Tag Archive for: interest rate swaps

Yield Curves (term structure of interest rates) – filling in the blanks

| 27-05-2016 | Lionel Pavey

Most treasurers do not have access to a dedicated financial data vendor (Bloomberg, Reuters) but are regularly faced with having to discover prices related to yield curves. There are websites that can provide us with relevant data, but these are normally a snapshot and not comprehensive – the data series is incomplete. It is therefore up to the treasurer to complete the series by filling in the blanks.

A quick refresher about the construction of a yield curve raises the following points:-

  • All data must be from the same market (treasury bonds, Interest Rate Swaps (IRS) etc.)
  • A regular term (maturity) is preferred for ease of construction
  • A curve must be smooth
  • An implied zero yield curve can be built from the smooth par curve – a theoretical yield curve where no interest is paid until maturity. In a bond this would redeem at par (100) and be issued at a deep discount to par
  • A series of discounted cash flow factors (DCF) are produced
  • An implied forward curve with constant maturities can be built from the par curve
  • An implied forward curve must be monotonic – each point in an increasing sequence is greater than or equal to the preceding point, each point in a decreasing sequence is smaller than or equal to the preceding point

If we look at IRS par yield prices that can be found on a website, we can regularly see yield prices for periods from 1 year to 10 year inclusive, a 15 year price and a 20 year price. To construct a complete curve from 1 year up to and including 20 years we need to fill in the blanks at 11,12,13,14,16,17,18 and 19 years. These yields are assumed to be par yields – the coupon rate is equal to the yield to maturity and the instrument trades at par.

Before starting let us define the procedure for constructing a par yield curve:-
The methodology used is called “bootstrapping”. This allows us to extract discount factors (DCF) from the market rates. DCF’s allow us to calculate a value today for a cash flow in the future.

We assume that the nominal value for all calculation purposes is 100

For a 1 year rate we know the interest and redemption amount at maturity. A DCF is built whereby the net present value (NPV) of these future cash flows in 1 years’ time is equal to 100 or par.

For a 2 year rate we receive interest after 1 year and interest and redemption amount at maturity.

We discount the 1st years’ interest with the DCF we obtained from the 1 year rate and deduct this amount from our initial nominal of 100. This net amount is then divided by the interest and redemption at maturity (at end of 2 years) to obtain the DCF for the 2 year rate.

Example:

1 Year                                      7%                          2 Year                          9%

1 Year      
100 / (7/100+100) = 0.93457944 (DCF)

2 Year
9 * 0.93457944 = 8.41121496
100 – 8.41121496 = 91.58878504
91.58878504 / (9/100+100) = 0.8402640829

These DCF’s can then be used to find the NPV of any cash flow maturing in 1 or 2 years’ time.

The following example shows a yield curve from February 2013 published on the website of an interbank broker.

yield curve February 2013

yield curve February 2013

The quickest way to price the missing periods would be with straight line interpolation of the par curve between the known points – which would produce the following par curve, zero yield curve and forward curve with constant 1 year maturity.

yield curve February 2013 - 2

yield curve February 2013

Straight line interpolation

Straight line interpolation

 

Whilst the par curve and zero curve are smooth, the implied 1 year constant maturity curve is jagged and certainly neither smooth nor monotonic. The 11th 1 year period rate is lower than the 10th period and the 15th 1 year period rate is higher than the 16th period.

A second approach would be to apply a weighting to the known periods of the par curve and to average the difference out over the missing periods. Read more on this second approach in my next article which will appear next week.

Lionel Pavey

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Treasurer

 

 

Is this the solution to solving the derivatives mis-selling issue?

12-05-2016 | by Victor Macrae |

EuroRecently the Dutch Ministry of Finance appointed three independent experts to solve the long-lasting issue of derivatives mis-selling in the Netherlands. This is important for both firms and banks as the dispute puts severe pressure on their relationship. Moreover, judges are reaching more and more verdicts in favour of SME’s. In several cases interest rate swap transactions were declared void and the firm was compensated for its losses. Therefore the stakes are high. Is this last step permanently going to solve the issue?

The derivatives mis-selling problem originates from the fact that banks have been selling interest rate swaps to SME’s as an alternative to fixed rate loans. If market interest rates would not have dramatically decreased to unprecedented lows, there might have been no issue at all! But the reality is that buyers of interest rate swaps face various problems that they were apparently not aware of when signing the contract. For instance, in contrast to fixed rate loans, a bank can increase the interest margin when it deems a higher counterparty risk. Furthermore, when a firm wants to repay the underlying loan, it will also have to pay a possible negative market value of the swap. Also, a swap’s negative market value can decrease the firm’s access to liquidity.

MiFID strongly protects non-professionals

A key fact in this issue is that SME’s are deemed to be non-professional investors according to MiFID, a powerful EU directive that protects customers that purchase financial instruments. When selling interest rate swaps to non-professionals, banks should in advance inform them whether it acts as an advisor or as product seller. Furthermore, the bank should upfront provide sufficient information about all risks involved. Last but not least, banks should check that the non-professional investor understands the proposition and that the product is in the best interest of the customer.

Overarching solution

The Dutch financial conduct authority AFM first asked the banks to review their files of derivatives sales to SME’s and to pay compensation if necessary. Thereafter, the AFM concluded that the reviews were not ‘in the best interest of the customers’ and demanded that banks do it all over again. Recently the Dutch Minister of Finance intervened because he was unhappy with this process. As a consequence, to solve the issue once and for all the Ministry of Finance appointed three independent experts. I’m pleased with the idea of appointing three ‘outsiders’ as it makes it easier to reach a sound overall solution for all parties involved. SME’s would be fairly compensated and further financial and reputational damage of banks would be limited.

Disturbing signals

What bothers me is the fact that in the procedure set up by the AFM the banks will create an overall recovery plan together with the independent experts. This gives far too much power to the banks and undermines the independency of the experts! Having said that, the Minister of Finance has already softened this statement of the AFM. We will see how it works in practice. As an alternative SME’s can always go to court as judges have reached verdicts that are beneficial to them…

Victor Macrae

 

Victor Macrae

Owner of Macrae Finance