Modeling volatility and changes in the swap spread

We investigate the determinants of changes in U.S. interest rate swap spreads using a model that explicitly allows for volatility interactions between swaps of different terms to maturity. Changes in the swap spread are found to be positively related to interest rate volatility, to changes in the default risk premium in the corporate bond market, and to changes in the liquidity premium for government securities. Swap spread changes are negatively related to changes in the level of interest rates and changes in the slope of the term structure. We also find that there is a strong and significant volatility interaction among spreads for swaps of different maturities and that the process for the conditional variance of the spread is highly persistent across all maturities.     

On the Term Structure of Default Premia in the Swap and LIBOR Markets

Existing theories of the term structure of swap rates provide an analysis of the Treasury–swap spread based on either a liquidity convenience yield in the Treasury market, or default risk in the swap market. Although these models do not focus on the relation between corporate yields and swap rates (the LIBOR–swap spread), they imply that the term structure of corporate yields and swap rates should be identical. As documented previously (e.g., in Sun, Sundaresan, and Wang (1993)) this is counterfactual. Here, we propose a model of the default risk imbedded in the swap term structure that is able to explain the LIBOR–swap spread. Whereas corporate bonds carry default risk, we argue that swap contracts are free of default risk. Because swaps are indexed on "refreshed"-credit-quality LIBOR rates, the spread between corporate yields and swap rates should capture the market's expectations of the probability of deterioration in credit quality of a corporate bond issuer. We model this feature and use our model to estimate the likelihood of future deterioration in credit quality from the LIBOR–swap spread. The analysis is important because it shows that the term structure of swap rates does not reflect the borrowing cost of a standard LIBOR credit quality issuer. It also has implications for modeling the dynamics of the swap term structure.     

Exploring the components of credit risk in credit default swaps

In this paper, we test the influence of various fundamental variables on the pricing of credit default swaps. The theoretical determinants that are important for pricing credit default swaps include the risk-free rate, industry sector, credit rating, and liquidity factors. We suggest a linear regression model containing these different variables, especially focusing on liquidity factors. Unlike bond spreads which have been shown to be inversely related to liquidity (i.e., the greater the liquidity, the lower the spread), there is no a priori reason that the credit default swap spread should exhibit the same relationship. This is due to the economic characteristics of a credit default swap compared to a bond. Our empirical result shows that all the fundamental variables investigated have a significant effect on the credit default swap spread. Moreover, our findings suggest that credit default swaps that trade with greater liquidity have a wider credit default swap spread.     

Liquidity Coinsurance and Bank Capital

Banks can deal with their liquidity risk by holding liquid assets (self‐insurance), by participating in interbank markets (coinsurance), or by using flexible financing instruments, such as bank capital (risk sharing). We use a simple model to show that undiversifiable liquidity risk, that is, the liquidity risk that banks are unable to coinsure on interbank markets, represents an important risk factor affecting their capital structures. Banks facing higher undiversifiable liquidity risk hold more capital. We posit that, empirically, banks that are more exposed to undiversifiable liquidity risk are less active on interbank markets. Therefore, we test for the existence of a negative relationship between bank capital and interbank market activity and find support in a large sample of U.S. commercial banks.     

Interbank market liquidity and central bank intervention

We develop a simple model of the interbank market where banks trade a long term, safe asset. When there is a lack of opportunities for banks to hedge idiosyncratic and aggregate liquidity shocks, the interbank market is characterized by excessive price volatility. In such a situation, a central bank can implement the constrained efficient allocation by using open market operations to fix the short term interest rate. It can be constrained efficient for banks to hoard liquidity and stop trading with each other if there is sufficient uncertainty about aggregate liquidity demand compared to idiosyncratic liquidity demand.     

Assessing financial contagion in the interbank market: Maximum entropy versus observed interbank lending patterns

Interbank markets allow banks to cope with specific liquidity shocks. At the same time, they may represent a channel for contagion as a bank default may spread to other banks through interbank linkages. This paper analyses how contagion propagates within the Italian interbank market using a unique data set including actual bilateral exposures. Based on the availability of information on actual bilateral exposures for all Italian banks, the results obtained by assuming the maximum entropy are compared with those reflecting the observed structure of interbank claims. The comparison indicates that, under certain circumstances, depending on the structure of the interbank linkages, the recovery rates of interbank exposures and banks’ capitalisation, the maximum entropy approach overrates the scope for contagion.     

Forecasting multiple-term structures from interbank rates

The classic relationship between deposit rates and interest rate derivatives has been fractured since August 2007. Uncertainty in the interbank money market has increased the risk premia differentials on unsecured deposit rates of different tenors, such as Euribor, leading to a new pricing framework of interest rate derivatives based on multiple discount curves. This article analyzes the economic determinants of this new multi-curve framework. We employ basis swap (BS) spreads – floating-to-floating interest rate swaps – as instruments for extracting the interest rate curve differentials. Our results show that the multi-curve framework mirrors the standard single-curve setting in terms of level, slope and curvature factors. The level factor captures 90% of the total variation in the curves, and this factor significantly covariates with the spread between financial and risk-free bond yields, a proxy of systemic risk. This variable anticipates future movements of the curve level for all tenors. Moreover, unidirectional causality running from market-wide liquidity to curve residuals is also detected. Finally, we show how the information content in liquidity and systemic risk could improve the forecastability of interest rate curves under financial distress.     

Do sovereign credit default swaps represent a clean measure of sovereign default risk? A factor model approach

In this study, we use a factor model in order to decompose sovereign Credit Default Swaps (CDS) spreads into default, liquidity, systematic liquidity and correlation components. By calibrating the model to sovereign CDSs and bonds we are able to present a better decomposition and a more accurate measure of spread components. Our analysis reveals that sovereign CDS spreads are highly driven by liquidity (55.6% of default risk and 44.32% of liquidity) and that sovereign bond spreads are less subject to liquidity frictions and therefore could represent a better proxy for sovereign default risk (73% of default risk and 26.86% of liquidity). Furthermore, our model enables us to directly study the effect of systematic liquidity and flight-to-liquidity risks on bond and CDS spreads through the factor sensitivity matrix. We find that these risks do have an influence on the default intensity and they contribute significantly to spread movements. Finally, our empirical results advance the idea that the increase in the CDS spreads observed during the crisis period was mainly due to a surge in liquidity rather than to an increase in the default intensity.     

The effect of Fed monetary policy regimes on the US interest rate swap spreads

This paper analyzes the asymmetric impacts of various economic shocks on swap spreads under distinct Fed monetary policy regimes. The results indicate that (a) during periods of aggressive interest rate reductions, slope of the Treasury term structure accounts for a sizeable share of the swap spread variance although default shock is also a major player. (b) On the other hand, liquidity premium is the only contributor to the 2-year swap spread variance in monetary tightening cycles. (c) The impact of default risk varies across both monetary cycles and swap maturities. (d) The effect of interest rate volatility is generally more evident in loosening monetary regimes.     

Pricing factors in multiple-term structures from interbank rates

This article analyzes the reward for the risk embedded in interbank derivatives, seeking to characterize the size and economic sources of the components of this risk premium in interbank spread quotes. The basis swap (BS) spreads – floating-to-floating interest rate swaps – are employed as a vehicle used by investors to express their views concerning the risk of borrowing on the interbank market. Our results show that the size of the risk premium ranges from 20 to 60 basis points, depending on the tenor, during periods of financial distress. Moreover, the evolution of this risk premium increases dramatically after August 2007, primarily due to the evolution of credit variables such as sovereign and financial sector risks. Finally, we also document important sources of commonality between risk premiums at different tenors. An analysis of the determinants of risk premia reveal that investors’ compensation relates to financial sector credit and liquidity uncertainty, and risk aversion.     

互换利差特征与影响因素——基于人民币利率互换市场的研究

互换利差（Swap spread）是利率互换研究中最重要的问题之一。在国内相关研究仍属空白的情况下,本文首次对人民币利率互换市场的互换利差的变动特征和影响因素进行了统计和计量分析。结果表明,我国互换利差的影响因素较多,包括融资成本、流动性、违约风险因素、利率预期、曲线期限特征因素等。不同基准的利率互换利差影响因素不同,且短期和中长期互换利差影响因素也不相同。另外还发现,不同基准的互换之间、互换与现券之间的定价经常存在扭曲现象,实务中存在较大的套利机会。     

银行间市场流动性与金融风险救助机制研究

文章从我国银行间市场结构特征出发,分析了近年来银行间市场利率和流动性大 幅波动的内在机理与原因。研究认为,塔形市场交易结构下,银行间市场存在流动性风险易聚 集不易分散的缺陷,且难以依靠“有形之手”得到弥补。文章结合塔形市场结构的特点建立矩 阵分析法,对40家金融机构资产负债表进行实证分析。结论印证了理论分析,即塔形市场交易 结构下风险冲击影响时间更长,且央行流动性救助效果降低,但流动性救助机制能降低风险对 中小型地方法人金融机构的冲击。因此,有必要建立流动性风险救助机制,弥补银行间市场客 观存在的缺陷,增强中小型地方法人金融机构抵御银行间市场流动性风险冲击的能力。     

The delivery option in credit default swaps

Under standard assumptions the reduced-form credit risk model is not capable of accurately pricing the two fundamental credit risk instruments – bonds and credit default swaps (CDS) – simultaneously. Using a data set of euro-denominated corporate bonds and CDS our paper quantifies this mispricing by calibrating such a model to bond data, and subsequently using it to price CDS, resulting in model CDS spreads up to 50% lower on average than observed in the market. An extended model is presented which includes the delivery option implicit in CDS contracts emerging since a basket of bonds is deliverable in default. By using a constant recovery rate standard models assume equal recoveries for all bonds and hence zero value for the delivery option. Contradicting this common assumption, case studies of Chapter 11 filings presented in the paper show that corporate bonds do not necessarily trade at equal levels following default. Our extension models the implied expected recovery rate of the cheapest-to-deliver bond and, applied to data, largely eliminates the mispricing. Calibrated recovery values lie between 8% and 47% for different obligors, exhibiting strong variation among rating classes and industries. A cross-sectional analysis reveals that the implied recovery parameter depends on proxies for the delivery option, primarily the number of available bonds and bond pricing errors. No evidence is found for a direct influence of the bid-ask spread, notional amount, coupon, or rating used as proxies for bond market liquidity.     

Liquidity and CDS premiums on European companies around the Subprime crisis

This paper sheds new light on the liquidity dynamics of the credit default swaps (CDS) market in Europe around the Subprime crisis. Based on an original dataset of 94 European companies from 2005 to 2009, we use a panel regression analysis to study the relationship between CDS premiums and liquidity. We measure the level of liquidity, look at liquidity risk, and study the liquidity spillovers from the bond and equity markets to the CDS market. We show that the effect of liquidity on CDS premiums is dominated by the influence of worsening credit conditions and deteriorating investors?? expectations about default risk. Controlling for credit risk, we also find that liquidity risk is priced in the European CDS market and that liquidity spillovers from the bond market matter in determining CDS premiums.     

Liquidity risk and expected corporate bond returns

This paper studies the pricing of liquidity risk in the cross section of corporate bonds for the period from January 1994 to March 2009. The average return on bonds with high sensitivities to aggregate liquidity exceeds that for bonds with low sensitivities by about 4% annually. The positive relation between expected corporate bond returns and liquidity beta is robust to the effects of default and term betas, liquidity level, and other bond characteristics, as well as to different model specifications, test methodologies, and a variety of liquidity measures. The results suggest that liquidity risk is an important determinant of expected corporate bond returns.     

Liquidity,default, taxes,and yields on municipal bonds

We examine the effects of liquidity, default and personal taxes on the relative yields of Treasuries and municipals using a generalized model with liquidity risk. The municipal yield model includes liquidity as a state factor. Using a unique transaction dataset, we estimate the liquidity risk of municipals and its effect on bond yields. Empirical evidence shows that municipal bond yields are strongly affected by all three factors. The effects of default and liquidity risk on municipal yields increase with maturity and credit risk. Liquidity premium accounts for about 9–13% of municipal yields for AAA bonds, 9–15% for AA/A bonds and 8–19% for BBB bonds. A substantial portion of the maturity spread between long- and short-maturity municipal bonds is attributed to the liquidity premium. Ignoring the liquidity risk effect thus results in a severe underestimation of municipal bond yields. Conditional on the effects of default and liquidity risk, we obtain implicit tax rates very close to the statutory tax rates of high-income individuals and institutional investors. Furthermore, these implicit income tax rates are quite stable across bonds of different maturities. Results show that including liquidity risk in the municipal bond pricing model helps explain the muni puzzle.     

Australian and US interest rate swap markets: comparison and linkages

We investigate and compare the determinants of US and Australian interest rate swap spreads and the linkages between these markets. The slope of the risk‐free term structure is the most significant determinant and its importance is greater for longer terms to maturity. Interest rate levels and, in Australia, the default premium also have some impact. The influences of interest rate volatility, the liquidity premium and (in the USA) the default premium are small or negligible. We hypothesise, and our evidence confirms, that the US swap market significantly affects the Australian swap market but not vice‐versa.     

Money and liquidity in financial markets

We argue that there is a connection between the interbank market for liquidity and the broader financial markets, which has its basis in demand for liquidity by banks. Tightness in the market for liquidity leads banks to engage in what we term “liquidity pull-back,” which involves selling financial assets either by banks directly or by levered investors. Empirical tests on the stock market are supportive. Tighter interbank markets are associated with relatively more volume in more liquid stocks; selling pressure, especially in more liquid stocks; and transitory negative returns. We control for market-wide uncertainty and in the process also contribute to the literature on portfolio rebalancing. Our general point is that money matters in financial markets.     

Pricing Property Index Linked Swaps with Counterparty Default Risk

This paper extends Bjork and Clapham (Journal of Housing Economics 11:418–432, 2002) model for pricing real estate index total return swaps. Our extension considers counterparty default risk within a first passage contingent claims model. We price total return swaps on property indices with different levels of default risk. We develop this model under same assumptions as Bjork and Clapham (Journal of Housing Economics 11:418–432, 2002) and find that total return swap price is no longer zero. Total return swap payer must charge a spread over the market interest rate that compensates him for the exposure to this additional risk. Based on commercial property indices in the UK, we observe that computed spreads are much lower than a sample of quotes obtained from one of the traders in the market.     

Corporate bond liquidity and yield spreads: A review

Secondary market illiquidity is an important non-default factor affecting yield spreads. Yet, a review of the literature suggests the findings are mixed, both regarding the relative size of the default versus non-default components as well as the relative importance of liquidity premium for investment-grade and high-yield bonds. While in theory country and currency risk might affect international bonds' yield spreads, empirical findings show that international corporate bonds pricing and liquidity are generally affected by the same factors as the U.S. market. We identify several other areas of disagreement and challenges in the literature that warrant further research.