Results 1  10
of
206
A yieldfactor model of interest rates
 Math. Finance
, 1996
"... This paper presents a consistent and arbitragefree multifactor model of the term structure of interest rates in which yields at selected fixed maturities follow a parametric multivariate Markov diffusion process with “stochastic volatility. ” The yield of any zerocoupon bond is taken to be a matur ..."
Abstract

Cited by 383 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a consistent and arbitragefree multifactor model of the term structure of interest rates in which yields at selected fixed maturities follow a parametric multivariate Markov diffusion process with “stochastic volatility. ” The yield of any zerocoupon bond is taken to be a maturitydependent affine combination of the selected “basis ” set of yields. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions on the stochastic model for this affine representation. We include numerical techniques for solving the model, as wcll as numerical techniques for calculating the prices of termstructure derivative prices. The case of jump diffusions i \ also considered. I.
2000): “Specification Analysis of Affine Term Structure Models
 Journal of Finance
"... This paper explores the structural differences and relative goodnessoffits of affine term structure models ~ATSMs!. Within the family of ATSMs there is a tradeoff between flexibility in modeling the conditional correlations and volatilities of the risk factors. This tradeoff is formalized by our ..."
Abstract

Cited by 336 (30 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper explores the structural differences and relative goodnessoffits of affine term structure models ~ATSMs!. Within the family of ATSMs there is a tradeoff between flexibility in modeling the conditional correlations and volatilities of the risk factors. This tradeoff is formalized by our classification of Nfactor affine family into N � 1 nonnested subfamilies of models. Specializing to threefactor ATSMs, our analysis suggests, based on theoretical considerations and empirical evidence, that some subfamilies of ATSMs are better suited than others to explaining historical interest rate behavior. IN SPECIFYING A DYNAMIC TERM STRUCTURE MODEL—one that describes the comovement over time of short and longterm bond yields—researchers are inevitably confronted with tradeoffs between the richness of econometric representations of the state variables and the computational burdens of pricing and estimation. It is perhaps not surprising then that virtually all of the empirical implementations of multifactor term structure models that use time series data on long and shortterm bond yields simultaneously have focused on special cases of “affine ” term structure models ~ATSMs!.AnATSM accommodates timevarying means and volatilities of the state variables through affine specifications of the riskneutral drift and volatility coefficients. At the same time, ATSMs yield essentially closedform expressions for zerocouponbond prices ~Duffie and Kan ~1996!!, which greatly facilitates pricing and econometric implementation. The focus on ATSMs extends back at least to the pathbreaking studies by Vasicek ~1977! and Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross ~1985!, who presumed that the instantaneous short rate r~t! was an affine function of an Ndimensional state vector Y~t!, r~t! � d 0 � d y Y~t!, and that Y~t! followed Gaussian and squareroot diffusions, respectively. More recently, researchers have explored formulations of ATSMs that extend the onefactor Markov represen
A NoArbitrage Vector Autoregression of Term Structure Dynamics with Macroeconomic and Latent Variables
, 2002
"... ..."
Term Premia and Interest Rate Forecasts in Affine Models
, 2001
"... I find that the standard class of a#ne models produces poor forecasts of future changes in Treasury yields. Better forecasts are generated by assuming that yields follow random walks. The failure of these models is driven by one of their key features: The compensation that investors receive for faci ..."
Abstract

Cited by 249 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
I find that the standard class of a#ne models produces poor forecasts of future changes in Treasury yields. Better forecasts are generated by assuming that yields follow random walks. The failure of these models is driven by one of their key features: The compensation that investors receive for facing risk is a multiple of the variance of the risk. This means that risk compensation cannot vary independently of interest rate volatility. I also describe and empirically estimate a class of models that is broader than the standard a#ne class. These "essentially a#ne" models retain the tractability of the usual models, but allow the compensation for interest rate risk to vary independently of interest rate volatility. This additional flexibility proves useful in forming accurate forecasts of future yields. Address correspondence to the University of California, Haas School of Business, 545 Student Services Building #1900, Berkeley, CA 94720. Phone: 5106421435. Email address: du#ee@haas.b...
The Determinants of Credit Spread Changes
, 2001
"... Using dealer’s quotes and transactions prices on straight industrial bonds, we investigate the determinants of credit spread changes. Variables that should in theory determine credit spread changes have rather limited explanatory power. Further, the residuals from this regression are highly crossco ..."
Abstract

Cited by 229 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Using dealer’s quotes and transactions prices on straight industrial bonds, we investigate the determinants of credit spread changes. Variables that should in theory determine credit spread changes have rather limited explanatory power. Further, the residuals from this regression are highly crosscorrelated, and principal components analysis implies they are mostly driven by a single common factor. Although we consider several macroeconomic and financial variables as candidate proxies, we cannot explain this common systematic component. Our results suggest that monthly credit spread changes are principally driven by local supply0 demand shocks that are independent of both creditrisk factors and standard proxies for liquidity.
Explaining the rate spread on corporate bonds
 Journal of Finance
, 2001
"... The purpose of this article is to explain the spread between spot rates on corporate and government bonds. We find that the spread can be explained in terms of three elements: (1) compensation for expected default of corporate bonds (2) compensation for state taxes since holders of corporate bonds p ..."
Abstract

Cited by 208 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The purpose of this article is to explain the spread between spot rates on corporate and government bonds. We find that the spread can be explained in terms of three elements: (1) compensation for expected default of corporate bonds (2) compensation for state taxes since holders of corporate bonds pay state taxes while holders of government bonds do not, and (3) compensation for the additional systematic risk in corporate bond returns relative to government bond returns. The systematic nature of corporate bond return is shown by relating that part of the spread which is not due to expected default or taxes to a set of variables which have been shown to effect risk premiums in stock markets Empirical estimates of the size of each of these three components are provided in the paper. We stress the tax effects because it has been ignored in all previous studies of corporate bonds. 1
Forecasting the term structure of government bond yields
 Journal of Econometrics
, 2006
"... Despite powerful advances in yield curve modeling in the last twenty years, comparatively little attention has been paid to the key practical problem of forecasting the yield curve. In this paper we do so. We use neither the noarbitrage approach, which focuses on accurately fitting the cross sectio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 138 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Despite powerful advances in yield curve modeling in the last twenty years, comparatively little attention has been paid to the key practical problem of forecasting the yield curve. In this paper we do so. We use neither the noarbitrage approach, which focuses on accurately fitting the cross section of interest rates at any given time but neglects timeseries dynamics, nor the equilibrium approach, which focuses on timeseries dynamics (primarily those of the instantaneous rate) but pays comparatively little attention to fitting the entire cross section at any given time and has been shown to forecast poorly. Instead, we use variations on the NelsonSiegel exponential components framework to model the entire yield curve, periodbyperiod, as a threedimensional parameter evolving dynamically. We show that the three timevarying parameters may be interpreted as factors corresponding to level, slope and curvature, and that they may be estimated with high efficiency. We propose and estimate autoregressive models for the factors, and we show that our models are consistent with a variety of stylized facts regarding the yield curve. We use our models to produce termstructure forecasts at both short and long horizons, with encouraging results. In particular, our forecasts appear much more accurate at long horizons than various standard benchmark forecasts. Finally, we discuss a number of extensions, including generalized duration measures, applications to active bond portfolio management, and arbitragefree specifications. Acknowledgments: The National Science Foundation and the Wharton Financial Institutions Center provided research support. For helpful comments we are grateful to Dave Backus, Rob Bliss, Michael Brandt, Todd Clark, Qiang Dai, Ron Gallant, Mike Gibbons, Da...
The relation between treasury yields and corporate bond yield spreads
 Journal of Finance
, 1998
"... Because the option to call a corporate bond should rise in value when bond yields fall, the relation between noncallable Treasury yields and spreads of corporate bond yields over Treasury yields should depend on the callability of the corporate bond. I confirm this hypothesis for investmentgrade co ..."
Abstract

Cited by 137 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Because the option to call a corporate bond should rise in value when bond yields fall, the relation between noncallable Treasury yields and spreads of corporate bond yields over Treasury yields should depend on the callability of the corporate bond. I confirm this hypothesis for investmentgrade corporate bonds. Although yield spreads on both callable and noncallable corporate bonds fall when Treasury yields rise, this relation is much stronger for callable bonds. This result has important implications for interpreting the behavior of yields on commonly used corporate bond indexes, which are composed primarily of callable bonds. COMMONLY USED INDEXES OF CORPORATE bond yields, such as those produced by Moody’s or Lehman Brothers, are constructed using both callable and noncallable bonds. Because the objective of those producing the indexes is to track the universe of corporate bonds, this methodology is sensible. Until the mid1980s, few corporations issued noncallable bonds, hence an index designed to measure the yield on a typical corporate bond would have to be
Expectation puzzles, timevarying risk premia, and affine models of the term structure
 Journal of Financial Economics
, 2002
"... Though linear projections of returns on the slope of the yield curve have contradicted the implications of the traditional “expectations theory, ” we show that these findings are not puzzling relative to a large class of richer dynamic term structure models. Specifically, we are able to match all of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 79 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Though linear projections of returns on the slope of the yield curve have contradicted the implications of the traditional “expectations theory, ” we show that these findings are not puzzling relative to a large class of richer dynamic term structure models. Specifically, we are able to match all of the key empirical findings reported by Fama and Bliss and Campbell and Shiller, among others, within large subclasses of affine and quadraticGaussian term structure models. Additionally, we show that certain “riskpremium adjusted ” projections of changes in yields on the slope of the yield curve recover the coefficients of unity predicted by the models. Key to this matching are parameterizations of the market prices of risk that let the risk factors affect the market prices of risk directly, and not only through the factor volatilities. The risk premiums have a simple form consistent with Fama’s findings on the predictability of forward rates, and are also shown to be consistent with interest rate, feedback rules used by a monetary authority in setting monetary policy.