Skip Navigation


RFS Advance Access originally published online on January 14, 2008
Review of Financial Studies 2008 21(2):819-854; doi:10.1093/rfs/hhm082
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/2/819    most recent
hhm082v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Identifying Term Structure Volatility from the LIBOR-Swap Curve

Samuel Thompson
Arrowstreet Capital

Address correspondence to Samuel Thompson, Arrowstreet Capital, L.P., 44 Brattle Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138; telephone: (617) 547-9999; fax: (617) 547-0099; e-mail: sambthompson{at}gmail.com

JEL Classification: C52, G13


   Abstract

This paper proposes a new family of specification tests and applies them to affine term structure models of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)-swap curve. Contrary to Dai and Singleton (2000), the tests show that when standard estimation techniques are used, affine models do a poor job of forecasting volatility at the short end of the term structure. Improving the volatility forecast does not require different models; rather, it requires a different estimation technique. The paper distinguishes between two econometric procedures for identifying volatility. The "cross-sectional" approach backs out volatility from a cross section of bond yields, and the "time-series" approach imputes volatility from time-series variation in yields. For an affine model, the volatility implied by the time-series procedure passes the specification tests, while the cross-sectionally identified volatility does not. This is surprising, since under correct specification, the "cross-sectional" approach is maximum likelihood. One explanation is that affine models are slightly misspecified; another is that bond yields do not span volatility, as in Collin-Dufresne and Goldstein (2002).


I am indebted to Thomas Rothenberg for his invaluable advice. This paper is based on my dissertation, which he supervised. I thank Donald Andrews, John Campbell, Gary Chamberlain, Kjell Doksum, Chris Foote, Petra Geraats, Angelo Melino, James Powell, Matt Pritsker, Paul Ruud, Neil Shephard, Ken Singleton, Richard Stanton, Jeremy Stein, Jim Stock, Tim Vogelsang, and Tuomo Vuolteenaho for useful comments. I am also grateful for the comments of seminar participants at Cornell University, the Helsinki School of Economics, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, Rice University, and Yale University. Advice from Yacine Ait-Sahalia and two anonymous referees improved the exposition of the paper. Many of the calculations were carried out using Mathematica code provided by Yacine Ait-Sahalia and Robert Kimmel, and by Gauss code provided by Yongmiao Hong and Haitao Li.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.