This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 14 November 2025, the same 30 questions the app served that day, on the day's vocabulary and editorial. One mark for a right answer, minus 0.25 for a wrong one; the explanation opens as soon as you tap.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Ratify
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Codify
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Redress
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Adjudicate
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Arbitrate
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Levy
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Devolve
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Expedite
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Remedy or set right (an undesirable or unfair situation); compensate for a wrong.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Make an action or process happen sooner or be accomplished more quickly.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
The quality of being open, honest, and easy to understand; free from secrecy.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
They ____ me on my birthday every year.
Explanation: 'Every year' gives a continuous tense to the statement and therefore adjectives positive degree should be used which is 'wish'.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
Kangaroos, ____ use their pouch to carry their babies, are found in Australia.
Explanation: Solution: <br> The correct answer is Option D: which. <br> First, let's define the relative pronouns in the options. <br> Whom: A relative pronoun used for referring to people as the *object* of a verb or preposition. <br> Whose: A relative pronoun showing possession (belonging to someone or something). <br> Who: A relative pronoun used for referring to people as the *subject* of a verb. <br> Which: A relative pronoun used for referring to things, animals, or groups of people. <br> The sentence refers to kangaroos, which are animals. The clause ‘use their pouch to carry their babies’ acts as a descriptive clause modifying ‘kangaroos.’ In this clause, ‘kangaroos’ is the subject performing the action of using the pouch. Therefore, we need a relative pronoun that refers to animals and acts as a subject. ‘Which’ fits this description perfectly. <br> Why other options are incorrect: <br> Option A (whom): Incorrect because ‘whom’ is used for objects, not subjects. The kangaroos are the subject of the verb ‘use.’ <br> Option B (whose): Incorrect because ‘whose’ indicates possession. The sentence doesn't describe anything belonging to the kangaroos in this clause. <br> Option C (who): Incorrect because ‘who’ refers to people, not animals.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
Bali ____ this book since January last.
Explanation: The present perfect continuous is formed with have/has been and the -ing form of the verb. We normally use the present perfect continuous to emphasize that something is still continuing in the present. <br> Example: She has been living in Liverpool all her life.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To throw dust in one's eyes
Explanation: To throw dust in one's eyes: to mislead; deceive.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To frame a person
Explanation: To frame a person: To make up evidence or contrive events so as to incriminate (a person) falsely.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To be at loggerheads
Explanation: To be at loggerheads: to be in conflict.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the correct spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the correct spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the correct spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the correct spelling.
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
Although the theory of continental drift was not widely (a)/ accepted until the mid-twentieth century, (b)/ the basic concept has been described as early as 1620. (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: had been
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
In the diagnosis of psychiatric ailments, it is essential (a)/ that the practioner approach each subject without prejudgments (b)/ as relates to the nature or cause of the disorder. (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: prejudgments about the nature
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
Contrary to popular belief, during the Middle Ages, literary works (a)/ on secular topics were probably as numerous, (b)/ if not more numerous than, theological and devotional writings. (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: as nemerous as
Directions: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: <br><br> During the financial crisis, Western governments poured hundreds of billions of dollars into their banks to avert collapse. The search for ways to avoid future bailouts started before the turmoil ended. One of the niftiest proposals was the ‘contingent convertible’ (coco) bond, which turns into equity when the ratio of a bank’s equity to risk-weighted assets falls below a predetermined danger point (since set at a minimum of 5.125% for cocos, although it can be up to around 7%). The ambition was grand. As the Squam Lake Group, composed of mostly American academics, put it in 2009, the automatic conversion of cocos would ‘transform an undercapitalised or insolvent bank into a well-capitalised bank at no cost to taxpayers’. <br><br> At first, regulators were keen. In 2010 Mervyn King, then the governor of the Bank of England, said he wanted contingent capital to be a ‘major part of the liability structure of the banking system’. Swiss regulators, too, pushed for coco issuance. The hybrid nature of cocos seemed a way to satisfy both regulators, who wanted banks to have bigger safety buffers, and bankers, who were reluctant to issue new shares because of the high cost of capital. The hope was that investors, too, might see the appeal of an asset that offered a higher yield than bank bonds but lower risk than bank shares. <br><br> Nine years after the first cocos were issued by Lloyds Banking Group in Britain, they have not fulfilled this promise. To be sure, they are now an established asset class, with around $155bn of issuance in 2017 in Dollars, Euros and Pounds. But this is a fraction of more than $1trn in bank debt issued that year. Cocos are issued by only around 50 banks in a dozen countries mostly in Europe. Although cocos are held by the world’s largest asset managers, including BlackRock and PIMCO, few specialise in them. Exceptions include niche funds run by Algebris Investment and Old Mutual Global Investors. <br><br> The main reason is that, despite early enthusiasm, regulators did not throw their weight behind cocos. In 2011, the Financial Stability Board, a global grouping of regulators, decided that they would not count towards the capital ‘surcharge’ the biggest banks would be required to hold. Only equity would do. Rules on ‘total loss absorption capacity’ finalised in 2015 require banks to have liabilities that can take a haircut or be wiped out if they are liquidated or restructured. But a wide range of liabilities, from shares to subordinated and even senior debt, is included. Cocos became part of a spectrum of at-risk liabilities, rather than a neat, catch-all solution. <br><br> The result is that cocos are a specialised investment proposition. They still offer fairly high yields—currently 5.3% for dollar cocos and 3% for those in euros, according to indices compiled by Credit Suisse, a bank. And they offer a premium over junior debt. They have appealing technical characteristics, too. Unlike bonds with a fixed maturity, they are perpetual, but redeemable after five years. If not redeemed, their coupon resets with reference to the mid-swap rate, a widely used rate related to interbank lending rates. That offers some protection against inflation. In 2016 investor jitters caused a spike in coco yields. But since then, nerves have calmed and spreads have narrowed.
As per the passage, what is meant by ‘coco’?
Explanation: Refer to: <br> ... The search for ways to avoid future bail-outs started before the turmoil ended. <br> One of the niftiest proposals was the ‘contingent convertible’ (coco) bond, which turns into equity when the ratio of a bank’s equity to risk-weighted assets falls below a predetermined danger poi. ... <br> As per the fragment highlighted above, only option D mentions all the relevant points. <br> Hence, option D is correct.
Directions: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: <br><br> During the financial crisis, Western governments poured hundreds of billions of dollars into their banks to avert collapse. The search for ways to avoid future bailouts started before the turmoil ended. One of the niftiest proposals was the ‘contingent convertible’ (coco) bond, which turns into equity when the ratio of a bank’s equity to risk-weighted assets falls below a predetermined danger point (since set at a minimum of 5.125% for cocos, although it can be up to around 7%). The ambition was grand. As the Squam Lake Group, composed of mostly American academics, put it in 2009, the automatic conversion of cocos would ‘transform an undercapitalised or insolvent bank into a well-capitalised bank at no cost to taxpayers’. <br><br> At first, regulators were keen. In 2010 Mervyn King, then the governor of the Bank of England, said he wanted contingent capital to be a ‘major part of the liability structure of the banking system’. Swiss regulators, too, pushed for coco issuance. The hybrid nature of cocos seemed a way to satisfy both regulators, who wanted banks to have bigger safety buffers, and bankers, who were reluctant to issue new shares because of the high cost of capital. The hope was that investors, too, might see the appeal of an asset that offered a higher yield than bank bonds but lower risk than bank shares. <br><br> Nine years after the first cocos were issued by Lloyds Banking Group in Britain, they have not fulfilled this promise. To be sure, they are now an established asset class, with around $155bn of issuance in 2017 in Dollars, Euros and Pounds. But this is a fraction of more than $1trn in bank debt issued that year. Cocos are issued by only around 50 banks in a dozen countries mostly in Europe. Although cocos are held by the world’s largest asset managers, including BlackRock and PIMCO, few specialise in them. Exceptions include niche funds run by Algebris Investment and Old Mutual Global Investors. <br><br> The main reason is that, despite early enthusiasm, regulators did not throw their weight behind cocos. In 2011, the Financial Stability Board, a global grouping of regulators, decided that they would not count towards the capital ‘surcharge’ the biggest banks would be required to hold. Only equity would do. Rules on ‘total loss absorption capacity’ finalised in 2015 require banks to have liabilities that can take a haircut or be wiped out if they are liquidated or restructured. But a wide range of liabilities, from shares to subordinated and even senior debt, is included. Cocos became part of a spectrum of at-risk liabilities, rather than a neat, catch-all solution. <br><br> The result is that cocos are a specialised investment proposition. They still offer fairly high yields—currently 5.3% for dollar cocos and 3% for those in euros, according to indices compiled by Credit Suisse, a bank. And they offer a premium over junior debt. They have appealing technical characteristics, too. Unlike bonds with a fixed maturity, they are perpetual, but redeemable after five years. If not redeemed, their coupon resets with reference to the mid-swap rate, a widely used rate related to interbank lending rates. That offers some protection against inflation. In 2016 investor jitters caused a spike in coco yields. But since then, nerves have calmed and spreads have narrowed.
As per the Squam Lake Group, what was the biggest benefit of the coco bonds? <br> I. It would keep the costs to manage customer accounts to a bare minimum. <br> II. It was an off-balance sheet item and would not increase the liability of the banks. <br> III. It would help in capitalizing the undercapitalized banks without any extra costs.
Explanation: Refer to: <br> ... As the Squam Lake Group, composed of mostly American academics, put it in 2009, the automatic conversion of cocos would ‘transform an undercapitalised or insolvent bank into a well-capitalised bank at no cost to taxpayers’. ... <br> As per the fragment highlighted above, only III is correct while I and II have not been mentioned anywhere. <br> Hence, option B is correct
Directions: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: <br><br> During the financial crisis, Western governments poured hundreds of billions of dollars into their banks to avert collapse. The search for ways to avoid future bailouts started before the turmoil ended. One of the niftiest proposals was the ‘contingent convertible’ (coco) bond, which turns into equity when the ratio of a bank’s equity to risk-weighted assets falls below a predetermined danger point (since set at a minimum of 5.125% for cocos, although it can be up to around 7%). The ambition was grand. As the Squam Lake Group, composed of mostly American academics, put it in 2009, the automatic conversion of cocos would ‘transform an undercapitalised or insolvent bank into a well-capitalised bank at no cost to taxpayers’. <br><br> At first, regulators were keen. In 2010 Mervyn King, then the governor of the Bank of England, said he wanted contingent capital to be a ‘major part of the liability structure of the banking system’. Swiss regulators, too, pushed for coco issuance. The hybrid nature of cocos seemed a way to satisfy both regulators, who wanted banks to have bigger safety buffers, and bankers, who were reluctant to issue new shares because of the high cost of capital. The hope was that investors, too, might see the appeal of an asset that offered a higher yield than bank bonds but lower risk than bank shares. <br><br> Nine years after the first cocos were issued by Lloyds Banking Group in Britain, they have not fulfilled this promise. To be sure, they are now an established asset class, with around $155bn of issuance in 2017 in Dollars, Euros and Pounds. But this is a fraction of more than $1trn in bank debt issued that year. Cocos are issued by only around 50 banks in a dozen countries mostly in Europe. Although cocos are held by the world’s largest asset managers, including BlackRock and PIMCO, few specialise in them. Exceptions include niche funds run by Algebris Investment and Old Mutual Global Investors. <br><br> The main reason is that, despite early enthusiasm, regulators did not throw their weight behind cocos. In 2011, the Financial Stability Board, a global grouping of regulators, decided that they would not count towards the capital ‘surcharge’ the biggest banks would be required to hold. Only equity would do. Rules on ‘total loss absorption capacity’ finalised in 2015 require banks to have liabilities that can take a haircut or be wiped out if they are liquidated or restructured. But a wide range of liabilities, from shares to subordinated and even senior debt, is included. Cocos became part of a spectrum of at-risk liabilities, rather than a neat, catch-all solution. <br><br> The result is that cocos are a specialised investment proposition. They still offer fairly high yields—currently 5.3% for dollar cocos and 3% for those in euros, according to indices compiled by Credit Suisse, a bank. And they offer a premium over junior debt. They have appealing technical characteristics, too. Unlike bonds with a fixed maturity, they are perpetual, but redeemable after five years. If not redeemed, their coupon resets with reference to the mid-swap rate, a widely used rate related to interbank lending rates. That offers some protection against inflation. In 2016 investor jitters caused a spike in coco yields. But since then, nerves have calmed and spreads have narrowed.
As per the passage, why would investors want to invest in coco bonds? <br> I. As cocos could play a major part in helping the banks become safer. <br> II. As they wanted banks to have bigger safety buffer. <br> III. As they were reluctant to invest in equity shares of the banks <br> IV. As cocos offered better yields than normal bank bonds with lesser risk.
Explanation: Refer to: <br> ... The hybrid nature of cocos seemed a way to satisfy both regulators, who wanted banks to have bigger safety buffers, and bankers, who were reluctant to issue new shares because of the high cost of capital. The hope was that investors, too, might see the appeal of an asset that offered a higher yield than bank bonds but lower risk than bank shares. ... <br> As per the highlighted fragment, only IV is the reason for investors to invest in the bonds. <br> I and II are reasons for regulators to prefer cocos while III is irrelevant and not mentioned in the passage. <br> Hence, option A is correct.
Directions: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: <br><br> During the financial crisis, Western governments poured hundreds of billions of dollars into their banks to avert collapse. The search for ways to avoid future bailouts started before the turmoil ended. One of the niftiest proposals was the ‘contingent convertible’ (coco) bond, which turns into equity when the ratio of a bank’s equity to risk-weighted assets falls below a predetermined danger point (since set at a minimum of 5.125% for cocos, although it can be up to around 7%). The ambition was grand. As the Squam Lake Group, composed of mostly American academics, put it in 2009, the automatic conversion of cocos would ‘transform an undercapitalised or insolvent bank into a well-capitalised bank at no cost to taxpayers’. <br><br> At first, regulators were keen. In 2010 Mervyn King, then the governor of the Bank of England, said he wanted contingent capital to be a ‘major part of the liability structure of the banking system’. Swiss regulators, too, pushed for coco issuance. The hybrid nature of cocos seemed a way to satisfy both regulators, who wanted banks to have bigger safety buffers, and bankers, who were reluctant to issue new shares because of the high cost of capital. The hope was that investors, too, might see the appeal of an asset that offered a higher yield than bank bonds but lower risk than bank shares. <br><br> Nine years after the first cocos were issued by Lloyds Banking Group in Britain, they have not fulfilled this promise. To be sure, they are now an established asset class, with around $155bn of issuance in 2017 in Dollars, Euros and Pounds. But this is a fraction of more than $1trn in bank debt issued that year. Cocos are issued by only around 50 banks in a dozen countries mostly in Europe. Although cocos are held by the world’s largest asset managers, including BlackRock and PIMCO, few specialise in them. Exceptions include niche funds run by Algebris Investment and Old Mutual Global Investors. <br><br> The main reason is that, despite early enthusiasm, regulators did not throw their weight behind cocos. In 2011, the Financial Stability Board, a global grouping of regulators, decided that they would not count towards the capital ‘surcharge’ the biggest banks would be required to hold. Only equity would do. Rules on ‘total loss absorption capacity’ finalised in 2015 require banks to have liabilities that can take a haircut or be wiped out if they are liquidated or restructured. But a wide range of liabilities, from shares to subordinated and even senior debt, is included. Cocos became part of a spectrum of at-risk liabilities, rather than a neat, catch-all solution. <br><br> The result is that cocos are a specialised investment proposition. They still offer fairly high yields—currently 5.3% for dollar cocos and 3% for those in euros, according to indices compiled by Credit Suisse, a bank. And they offer a premium over junior debt. They have appealing technical characteristics, too. Unlike bonds with a fixed maturity, they are perpetual, but redeemable after five years. If not redeemed, their coupon resets with reference to the mid-swap rate, a widely used rate related to interbank lending rates. That offers some protection against inflation. In 2016 investor jitters caused a spike in coco yields. But since then, nerves have calmed and spreads have narrowed.
Refer to- ‘Nine years after the first cocos were issued by Lloyds Banking Group in Britain, they have not fulfilled this promise.’ What is meant by the author in the line above? <br> I. Cocos are not a reliable asset class. <br> II. Cocos form only a tiny fraction of the total bank debt issued. <br> III. Cocos do not seem to have made a big difference in the banking system.
Explanation: Refer to: <br> ... To be sure, they are now an established asset class, with around $155bn of issuance in 2017 in Dollars, Euros and Pounds. But this is a fraction of more than $1trn in bank debt issued that year. Cocos are issued by only around 50 banks in a dozen countries mostly in Europe.Although cocos are held by the world’s largest asset managers, including BlackRock and PIMCO, few specialise in them. Exceptions include niche funds run by Algebris Investment and Old Mutual Global Investors. ... <br> As per the fragments, I is clearly incorrect. <br> II and III are both correct. Cocos have not been able to fulfill the promise as they lack popularity and have not been effective. <br> Hence, option C is correct.
Directions: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: <br><br> During the financial crisis, Western governments poured hundreds of billions of dollars into their banks to avert collapse. The search for ways to avoid future bailouts started before the turmoil ended. One of the niftiest proposals was the ‘contingent convertible’ (coco) bond, which turns into equity when the ratio of a bank’s equity to risk-weighted assets falls below a predetermined danger point (since set at a minimum of 5.125% for cocos, although it can be up to around 7%). The ambition was grand. As the Squam Lake Group, composed of mostly American academics, put it in 2009, the automatic conversion of cocos would ‘transform an undercapitalised or insolvent bank into a well-capitalised bank at no cost to taxpayers’. <br><br> At first, regulators were keen. In 2010 Mervyn King, then the governor of the Bank of England, said he wanted contingent capital to be a ‘major part of the liability structure of the banking system’. Swiss regulators, too, pushed for coco issuance. The hybrid nature of cocos seemed a way to satisfy both regulators, who wanted banks to have bigger safety buffers, and bankers, who were reluctant to issue new shares because of the high cost of capital. The hope was that investors, too, might see the appeal of an asset that offered a higher yield than bank bonds but lower risk than bank shares. <br><br> Nine years after the first cocos were issued by Lloyds Banking Group in Britain, they have not fulfilled this promise. To be sure, they are now an established asset class, with around $155bn of issuance in 2017 in Dollars, Euros and Pounds. But this is a fraction of more than $1trn in bank debt issued that year. Cocos are issued by only around 50 banks in a dozen countries mostly in Europe. Although cocos are held by the world’s largest asset managers, including BlackRock and PIMCO, few specialise in them. Exceptions include niche funds run by Algebris Investment and Old Mutual Global Investors. <br><br> The main reason is that, despite early enthusiasm, regulators did not throw their weight behind cocos. In 2011, the Financial Stability Board, a global grouping of regulators, decided that they would not count towards the capital ‘surcharge’ the biggest banks would be required to hold. Only equity would do. Rules on ‘total loss absorption capacity’ finalised in 2015 require banks to have liabilities that can take a haircut or be wiped out if they are liquidated or restructured. But a wide range of liabilities, from shares to subordinated and even senior debt, is included. Cocos became part of a spectrum of at-risk liabilities, rather than a neat, catch-all solution. <br><br> The result is that cocos are a specialised investment proposition. They still offer fairly high yields—currently 5.3% for dollar cocos and 3% for those in euros, according to indices compiled by Credit Suisse, a bank. And they offer a premium over junior debt. They have appealing technical characteristics, too. Unlike bonds with a fixed maturity, they are perpetual, but redeemable after five years. If not redeemed, their coupon resets with reference to the mid-swap rate, a widely used rate related to interbank lending rates. That offers some protection against inflation. In 2016 investor jitters caused a spike in coco yields. But since then, nerves have calmed and spreads have narrowed.
As per the passage, why were cocos not popular despite the early enthusiasm? <br> I. Due to the danger emanating from them to financial stability across World’s Central Banks. <br> II. Due to the lack of support from financial regulators. <br> III. They are too complicated to understand for retail investors.
Explanation: Refer to: <br> ... The main reason is that, despite early enthusiasm, regulators did not throw their weight behind cocos. In 2011, the Financial Stability Board, a global grouping of regulators, decided that they would not count towards the capital ‘surcharge’ the biggest banks would be required to hold. ... <br> II is correct as per the fragment highlighted above. <br> I and III have not been mentioned in the passage and are incorrect. <br> Hence, option B is correct.
30 questions in 15 minutes, All India rank, streak and explanations. Free: play it here after logging in, or in the app.
Free. Mobile number + OTP, no password.
