|
Maturity (years) |
Market Price of Bond |
|
0.50 |
100.69 |
|
1.00 |
103.34 |
|
1.50 |
100.80 |
|
2.00 |
102.47 |
|
2.50 |
99.67 |
|
3.00 |
103.55 |
|
3.50 |
103.43 |
|
4.00 |
103.08 |
|
4.50 |
100.25 |
|
5.00 |
100.65 |
|
5.50 |
101.56 |
|
6.00 |
102.00 |
|
6.50 |
100.00 |
|
7.00 |
99.50 |
|
7.50 |
100.47 |
|
8.00 |
101.54 |
|
8.50 |
99.74 |
|
9.00 |
100.68 |
|
9.50 |
100.13 |
|
10.00 |
99.76 |
The general shape of the yield is approximately, as the above figure. However, the curve is mainly smooth and tends to increase with tenure and decline after some years. The change in bond prices and income tends to alter the YTM of the bond investment.
|
Maturity (years) |
Semi-annually yield |
|
0.50 |
0.24% |
|
1.00 |
-0.71% |
|
1.50 |
0.84% |
|
2.00 |
1.00% |
|
2.50 |
1.01% |
|
3.00 |
1.66% |
|
3.50 |
1.86% |
|
4.00 |
1.95% |
|
4.50 |
1.32% |
|
5.00 |
1.49% |
|
5.50 |
1.83% |
|
6.00 |
2.02% |
|
6.50 |
1.37% |
|
7.00 |
1.20% |
|
7.50 |
1.56% |
|
8.00 |
2.04% |
|
8.50 |
1.41% |
|
9.00 |
1.79% |
|
9.50 |
1.61% |
|
10.00 |
1.53% |
|
Bonds |
T |
FV |
Price |
Rate |
Duration |
Weights |
|
|
GSBS18 |
0.50 |
100.00 |
100.69 |
3.25% |
0.24% |
0.49 |
20% |
|
GSBE19 |
1.00 |
100.00 |
103.34 |
5.25% |
0.71% |
0.99 |
20% |
|
GSBS19 |
1.50 |
100.00 |
100.80 |
2.75% |
0.84% |
1.47 |
20% |
|
GSBG20 |
2.00 |
100.00 |
102.47 |
4.50% |
1.00% |
1.93 |
20% |
|
Zero coupon bond |
2.00 |
100.00 |
95.00 |
– |
1.01% |
2.00 |
20% |
|
Portfolio Duration |
1.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the use of equal weights, the portfolio duration calculated for the above arbitrage position is mainly at the levels of 1.38. This mainly helps in understanding the minim tenure which is used in deriving the returns from investment.
|
Bond |
Maturity (Years) |
Face Value |
Coupon |
YTM |
Bond price |
|
GSBE47 |
10.00 |
100.00 |
3.00% |
1.53% |
99.76 |
|
Increase in YTM |
||||||
|
Year |
Cash Inflow |
0.00% |
0.25% |
0.50% |
0.75% |
1.00% |
|
1 |
3.00 |
3.4379 |
3.4391 |
3.4403 |
3.4414 |
3.4426 |
|
2 |
3.00 |
3.3863 |
3.3873 |
3.3883 |
3.3893 |
3.3904 |
|
3 |
3.00 |
3.3354 |
3.3363 |
3.3372 |
3.3380 |
3.3389 |
|
4 |
3.00 |
3.2853 |
3.2860 |
3.2868 |
3.2875 |
3.2882 |
|
5 |
3.00 |
3.2359 |
3.2365 |
3.2371 |
3.2377 |
3.2384 |
|
6 |
3.00 |
3.1873 |
3.1878 |
3.1883 |
3.1887 |
3.1892 |
|
7 |
3.00 |
3.1394 |
3.1398 |
3.1401 |
3.1405 |
3.1408 |
|
8 |
3.00 |
3.0922 |
3.0925 |
3.0927 |
3.0929 |
3.0932 |
|
9 |
3.00 |
3.0458 |
3.0459 |
3.0460 |
3.0461 |
3.0462 |
|
10 |
103.00 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
|
Total Payment |
132.1455 |
132.1511 |
132.1567 |
132.1623 |
132.1679 |
|
Decrease in YTM |
||||||
|
Year |
Cash Inflow |
0.00% |
0.25% |
0.50% |
0.75% |
1.00% |
|
1 |
3.00 |
3.4379 |
3.4368 |
3.4356 |
3.4345 |
3.4333 |
|
2 |
3.00 |
3.3863 |
3.3853 |
3.3842 |
3.3832 |
3.3822 |
|
3 |
3.00 |
3.3354 |
3.3345 |
3.3336 |
3.3328 |
3.3319 |
|
4 |
3.00 |
3.2853 |
3.2845 |
3.2838 |
3.2831 |
3.2823 |
|
5 |
3.00 |
3.2359 |
3.2353 |
3.2347 |
3.2341 |
3.2335 |
|
6 |
3.00 |
3.1873 |
3.1868 |
3.1863 |
3.1859 |
3.1854 |
|
7 |
3.00 |
3.1394 |
3.1390 |
3.1387 |
3.1383 |
3.1380 |
|
8 |
3.00 |
3.0922 |
3.0920 |
3.0918 |
3.0915 |
3.0913 |
|
9 |
3.00 |
3.0458 |
3.0457 |
3.0455 |
3.0454 |
3.0453 |
|
10 |
103.00 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
|
Total Payment |
132.1455 |
132.1399 |
132.1344 |
132.1288 |
132.1232 |
The evaluation of above table mainly helps in understanding the relationship between HPR and YTM. Therefore, any kind of increment or decline in YTM will directly affect the end payment of the bond. Hence, it could be assumed that there is a direct relationship between YTM and HPR (Van, Plantinga and Scholtens 2016).
|
Bond |
Maturity (Years) |
Face Value |
Coupon |
YTM |
Bond price |
|
GSBE47 |
10.00 |
100.00 |
3.00% |
1.53% |
99.76 |
|
GSBG25 |
5.00 |
100.00 |
3.25% |
1.49% |
100.65 |
|
Year |
GSBE47 |
GSBG25 |
Cash Inflow |
0.00% |
0.25% |
0.50% |
0.75% |
1.00% |
|
1 |
3 |
3.25 |
(0.25) |
(0.2865) |
(0.2866) |
(0.2867) |
(0.2868) |
(0.2869) |
|
2 |
3 |
3.25 |
(0.25) |
(0.2822) |
(0.2823) |
(0.2824) |
(0.2824) |
(0.2825) |
|
3 |
3 |
3.25 |
(0.25) |
(0.2780) |
(0.2780) |
(0.2781) |
(0.2782) |
(0.2782) |
|
4 |
3 |
3.25 |
(0.25) |
(0.2738) |
(0.2738) |
(0.2739) |
(0.2740) |
(0.2740) |
|
5 |
3 |
103.25 |
(100.25) |
(108.1336) |
(108.1539) |
(108.1743) |
(108.1946) |
(108.2149) |
|
6 |
3 |
0 |
3.00 |
3.1873 |
3.1878 |
3.1883 |
3.1887 |
3.1892 |
|
7 |
3 |
0 |
3.00 |
3.1394 |
3.1398 |
3.1401 |
3.1405 |
3.1408 |
|
8 |
3 |
0 |
3.00 |
3.0922 |
3.0925 |
3.0927 |
3.0929 |
3.0932 |
|
9 |
3 |
0 |
3.00 |
3.0458 |
3.0459 |
3.0460 |
3.0461 |
3.0462 |
|
10 |
103.00 |
0 |
103.00 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
103.0000 |
|
|
|
|
Total Payment |
6.2107 |
6.1912 |
6.1718 |
6.1523 |
6.1328 |
|
Bond |
Maturity (Years) |
Face Value |
Coupon |
YTM |
Bond price |
|
GSBE47 |
10.00 |
100.00 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
99.76 |
|
Increase in Coupon rate |
||||||
|
Year |
Cash Inflow |
0.00% |
0.25% |
0.50% |
0.75% |
1.00% |
|
1 |
3.00 |
3.4379 |
3.4465 |
3.4551 |
3.4637 |
3.4723 |
|
2 |
3.00 |
3.3863 |
3.3948 |
3.4032 |
3.4117 |
3.4201 |
|
3 |
3.00 |
3.3354 |
3.3437 |
3.3521 |
3.3604 |
3.3688 |
|
4 |
3.00 |
3.2853 |
3.2935 |
3.3017 |
3.3099 |
3.3181 |
|
5 |
3.00 |
3.2359 |
3.2440 |
3.2521 |
3.2602 |
3.2683 |
|
6 |
3.00 |
3.1873 |
3.1953 |
3.2032 |
3.2112 |
3.2192 |
|
7 |
3.00 |
3.1394 |
3.1473 |
3.1551 |
3.1629 |
3.1708 |
|
8 |
3.00 |
3.0922 |
3.1000 |
3.1077 |
3.1154 |
3.1232 |
|
9 |
3.00 |
3.0458 |
3.0534 |
3.0610 |
3.0686 |
3.0762 |
|
10 |
3.00 |
103.0000 |
103.0075 |
103.0150 |
103.0225 |
103.0300 |
|
Total Payment |
132.1455 |
132.2259 |
132.3063 |
132.3866 |
132.4670 |
|
Decrease in Coupon rate |
||||||
|
Year |
Cash Inflow |
0.00% |
0.25% |
0.50% |
0.75% |
1.00% |
|
1 |
3.00 |
3.4379 |
3.4293 |
3.4208 |
3.4122 |
3.4036 |
|
2 |
3.00 |
3.3863 |
3.3778 |
3.3694 |
3.3609 |
3.3524 |
|
3 |
3.00 |
3.3354 |
3.3271 |
3.3187 |
3.3104 |
3.3020 |
|
4 |
3.00 |
3.2853 |
3.2771 |
3.2689 |
3.2606 |
3.2524 |
|
5 |
3.00 |
3.2359 |
3.2278 |
3.2197 |
3.2116 |
3.2036 |
|
6 |
3.00 |
3.1873 |
3.1793 |
3.1714 |
3.1634 |
3.1554 |
|
7 |
3.00 |
3.1394 |
3.1316 |
3.1237 |
3.1159 |
3.1080 |
|
8 |
3.00 |
3.0922 |
3.0845 |
3.0768 |
3.0690 |
3.0613 |
|
9 |
3.00 |
3.0458 |
3.0382 |
3.0305 |
3.0229 |
3.0153 |
|
10 |
3.00 |
103.0000 |
102.9925 |
102.9850 |
102.9775 |
102.9700 |
|
Total Payment |
132.1455 |
132.0652 |
131.9848 |
131.9044 |
131.8241 |
|
Liability |
|
|
F(L) |
100,000,000 |
|
t |
1 |
|
Yield |
2.62% |
|
PV(L) |
97,451,639.62 |
|
Bond 1 |
|
|
F |
100 |
|
c |
2.75% |
|
t |
4.50 |
|
C |
1.375 |
|
P1 |
90.65 |
|
Bond 2 |
|
|
F |
100 |
|
c |
3.25% |
|
t |
5.00 |
|
C |
1.625 |
|
P1 |
100.49 |
|
|
|
Cash Flow |
|
|
|
Time (year) |
B1 |
B2 |
L |
checking |
|
4.50 |
101.375 |
1.625 |
0 |
0 |
|
5.00 |
0 |
101.625 |
100,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
|
Bond Portfolio |
No of bond |
bond price |
$ invest |
|
B1 |
-15773.27734 |
90.65410927 |
-1429912.407 |
|
B2 |
984009.8401 |
100.4883773 |
98881552.03 |
|
B |
|
97451639.62 |
97451639.62 |
|
Liability |
|
|
F(L) |
100,000,000 |
|
t |
1 |
|
PV(L) |
97,476,480.14 |
|
Bond 1 |
|
|
F |
100 |
|
c |
2.75% |
|
t |
4.50 |
|
C |
1.375 |
|
P1 |
90.75 |
|
Bond 2 |
|
|
F |
100 |
|
c |
3.25% |
|
t |
5.00 |
|
C |
1.625 |
|
P1 |
100.52 |
|
|
|
Cash Flow |
|
|
|
Time (year) |
B1 |
B2 |
L |
checking |
|
4.50 |
101.375 |
1.625 |
0 |
0 |
|
5.00 |
0 |
101.625 |
100,000,000 |
100,000,000 |
|
Bond Portfolio |
No of bond |
bond price |
$ invest |
|
B1 |
-15773.27734 |
90.75425759 |
-1431492.075 |
|
B2 |
984009.8401 |
100.52 |
98907972.22 |
|
B |
|
97,476,480 |
97,476,480 |
From the overall evaluation, it could be identified that the hedge was held effectively, where the losses from the bond hedge was minimised from the portfolio weights. This might help in minimising the risk from changing YTM rates. In this context, Fender et al. (2016) stated that with the use of hedging measures investors are able to minimise the risk from investment and maximise their profitability.
Fender, R., Adams, R., Barber, B. and Odean, T., 2016. Gender Diversity in Investment Management: New Research for Practitioners on How to Close the Gender Gap. Research Foundation Briefs, 5(1), pp.1-16.
van Duuren, E., Plantinga, A. and Scholtens, B., 2016. ESG integration and the investment management process: Fundamental investing reinvented. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), pp.525-533.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
