scholarly journals Spread determinants in corporate bond pricing: The effect of market and liquidity risks

2020 ◽  
pp. 2-2
Author(s):  
Menevşe Özdemir-Dilidüzgün ◽  
Ayşe Altıok-Yılmaz ◽  
Elif Akben-Selçuk

This paper investigates the effect of market and liquidity risks on corporate bond pricing in Turkey, an emerging market, and in Europe. Results show that corporate bond returns have exposure to liquidity factors and not to market factors in both settings. Corporate bonds issued in Turkey have significant exposure to fluctuations in benchmark treasury bond liquidity and corporate bond market liquidity; while corporate bonds issued in Eurozone have exposure to equity market liquidity and are sensitive to fluctuations in a 10-year generic government bond liquidity. The total estimated liquidity risk premium is 0.7% per annum for Turkish ?A? and above graded corporate bonds, and 1.08% for the last investment grade level (BBB-) long term bonds. For Eurozone, the total liquidity risk premium is 0.27% for investment grade 5-10 year term bonds, 1.05% for high-yield 1-5 year term bonds and 1.02% for high-yield 5-10 year term category.

2012 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 1250006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank de Jong ◽  
Joost Driessen

This paper explores the role of liquidity risk in the pricing of corporate bonds. We show that corporate bond returns have significant exposures to fluctuations in treasury bond liquidity and equity market liquidity. Further, this liquidity risk is a priced factor for the expected returns on corporate bonds, and the associated liquidity risk premia help to explain the credit spread puzzle. In terms of expected returns, the total estimated liquidity risk premium is around 0.6% per annum for US long-maturity investment grade bonds. For speculative grade bonds, which have higher exposures to the liquidity factors, the liquidity risk premium is around 1.5% per annum. We find very similar evidence for the liquidity risk exposure of corporate bonds for a sample of European corporate bond prices.


2017 ◽  
pp. 57-67
Author(s):  
Mykola Stetsko

Introduction. In contrast to the markets of developed countries, forming characteristic risk premium investment bonds in emerging markets, is that the greatest effect on the risk premium on bonds in countries such factor provides market liquidity in general and specific securities in particular. The second most significant factor influencing the risk premium is the risk of changing interest rates. The risk of default of issuers in such countries is also quite high, but the component of creditworthiness is less significant factor in the combination of systematic risks. Due to low sovereign ratings of Ukraine, the credit ratings of bonds of all domestic issuers have a speculative level. Owing to this fact, all of them can be classified as highly risky and, accordingly, highly profitable (HighYield Bonds). Purpose. The aim of the article is to reduce deficits in the scientific and methodological provision of the use of corporate bonds instruments on the basis of determining the determinants of the premium for the risk of investing in them. Method (methodology). To achieve the goal and solve the problems, the following methods have been used: method of analysis and synthesis, method of comparison and generalization; method of empirical research and factor analysis; method of system approach and strategy. Results. The research of the determinants of the risk premium is important, first of all, from the point of view of substantiating the technologies of reducing the cost of enterprises to capital. The key causes of underdevelopment of the domestic corporate bond market have been determined. We have identified factors that influence the spread of profitability and the value of bonds. They are the risk of default of the issuer and the potential of the enterprise development (credit component); base interest rate and long-term interest rates on the financial market (interest rate component); liquidity of the capital market (component of liquidity); the level of inflation and the development of economic conditions; information risks. It has been determined that in order to reduce the risk of investments in corporate bonds, it is necessary to implement at the regulatory level a set of measures to reduce overhead costs and increase the reliability of investments. The introduction of a safety covenant system can be defrined as one of such measures.


2017 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 1750003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Hotchkiss ◽  
Gergana Jostova

This paper studies the determinants of trading volume and liquidity of corporate bonds. Using transactions data from a comprehensive dataset of insurance company trades, our analysis covers more than 17,000 US corporate bonds of 4,151 companies over a five-year period prior to the introduction of TRACE. Our transactions data show that a variety of issue- and issuer-specific characteristics impact corporate bond liquidity. Among these, the most economically important determinants of bond trading volume are the bond’s issue size and age — trading volume declines substantially as bonds become seasoned and are absorbed into less active portfolios. Stock-level activity also impacts bond trading volume. Bonds of companies with publicly traded equity are more likely to trade than those with private equity. Further, public companies with more active stocks have more actively traded bonds. Finally, we show that while the liquidity of high-yield bonds is more affected by credit risk, interest-rate risk is more important in determining the liquidity of investment-grade bonds.


Subject Emerging market corporate bonds enter bubble territory. Significance Strong appetite for higher-yielding emerging market (EM) assets this year has compressed corporate bond spreads the most since the global financial crisis, fuelling concerns of a bubble. The sharpest compression has occurred in Asia where spreads on the Asian component of JPMorgan’s benchmark EM corporate bond index have fallen below their mid-2014 post-crisis low. Low volatility and the enduring ‘search for yield’ are underpinning demand but the scope for a correction is increasing as valuations are increasingly stretched -- particularly in Asian high-yield, and in non-investment grade bonds -- while concerns are high about China’s crackdown on financial leverage. Impacts The dollar has erased its post-election gain; it may fall more in coming weeks. The oil price has risen 10% since May 9 on rising confidence that OPEC will extend output cuts but further increases will be limited. The ‘Vix’ equities volatility index, Wall Street’s ‘fear gauge’, is close to a historic low despite the political turmoil in Washington.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariya Gubareva

PurposeThis paper provides an objective approach based on available market information capable of reducing subjectivity, inherently present in the process of expected loss provisioning under the IFRS 9.Design/methodology/approachThis paper develops the two-step methodology. Calibrating the Credit Default Swap (CDS)-implied default probabilities to the through-the-cycle default frequencies provides average weights of default component in the spread for each forward term. Then, the impairment provisions are calculated for a sample of investment grade and high yield obligors by distilling their pure default-risk term-structures from the respective term-structures of spreads. This research demonstrates how to estimate credit impairment allowances compliant with IFRS 9 framework.FindingsThis study finds that for both investment grade and high yield exposures, the weights of default component in the credit spreads always remain inferior to 33%. The research's outcomes contrast with several previous results stating that the default risk premium accounts at least for 40% of CDS spreads. The proposed methodology is applied to calculate IFRS 9 compliant provisions for a sample of investment grade and high yield obligors.Research limitations/implicationsMany issuers are not covered by individual Bloomberg valuation curves. However, the way to overcome this limitation is proposed.Practical implicationsThe proposed approach offers a clue for a better alignment of accounting practices, financial regulation and credit risk management, using expected loss metrics across diverse silos inside organizations. It encourages adopting the proposed methodology, illustrating its application to a set of bond exposures.Originality/valueNo previous research addresses impairment provisioning employing Bloomberg valuation curves. The study fills this gap.


2011 ◽  
Vol 01 (02) ◽  
pp. 355-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios Sangvinatsos

This paper studies dynamic asset allocations across stocks, Treasury bonds, and corporate bond indices. We employ a new model where liquidity plays an important role in forecasting excess returns. We document the significant utility benefits an investor gains by optimally including corporate bond indices in his portfolio. The benefits are bigger for lower-grade bonds. We also find that investment-grade indices are different from high-yield indices in that different risks are priced in these two asset classes. One important difference is that there exist positive "flight-to-liquidity" premia in investment-grade bonds, but we find no such premia in high-yield bonds. We calculate the portfolio behavior and the utility benefits for three types of investors, the "sophisticated", the "average" and the "lazy" investor. We provide practical portfolio advice on investing throughout the business cycle and we study how the total allocations and hedging demands vary with the business conditions. In addition, utilizing our model, we evaluate the significance of the liquidity variable information for the investor. We find that the liquidity information greatly enhances the investor's portfolio performance. Finally, further support in the optimality of the strategies is provided by calculating their in- and out-of-sample realized returns for the last decade.


Author(s):  
Miles Livingston ◽  
Lei Zhou

Credit rating agencies have developed as an information intermediary in the credit market because there are very large numbers of bonds outstanding with many different features. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association reports over $20 trillion of corporate bonds, mortgaged-backed securities, and asset-backed securities in the United States. The vast size of the bond markets, the number of different bond issues, and the complexity of these securities result in a massive amount of information for potential investors to evaluate. The magnitude of the information creates the need for independent companies to provide objective evaluations of the ability of bond issuers to pay their contractually binding obligations. The result is credit rating agencies (CRAs), private companies that monitor debt securities/issuers and provide information to investors about the potential default risk of individual bond issues and issuing firms. Rating agencies provide ratings for many types of debt instruments including corporate bonds, debt instruments backed by assets such as mortgages (mortgage-backed securities), short-term debt of corporations, municipal government debt, and debt issued by central governments (sovereign bonds). The three largest rating agencies are Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch. These agencies provide ratings that are indicators of the relative probability of default. Bonds with the highest rating of AAA have very low probabilities of default and consequently the yields on these bonds are relatively low. As the ratings decline, the probability of default increases and the bond yields increase. Ratings are important to institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds, and mutual funds. These large investors are often restricted to purchasing exclusively or primarily bonds in the highest rating categories. Consequently, the highest ratings are usually called investment grade. The lower ratings are usually designated as high-yield or “junk bonds.” There is a controversy about the possibility of inflated ratings. Since issuers pay rating agencies for providing ratings, there may be an incentive for the rating agencies to provide inflated ratings in exchange for fees. In the U.S. corporate bond market, at least two and often three agencies provide ratings. Multiple ratings make it difficult for one rating agency to provide inflated ratings. Rating agencies are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure that agencies follow reasonable procedures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-205
Author(s):  
Hyung Tae An ◽  
Seong Mi Bae ◽  
Mun Kee Cho

FEDS Notes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2789) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Bochner ◽  
◽  
Min Wei ◽  
Jie Yang ◽  
◽  
...  

U.S. nonfinancial business debt increased substantially in recent years in both absolute and relative terms and is now near its record high. Figure 1 shows that most of this increase was due to significant growth in investment-grade (IG) corporate bonds and institutional leveraged loans, while high-yield (HY) corporate bonds and C&I loans largely remained steady.


FEDS Notes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2918) ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig A. Chikis ◽  
◽  
Jonathan Goldberg ◽  

Beginning in late February 2020, market liquidity for corporate bonds dried up and corporate bond credit spreads soared amid broad financial market dislocations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The causes of this liquidity dry-up and the spike in corporate bond spreads remain subjects of debate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document