avoid displaying the order.
• D. Prioritise the venue with the lowest stated commission.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: The best answer applies the best-execution principle: the manager should assess total execution quality rather than defaulting to either a lit exchange or an alternative platform. Traditional exchanges offer transparency and price discovery, while alternative venues may reduce information leakage and market impact.

This is a best-execution and fiduciary-duty question. A traditional exchange can provide strong pre-trade transparency and support price discovery, but a large displayed order may move the market. Alternative trading platforms can reduce information leakage and sometimes improve execution for block trades, but they may offer less displayed liquidity. The manager should therefore compare venues on the total client outcome, including execution price, implicit market-impact cost, likelihood of completion and speed, and may use both types of venue if that produces the best overall result.

The key point is that no single venue characteristic, such as transparency, darkness or explicit commission, is sufficient on its own.

• Transparency only: Pre-trade transparency is valuable, but using only a lit exchange can worsen market impact for a large order.
• Lowest commission: Best execution is not determined by explicit fees alone; implicit costs can be much larger.
• Dark only: Avoiding displayed quotes may reduce information leakage, but dark venues do not automatically provide the best fill or timely completion.

Best execution is about the client’s overall result, so venue choice should consider price, market impact, fill quality and speed, not just one venue characteristic.

Question 4

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

A UK portfolio manager plans a same-day rebalance from a UK ETF into Tokyo-listed shares. Review the dealing note.

Sell: UK ETF, £4.0m
GBP cash available: Monday, 09:00 London
Buy: Tokyo-listed shares, ¥780m
JPY funding required: Friday, 10:00 Tokyo
Treasury: no overdraft or standing FX credit line

What is the best supported interpretation?

• A. Mainly short-term GBP/JPY market risk
• B. Mainly benchmark mismatch from overseas exposure
• C. Failed settlement risk from JPY funding timing mismatch
• D. Low settlement risk because GBP cash arrives first

Best answer: C

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: The exhibit shows a cash-timing and settlement problem. JPY is needed on Friday morning in Tokyo, but the GBP sale proceeds do not arrive until Monday in London, and there is no credit line to bridge the gap. That makes operational funding risk the main issue.

This is an international dealing operational-risk question, not primarily a market-risk one. The decisive facts are the local funding deadline, time-zone difference and absence of a credit facility. The portfolio manager may intend a simple switch, but the Tokyo purchase requires JPY before the UK sale generates usable GBP cash.

• JPY funding is due Friday, 10:00 Tokyo
• GBP sale cash is only available Monday, 09:00 London
• No overdraft or standing FX credit line exists

That creates a real risk of failed settlement, trade delay or the need to prefund in advance. Currency volatility could still matter, but it is secondary to the immediate operational problem of meeting the overseas settlement obligation.

• FX focus: Currency risk may exist, but the exhibit specifically highlights a funding deadline mismatch, which is an operational settlement issue.
• Benchmark focus: Benchmark mismatch affects performance measurement and mandate fit, not whether the Tokyo trade can settle on time.
• Misread timing: The GBP sale proceeds arrive after the JPY funding deadline, not before it, so settlement risk is not low.

JPY must be delivered before the GBP sale proceeds are available, so the key risk is operational settlement funding rather than market movement.

Question 5

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

Which concept refers to the scheduled reassessment of a benchmark’s constituents and weights, potentially creating a rebalancing need for passive portfolios?

• A. Performance attribution
• B. Benchmark review
• C. Duration matching
• D. Stewardship review

Best answer: B

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: A benchmark review is the periodic reassessment of a benchmark’s eligible securities and weightings. If those weights or constituents change, a passive manager may need to trade to keep the portfolio closely aligned and limit tracking error.

The core concept is a benchmark review. This is the formal reassessment of which securities belong in a benchmark and how much weight each should carry under the index rules. If the benchmark is updated, a passive or tightly benchmarked portfolio may need rebalancing even when the manager’s market view has not changed.

Benchmark changes may result from index-rule updates, free-float adjustments, eligibility screens, or corporate actions affecting benchmark composition. The key point is that the benchmark itself has changed, so the portfolio must be checked and possibly adjusted to remain consistent with its mandate. That is different from analysis or oversight activities that review performance or engagement but do not themselves alter benchmark weights.

• Stewardship review relates to ownership, voting, and engagement activity, not to changing benchmark constituents.
• Performance attribution explains where returns came from after the event; it does not itself trigger benchmark-alignment trades.
• Duration matching is a bond risk-control technique for interest-rate sensitivity, not a scheduled benchmark constituent review.

A benchmark review can change benchmark membership or weights, so a passive portfolio may need to rebalance to stay aligned.

Question 6

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

Which statement about mandatory and voluntary investment restrictions in a portfolio mandate is correct?

• A. If the strategic asset allocation is unchanged, investment restrictions should not materially alter diversification or tracking error.
• B. Voluntary restrictions may change initial holdings, but they do not usually affect later rebalancing, stewardship or performance review.
• C. Mandatory restrictions reflect client preference, while voluntary restrictions arise from regulation; both mainly affect reporting rather than portfolio construction.
• D. Mandatory restrictions arise from binding rules, while voluntary restrictions reflect client choice; both can alter the investable universe, benchmark suitability and monitoring.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: Mandatory restrictions are binding constraints, typically from law, regulation or other formal rules, while voluntary restrictions come from the client’s stated preferences. Either type can materially narrow the investable universe, affecting benchmark fit, diversification, tracking error and ongoing portfolio management.

The core concept is that any binding restriction in a mandate changes what the manager may buy, hold or continue to hold. Mandatory restrictions come from external or formal rules; voluntary restrictions come from the client, such as ethical exclusions or instrument limits. In both cases, the manager may need to revise the eligible universe, reconsider whether the benchmark remains appropriate, and monitor compliance during rebalancing and ongoing management. Restrictions can also change sector exposures, concentration, diversification and expected tracking error. So the effect is not merely administrative: restrictions can materially alter both initial portfolio construction and the day-to-day decisions needed to keep the mandate compliant and suitable.

• Source confusion: Reversing mandatory and voluntary restrictions gets the distinction wrong; regulation is not voluntary, and client preference is not mandatory.
• Too narrow: Saying voluntary restrictions matter only at inception ignores their impact on rebalancing, stewardship and ongoing compliance checks.
• Risk misconception: Keeping the same strategic asset allocation does not guarantee the same diversification or tracking error once eligible securities are excluded.

Both types of restriction constrain what can be held, so they can affect portfolio construction, benchmark choice and ongoing compliance.

Question 7

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

Which statement best reflects a key transaction-cost analysis distinction between on-exchange and over-the-counter execution?

• A. On-exchange execution usually offers more transparent pricing, while OTC costs are often embedded in dealer spreads.
• B. OTC execution usually gives the clearest central order book for measuring market impact.
• C. OTC transaction-cost analysis should exclude the bid-offer spread and focus on commission only.
• D. On-exchange execution removes implicit costs because commission is disclosed separately.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: Transaction-cost analysis considers both explicit and implicit costs. On-exchange trading usually has stronger price transparency through visible quotes and reported trades, while OTC execution is more bilateral and often embeds costs in the dealer spread.

The core concept is that transaction-cost analysis measures the full cost of execution, not just visible charges. On-exchange execution typically benefits from a transparent order book and published trade data, making it easier to compare the execution price with benchmarks such as arrival price or VWAP. OTC execution is negotiated directly with a dealer or counterparty, so price formation is usually less transparent and more of the cost may be embedded in the quoted price and bid-offer spread.

This does not mean exchange trades have no implicit cost, or that OTC trades cannot be analysed. It means the evidence and benchmarks available for assessing execution quality usually differ by venue. The key takeaway is that transparency is generally higher on-exchange, while OTC costs are more often inferred from quotes and spreads.

• Central order book confusion: OTC markets are typically bilateral dealer markets, not the venue with the clearest central order book.
• Implicit cost confusion: Visible commission does not eliminate spread, market impact, or timing costs in on-exchange trading.
• Spread omission: The bid-offer spread is a core transaction cost and should not be excluded from OTC analysis.

Exchange trading is typically more transparent, whereas OTC pricing is negotiated and often embeds costs within the dealer’s quoted spread.

Question 8

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

A manager runs a balanced portfolio against a 60% global equity / 40% gilt benchmark. The portfolio is 75% equities, 20% gilts and 5% in a property ETF whose returns have low correlation with equities. Over the last 12 months, the portfolio produced +1.0% alpha and has a beta of 1.15 to the benchmark. Which statement is the best way to describe the portfolio’s risk to the client?

• A. Beta of 1.15 means the portfolio should return 15% more than the benchmark.
• B. Positive alpha means the portfolio is lower risk than the benchmark.
• C. The low-correlation property ETF makes the overall portfolio lower risk than the benchmark.
• D. Alpha is positive, but beta and asset allocation show higher relative risk; low correlation only partly offsets it.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: Alpha measures risk-adjusted excess return, not whether a portfolio is safer. Here, the higher equity weight versus the benchmark and beta above 1 indicate higher benchmark-relative risk, while the low-correlation property ETF may diversify but does not remove that risk.

The key point is to separate performance from risk exposure. A positive alpha suggests the manager added value after adjusting for risk, but it does not mean the portfolio has less risk than its benchmark. Relative risk is higher because the portfolio holds more equities than the 60/40 benchmark and has a beta of 1.15, so it is more sensitive to benchmark movements. Correlation helps explain total portfolio behaviour: the property ETF may reduce overall volatility because it is not closely correlated with equities, but its effect depends on its size within the portfolio. With only 5% in property and a clear equity overweight, the best communication is that relative risk remains above benchmark, even if diversification provides some moderation.

• Alpha confusion: Positive alpha reflects manager skill or value added after risk adjustment, not a lower-risk portfolio.
• Beta misuse: A beta of 1.15 signals greater sensitivity to benchmark moves, not a fixed 15% excess return.
• Diversification overclaim: A low-correlation holding can help reduce volatility, but it cannot by itself guarantee lower overall risk.
• Asset-allocation effect: Moving from a 60/40 benchmark to a 75/20/5 mix increases benchmark-relative risk because of the larger equity exposure.

Positive alpha indicates value added, but the equity overweight and beta above 1 show higher benchmark-relative risk, while low correlation offers only partial diversification.

Question 9

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

A discretionary manager is implementing a £2 million client mandate. The investment policy states: passive UK equity exposure, benchmarked to the FTSE All-Share, minimise expected cost, and daily liquidity; the expected holding period is at least 3 years.

What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Recommend the house tracker because it matches the benchmark and is on the approved list.
• B. Recommend the external ETF and document the conflict and rationale.
• C. Offer only the two house funds because the firm’s incentives are an internal matter.
• D. Recommend the house active fund because possible outperformance could offset its higher fee.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: The client wants passive FTSE All-Share exposure with the lowest expected cost over at least 3 years. The external ETF matches the mandate and has the lowest estimated total cost, so selecting an in-house product because it pays the firm more would conflict with the duty owed to the client.

The key issue is fiduciary duty where firm incentives are not aligned with the client’s best interests. When more than one product can deliver the required exposure, the manager should choose the option that best fits the mandate after considering suitability and expected implementation cost, not the one that creates extra revenue for the firm. Here, the external ETF provides passive FTSE All-Share exposure, daily liquidity and the lowest estimated 3-year cost. The house tracker matches the benchmark but is materially more expensive and creates a revenue-share and sales-credit conflict. The house active fund is even less suitable because the mandate explicitly requires a passive approach. The proper action is therefore to recommend the ETF and keep a clear record of how the conflict was identified and managed.

• Approved-list trap: Being on an approved list does not justify choosing a materially higher-cost in-house tracker when a cheaper suitable option exists.
• Outperformance trap: Possible future outperformance is speculative and does not override an explicit passive mandate.
• Internal-matter trap: Incentives paid to the firm are not merely internal; they create a conflict that must not drive the client recommendation.

It best meets the passive, low-cost mandate, and the in-house incentives should be managed and documented rather than influencing product selection.

Question 10

Topic: Managing Client Portfolios

In a simple regression of Asset A’s monthly returns on Asset B’s monthly returns, what does the slope coefficient measure?

• A. Asset A’s sensitivity to changes in Asset B’s return
• B. The proportion of Asset A’s variance explained by Asset B
• C. The strength of linear association bounded by -1 and +1
• D. Asset A’s return when Asset B’s return is zero

Best answer: A

What this tests: Managing Client Portfolios

Explanation: In return regression, the slope coefficient is the sensitivity measure: it estimates how much Asset A tends to move when Asset B moves by one unit. In portfolio monitoring, this is the same practical idea as beta when returns are regressed on a benchmark.

The core concept is the regression slope. When Asset A’s returns are regressed on Asset B’s returns, the slope measures the expected change in Asset A for a one-unit change in Asset B, so it captures relative responsiveness. In portfolio management, this is often interpreted as beta when a portfolio or fund is regressed against a benchmark.

By contrast, the proportion of variation explained by the regression is R^2, the intercept is the return estimated when Asset B’s return is zero, and correlation is a standardised measure of linear association between -1 and +1. The key distinction is that the slope measures response magnitude, not just fit or association.

• The proportion of variance explained refers to R^2, which shows fit, not sensitivity.
• The return when Asset B is zero is the intercept, often called alpha in benchmark regression.
• The bounded measure between -1 and +1 is correlation, which shows association strength rather than how much one asset moves relative to the other.

The slope coefficient shows the expected change in Asset A’s return for a one-unit change in Asset B’s return.

Continue with full practice

Use the CISI IM Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, and explanations.

Related focused pages

• Free CISI IM Full-Length Practice Exam
• CISI IM: The Investment Management Industry
• CISI IM: Valuation
• CISI IM: Securities Valuation
• CISI IM: Collectives and Other Investments
• CISI IM: Data Analysis

Free review resource

Use the full Securities Prep practice page above for the latest review links and practice route.