开发者:上海品职教育科技有限公司 隐私政策详情

应用版本:4.2.11(IOS)|3.2.5(安卓)APP下载

luckhyr · 2020年01月27日

问一道题:NO.PZ2019103001000053

问题如下:

Abram and Edgarton recently attended an investment committee meeting where interest rate expectations for the next 12 months were discussed. The Fund’s mandate allows its duration to fluctuate ±0.30 per year from the benchmark duration. The Fund’s duration is currently equal to its benchmark. Although the Fund is presently invested entirely in annual coupon
sovereign bonds, its investment policy also allows investments in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and call options on government bond futures. The Fund’s current holdings of on-the-run bonds are presented in Exhibit 1

Over the next 12 months, Abram expects a stable yield curve; however, Edgarton expects a steepening yield curve, with short-term yields rising by 1.00% and long-term yields rising by more than 1.00%.

Based on her yield curve forecast, Abram recommends to her supervisor changes to the Fund’s holdings using the following three strategies:

Strategy 1: Sell the 3-year bonds, and use the proceeds to buy 10-year bonds.

Strategy 2: Sell the 5-year bonds, and use the proceeds to buy 30-year MBS with an effective duration of 4.75.

Strategy 3: Sell the 10-year bonds, and buy call options on 10-year government bond futures.

Based on Exhibit 1 and Abram’s interest rate expectations, which of the following strategies is expected to perform best over the next 12 months?

选项:

A.

Strategy 1

B.

Strategy 2

C.

Strategy 3

解释:

B is correct.

In a stable yield curve environment, holding bonds with higher convexity negatively affects portfolio performance. These bonds have lower yields than bonds with lower convexity, all else being equal. The 5-year US Treasury has higher convexity than the negative convexity 30-year MBS bond. So, by selling the 5-year Treasury and purchasing the 30-year MBS, Abram will reduce the portfolio’s convexity and enhance its yield without violating the duration mandate versus the benchmark.

答案里解释说5-year US Treasury has higher convexity than the negative convexity 30-year MBS bond,是从哪里看出来5年期债券的convexity比较大呢?

1 个答案

发亮_品职助教 · 2020年02月03日

嗨,从没放弃的小努力你好:


“答案里解释说5-year US Treasury has higher convexity than the negative convexity 30-year MBS bond,是从哪里看出来5年期债券的convexity比较大呢?”


不是数据比较得到的结论,这点可以直接判断出来。

对于普通债券,债券是一定有正Convexity的,也就是普通债券,都有正Convexity涨多跌少的优势。无非就是一些债券的Convexity大点,一些小的,但起码都是正数,大小关系主要看债券的期限Maturity、现金流分布Dispersion等等。

但是对于MBS或者Callable bond,这种债券的Convexity存在负数的阶段。所以这类债券的Convexity的数据是一定小于普通债券的。

所以答案在没有数据的情况下就有解释:5-year US Treasury has higher convexity than the negative convexity 30-year MBS bond.


至于为啥购买MBS/Callable bond会获得Negative convexity,这是因为,购买了MBS/Callable bond,相当于买了一份普通债券,同时卖出去了一份Call option,因为Option有很大的正Convexity,卖出很大的正Convexity就使得MBS/Callable bond的Convexity数据为负数。

对于MBS,Call option的持有人就是购房者。如果利率降低,购房者行权提前偿还了房贷,那以房贷为基础资产的MBS债券就会被提前赎回,作为MBS的投资者,债券就会被提前赎回。所以MBS的投资者投资了MBS相当于卖出了一份Option给购房者,卖出了很大的正Convexity,于是使得MBS的convexity为负。

 

对于Callable bond,发行人持有权利,在利率降低时、行权提前赎回债券,所以作为Callable bond的投资者,债券被提前赎回。所以是投资者投资Callable bond,相当于卖出了一份Option给发行人,卖出了很大的正Convexity,于是使得Callable bond的convexity为负数。

 

所以投资MBS/Callable bond,就相当于投资了普通债券,同时卖出去了一份Call option给发行人,因为Option有很大的正Convexity数据,所以卖出Option使得Callable bond/MBS的Convexity为负数。

 

 

 

 


-------------------------------
加油吧,让我们一起遇见更好的自己!


  • 1

    回答
  • 1

    关注
  • 559

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ2019103001000053 Abrwill rethe portfolio’s convexity anenhanits yielwithout violating the ration mante versus the benchmark.解析中这句话最后一句说的没有violate the ration mante怎么理解呢?

2021-10-05 18:40 2 · 回答

NO.PZ2019103001000053 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 B is correct. In a stable yielcurve environment, holng bon with higher convexity negatively affects portfolio performance. These bon have lower yiel thbon with lower convexity, all else being equal. The 5-yeUS Treasury hhigher convexity ththe negative convexity 30-yeMbon So, selling the 5-yeTreasury anpurchasing the 30-yeMBS, Abrwill rethe portfolio’s convexity anenhanits yielwithout violating the ration mante versus the benchmark. 卖3.0205份3年 买1份10年。他们不就ration netural了吗

2021-06-20 13:44 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2019103001000053 本题如果抛开题目对于ration 变化范围的限制,是不是应该ring the yielcurve 策略是收益最高的,我记得之前学ring the yielcurve时那道题是这么的

2021-05-15 11:44 1 · 回答

NO.PZ2019103001000053 请问老师,有两个问题,请老师帮助看一下理解是否正确 问题一与2相比,不选1的原因是不是(1)不满足ration mat,(2)没有在yielcurve stable的前提下sell convexity进一步增加收益? 问题二1增加的收益是不是等于10年期的YTM-3年期的YTM=2.34-1.4?同理,2增加的收益=2.95-1.8+sell convexity增加的收益率。

2021-03-28 18:04 1 · 回答

请问,1、strategy1卖短期债同时买长期债,是会增加convexity的,对吗?因为长期债期间现金流多于短期债,所以期限长的债券convexity更大。2、为什么说strategy1的本质是ring the yielcurve呢?(其他人提问的答案中这么说的)。strategy1并不是买入长期债持有一段时间后再卖掉,而是同时买卖不同期限债券,债券不同的;ring the yielcurve要求买入和卖出的应该是同一个债券吧。

2021-02-04 12:31 1 · 回答