Yield curve

There is no single yield curve describing the cost of money for everybody. The most important factor in determining a yield curve is the currency in which the securities are denominated. The economic position of the countries and companies using each currency is a primary factor in determining the yield curve. Different institutions borrow money at different rates, depending on their creditworthiness.

The yield curves corresponding to the bonds issued by governments in their own currency are called the government bond yield curve (government curve). Banks with high credit ratings (Aa/AA or above) borrow money from each other at the LIBOR rates. These yield curves are typically a little higher than government curves. They are the most important and widely used in the financial markets, and are known variously as the LIBOR curve or the swap curve. The construction of the swap curve is described below.

Besides the government curve and the LIBOR curve, there are corporate (company) curves. These are constructed from the yields of bonds issued by corporations. Since corporations have less creditworthiness than most governments and most large banks, these yields are typically higher. Corporate yield curves are often quoted in terms of a "credit spread" over the relevant swap curve. For instance the five-year yield curve point for Vodafone might be quoted as LIBOR +0.25%, where 0.25% (often written as 25 basis points or 25bps) is the credit spread.

U.S. Treasury yield curves for different dates. The July 2000 yield curve (red line, top) is inverted.

From the post-Great Depression era to the present, the yield curve has usually been "normal" meaning that yields rise as maturity lengthens (i.e., the slope of the yield curve is positive). This positive slope reflects investor expectations for the economy to grow in the future and, importantly, for this growth to be associated with a greater expectation that inflation will rise in the future rather than fall. This expectation of higher inflation leads to expectations that the central bank will tighten monetary policy by raising short-term interest rates in the future to slow economic growth and dampen inflationary pressure. It also creates a need for a risk premium associated with the uncertainty about the future rate of inflation and the risk this poses to the future value of cash flows. Investors price these risks into the yield curve by demanding higher yields for maturities further into the future. In a positively sloped yield curve, lenders profit from the passage of time since yields decrease as bonds get closer to maturity (as yield decreases, price increases); this is known as rolldown and is a significant component of profit in fixed-income investing (i.e., buying and selling, not necessarily holding to maturity), particularly if the investing is leveraged.[8]

However, a positively sloped yield curve has not always been the norm. Through much of the 19th century and early 20th century the US economy experienced trend growth with persistent deflation, not inflation. During this period the yield curve was typically inverted, reflecting the fact that deflation made current cash flows less valuable than future cash flows. During this period of persistent deflation, a 'normal' yield curve was negatively sloped.

Historically, the 20-year Treasury bond yield has averaged approximately two percentage points above that of three-month Treasury bills. In situations when this gap increases (e.g. 20-year Treasury yield rises much higher than the three-month Treasury yield), the economy is expected to improve quickly in the future. This type of curve can be seen at the beginning of an economic expansion (or after the end of a recession). Here, economic stagnation will have depressed short-term interest rates; however, rates begin to rise once the demand for capital is re-established by growing economic activity.

In January 2010, the gap between yields on two-year Treasury notes and 10-year notes widened to 2.92 percentage points, its highest ever.

A flat yield curve is observed when all maturities have similar yields, whereas a humped curve results when short-term and long-term yields are equal and medium-term yields are higher than those of the short-term and long-term. A flat curve sends signals of uncertainty in the economy. This mixed signal can revert to a normal curve or could later result into an inverted curve. It cannot be explained by the Segmented Market theory discussed below.

  30 year treasury minus 3 month treasury bond

  30 year mortgage average

  30 Year Treasury Bond

   10 Year Treasury Bond

   2 Year Treasury Bond

   3 month Treasury Bond

   Effective Federal Funds Rate

   CPI inflation year/year

  Recessions

Under unusual circumstances, investors will settle for lower yields associated with low-risk long-term debt if they think the economy will enter a recession in the near future. For example, the S&P 500 experienced a dramatic fall in mid 2007, from which it recovered completely by early 2013. Investors who had purchased 10-year Treasuries in 2006 would have received a safe and steady yield until 2015, possibly achieving better returns than those investing in equities during that volatile period.

Economist Campbell Harvey's 1986 dissertation[9] showed that an inverted yield curve accurately forecasts U.S. recessions. An inverted curve has indicated a worsening economic situation in the future eight times since 1970.[10]

In addition to potentially signaling an economic decline, inverted yield curves also imply that the market believes inflation will remain low. This is because, even if there is a recession, a low bond yield will still be offset by low inflation. However, technical factors, such as a flight to quality or global economic or currency situations, may cause an increase in demand for bonds on the long end of the yield curve, causing long-term rates to fall. Falling long-term rates in the presence of rising short-term rates is known as "Greenspan's Conundrum".[11]

This hypothesis assumes that the various maturities are perfect substitutes and suggests that the shape of the yield curve depends on market participants' expectations of future interest rates. It assumes that market forces will cause the interest rates on various terms of bonds to be such that the expected final value of a sequence of short-term investments will equal the known final value of a single long-term investment. If this did not hold, the theory assumes that investors would quickly demand more of the current short-term or long-term bonds (whichever gives the higher expected long-term yield), and this would drive down the return on current bonds of that term and drive up the yield on current bonds of the other term, so as to quickly make the assumed equality of expected returns of the two investment approaches hold.

Using this, futures rates, along with the assumption that arbitrage opportunities will be minimal in future markets, and that futures rates are unbiased estimates of forthcoming spot rates, provide enough information to construct a complete expected yield curve. For example, if investors have an expectation of what 1-year interest rates will be next year, the current 2-year interest rate can be calculated as the compounding of this year's 1-year interest rate by next year's expected 1-year interest rate. More generally, returns (1+ yield) on a long-term instrument are assumed to equal the geometric mean of the expected returns on a series of short-term instruments:

${\displaystyle (1+i_{lt})^{n}=(1+i_{st}^{{\text{year }}1})(1+i_{st}^{{\text{year }}2})\cdots (1+i_{st}^{{\text{year }}n}),}$

where i_st and i_lt are the expected short-term and actual long-term interest rates (but ${\displaystyle i_{st}^{{\text{year}}1}}$ is the actual observed short-term rate for the first year).

This theory is consistent with the observation that yields usually move together. However, it fails to explain the persistence in the shape of the yield curve.

Shortcomings of expectations theory include that it neglects the interest rate risk inherent in investing in bonds.

The liquidity premium theory is an offshoot of the pure expectations theory. The liquidity premium theory asserts that long-term interest rates not only reflect investors' assumptions about future interest rates but also include a premium for holding long-term bonds (investors prefer short-term bonds to long-term bonds), called the term premium or the liquidity premium. This premium compensates investors for the added risk of having their money tied up for a longer period, including the greater price uncertainty. Because of the term premium, long-term bond yields tend to be higher than short-term yields and the yield curve slopes upward. Long-term yields are also higher not just because of the liquidity premium, but also because of the risk premium added by the risk of default from holding a security over the long term. The market expectations hypothesis is combined with the liquidity premium theory:

${\displaystyle (1+i_{lt})^{n}=rp_{n}+((1+i_{st}^{\mathrm {year} 1})(1+i_{st}^{\mathrm {year} 2})\cdots (1+i_{st}^{\mathrm {year} n})),}$

where ${\displaystyle rp_{n}}$ is the risk premium associated with an ${\displaystyle {n}}$ year bond.

The preferred habitat theory is a variant of the liquidity premium theory, and states that in addition to interest rate expectations, investors have distinct investment horizons and require a meaningful premium to buy bonds with maturities outside their "preferred" maturity, or habitat. Proponents of this theory believe that short-term investors are more prevalent in the fixed-income market, and therefore longer-term rates tend to be higher than short-term rates, for the most part, but short-term rates can be higher than long-term rates occasionally. This theory is consistent with both the persistence of the normal yield curve shape and the tendency of the yield curve to shift up and down while retaining its shape.

This theory is also called the segmented market hypothesis. In this theory, financial instruments of different terms are not substitutable. As a result, the supply and demand in the markets for short-term and long-term instruments is determined largely independently. Prospective investors decide in advance whether they need short-term or long-term instruments. If investors prefer their portfolio to be liquid, they will prefer short-term instruments to long-term instruments. Therefore, the market for short-term instruments will receive a higher demand. Higher demand for the instrument implies higher prices and lower yield. This explains the stylized fact that short-term yields are usually lower than long-term yields. This theory explains the predominance of the normal yield curve shape. However, because the supply and demand of the two markets are independent, this theory fails to explain the observed fact that yields tend to move together (i.e., upward and downward shifts in the curve).

On August 15, 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced that the U.S. dollar would no longer be based on the gold standard, thereby ending the Bretton Woods system and initiating the era of floating exchange rates.

Floating exchange rates made life more complicated for bond traders, including those at Salomon Brothers in New York City. By the middle of the 1970s, encouraged by the head of bond research at Salomon, Marty Liebowitz, traders began thinking about bond yields in new ways. Rather than think of each maturity (a ten-year bond, a five-year, etc.) as a separate marketplace, they began drawing a curve through all their yields. The bit nearest the present time became known as the short end—yields of bonds further out became, naturally, the long end.

Academics had to play catch up with practitioners in this matter. One important theoretic development came from a Czech mathematician, Oldrich Vasicek, who argued in a 1977 paper that bond prices all along the curve are driven by the short end (under risk-neutral equivalent martingale measure) and accordingly by short-term interest rates. The mathematical model for Vasicek's work was given by an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process, but has since been discredited because the model predicts a positive probability that the short rate becomes negative and is inflexible in creating yield curves of different shapes. Vasicek's model has been superseded by many different models including the Hull–White model (which allows for time varying parameters in the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process), the Cox–Ingersoll–Ross model, which is a modified Bessel process, and the Heath–Jarrow–Morton framework. There are also many modifications to each of these models, but see the article on short-rate model. Another modern approach is the LIBOR market model, introduced by Brace, Gatarek and Musiela in 1997 and advanced by others later. In 1996, a group of derivatives traders led by Olivier Doria (then head of swaps at Deutsche Bank) and Michele Faissola, contributed to an extension of the swap yield curves in all the major European currencies. Until then the market would give prices until 15 years maturities. The team extended the maturity of European yield curves up to 50 years (for the lira, French franc, Deutsche mark, Danish krone and many other currencies including the ecu). This innovation was a major contribution towards the issuance of long dated zero-coupon bonds and the creation of long dated mortgages.

• J H M Darbyshire (2017). Pricing and Trading Interest Rate Derivatives (2nd ed. 2017 ed.). Aitch and Dee Ltd. ISBN 978-0995455528.
• Leif B.G. Andersen & Vladimir V. Piterbarg (2010). Interest Rate Modeling. Atlantic Financial Press. ISBN 978-0-9844221-0-4.
• Jessica James & Nick Webber (2001). Interest Rate Modelling. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-97523-6.
• Riccardo Rebonato (1998). Interest-Rate Option Models. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-97958-6.
• Nicholas Dunbar (2000). Inventing Money. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-89999-0.
• N. Anderson, F. Breedon, M. Deacon, A. Derry and M. Murphy (1996). Estimating and Interpreting the Yield Curve. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-96207-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Andrew J.G. Cairns (2004). Interest Rate Models – An Introduction. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11894-9.
• John C. Hull (1989). Options, Futures and Other Derivatives. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-015822-2. See in particular the section Theories of the term structure (section 4.7 in the fourth edition).
• Damiano Brigo; Fabio Mercurio (2001). Interest Rate Models – Theory and Practice. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-41772-9.
• Donald R. van Deventer; Kenji Imai; Mark Mesler (2004). Advanced Financial Risk Management, An Integrated Approach to Credit Risk and Interest Rate Risk Management. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-82126-8.

• Ruben D Cohen (2006) "A VaR-Based Model for the Yield Curve [download]" Wilmott Magazine, May Issue.
• Lin Chen (1996). Stochastic Mean and Stochastic Volatility – A Three-Factor Model of the Term Structure of Interest Rates and Its Application to the Pricing of Interest Rate Derivatives. Blackwell Publishers.
• Paul F. Cwik (2005) "The Inverted Yield Curve and the Economic Downturn [download]" New Perspectives on Political Economy, Volume 1, Number 1, 2005, pp. 1–37.
• Roger J.-B. Wets, Stephen W. Bianchi, "Term and Volatility Structures" in Stavros A. Zenios & William T. Ziemba (2006). Handbook of Asset and Liability Management, Volume 1. North-Holland. ISBN 978-0-444-50875-1.
• Hagan, P.; West, G. (June 2006). "Interpolation Methods for Curve Construction" (PDF). Applied Mathematical Finance. 13 (2): 89–129. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.529.9594. doi:10.1080/13504860500396032. S2CID 17232942.
• Rise in Rates Jolts Markets – Fed's Effort to Revive Economy Is Complicated by Fresh Jump in Borrowing Costs author = Liz Rappaport. Wall Street Journal. May 28, 2009. p. A.1