In both the primary and many of the ancillary criteria that determine buy/sell signals, interest rate projections play an important role. Whenstocks are priced at reasonable or discounted levels relative to historical fundamental norms, lowering interest rates can have a strong positive effect. Conversely, especially when stocks are overvalued relative to fundamentals, higher interest rates can be shown to have a very negative effecton stock pricing.
The effect on bonds (and bond funds) resulting from interest rate changes are more straightforward than stock pricing relationships because the effect on stocks at any given time depends on stock price levels. The effect on bonds is direct: Lower rates create higher bond prices, and higher rates result in lower bond prices. The effect of rate changes on bond prices can be more dramatic than many investors realize, with the greater price shifts associated with longer maturities. Read the rest of this entry »
Valuing Caps and Floors
The arbitrage-free binomial model can be used to value a cap and a floor. This is because, as previously explained, a cap and a floor are nothing more than a package or strip of options. More specifically, they are a strip of European options on interest rates. Thus to value a cap the value of each period’s cap, called a caplet, is found and all the caplets are then summed. The same can be done for a floor.
To illustrate how this is done, we will once again use the binomial interest-rate tree to value an interest rate option. Consider first a 5.2%, three-year cap with a notional amount of $10 million. The reference rate is the one-year rates in the binomial tree. The payoff for the cap is annual.
Exhibit 25-12 shows how this cap is valued by valuing the three caplets. The value for the caplet for any year, say year X, is found as follows. First, calculate the payoff in year X at each node as either zero if the one-year rate at the node is less than or equal to 5.2%, or the notional principal amount of $10 million times the difference between the one-year rate at the node and 5.2% if the one-year rate at the node is greater than 5.2%
Then, the backward induction method is used to determine the value of the year X caplet. Read the rest of this entry »
Here we review some of the terminology used in the swaps market and explain how swaps are quoted. The date that the counterparties commit to the swap is called the trade date. The date that the swap begins accruing interest is called the effective date, and the date that the swap stops accruing interest is called the maturity date.
Although our illustrations assume that the timing of the cash flows for both the fixed-rate payer and floating-rate payer will be the same, this is rarely the case in a swap. In fact, an agreement may call for the fixed-rate payer to make payments annually but the floating-rate payer to make payments more frequently (semiannually or quarterly). Also, the way in which interest accrues on each leg of the transaction differs, because there are several day-count conventions in the fixed-income markets. Read the rest of this entry »
Once the swap transaction is completed, changes in market interest rates will change the payments of the floating-rate side of the swap. The value of an interest rate swap is the difference between the present value of the payments of the two sides of the swap. The three-month LIBOR forward rates from the current Eurodollar CD futures contracts are used to (1) calculate the floating-rate payments and (2) determine the discount factors at which to calculate the present value of the payments.
To illustrate this, consider the three-year swap used to demonstrate how to calculate the swap rate. Suppose that one year later, interest rates change as shown in Columns (4) and (6) in Exhibit 25-9. Column (4) shows the current three-month LIBOR. In Column (5) are the Eurodollar CD futures prices for each period. These rates are used to compute the forward rates in Column (6). Note that the interest rates have increased one year later since the rates in Exhibit 25-9 . Read the rest of this entry »
A total return swap in the fixed-income market is a swap in which one party makes periodic floating-rate payments to a counterparty in exchange for the total return realized on a reference obligation or a basket of reference obligations. A total return payment includes all cash flows that flow from the reference obligations as well as the capital appreciation or depreciation of those reference obligations. When the reference obligation is a bond market index, the swap is referred to as a total return index swap.
The party that agrees to make the floating payments and receive the total return is referred to as the total return receiver; the party that agrees to receive the floating payments and pay the total return is referred to as the total return payer.
Notice that in a total return swap, the total return receiver is exposed to both credit risk and interest-rate risk. For example, the credit risk spread can decline (resulting in a favorable price movement for the reference obligation), but this gain can be offset by a rise in the level of interest rates. Read the rest of this entry »
Earlier this year, two mutual fund management companies, American Guardian, Inc. and Best Management, Inc. entered into an agreement under which American Guardian would purchase all of the issued and outstanding stock of Best Management and merge Best Management into American Guardian. Although the companies are now combined, there are still two separate boards of directors for the funds. Each fund complex retained the same independent board members previously elected by the shareholders, but company-appointed directors were reevaluated and will be consistent for both boards. The combined entity, Best American Management, is now in the process of reviewing existing products and services and looking for opportunities to leverage its increased size.
American Guardian was a 30-year old Boston-based mutual fund complex. This fairly staid, conservative company was well known but had not been particularly innovative in fund distribution or shareholder servicing. It had historically chosen to distribute mainly through broker- dealers and outsourced its transfer agent process. The relatively new CEO of American Guardian firmly believed that in today’s highly competitive environment, mutual fund complexes must “grow or die.” He saw an acquisition as a necessary step to ensure that his firm’s products and services would be attractive to investors and their advisers in the future. Read the rest of this entry »
James M. Clash
A wave of consolidation is washing over the mutual fund business. So far this year funds totaling more than $125 billion in assets have changed hands. To hear the consolidators tell it, mergers are good because they bring fund investors economies of scale and breadth of choice within a fund family. Will these promises be fulfilled? It is instructive to consider some of the bigger recent mergers. The results are not encouraging.
Take the Dreyfus funds, purchased in December 1993 by Pittsburgh’s Mellon Bank. In the three years before the merger, the 12 domestic stock funds at Dreyfus performed, on average, on a par with the S&P 500 index. In the three years since, these funds, on average, have underperformed the index by a stunning seven percentage points a year.
Then there’s the American Capital/Van Kampen merger in August 1994. In the 26 months prior to the marriage, the 11 stock funds here outperformed the S&P 500 index by an average of two points annually. In the 26 months since the merger, the funds have underperformed, Read the rest of this entry »
1. Lose Money
Like Maria, most gluttons rationalize their investing behaviors. They equate action with money: You’ve got to play if you want it to pay. This may be true if you are a trader in Chicago Board of Trade, but for the rest of us, frenetic investing usually results in losses rather than in wins. Gluttons invest burdened by four weaknesses that they may be unaware of or that they may discount. Let’s examine these four vulnerabilities and why they should not be discounted: Read the rest of this entry »
It may be that as you look at the previous section and clearly identify yourself as a greedy rather than as a realistic investor, your response is, “So what?” You may rationalize this investing behavior as crucial to your success. You are aggressive, confident, and willing to take risks; you made a significant amount of money in the market in the past, and you intend to do so in the future, and the only way you know how to do so is by thinking big and investing like a big-time player.
In fact, big-time investors are big-time precisely because they aren’t greedy. They are highly successful because they understand the way the market works, do their homework, analyze their options carefully, and then make decisions with both short-term and long-term results in mind. The greedy investor, on the other hand, gets into all sorts of financial trouble because his greed is based on an unrealistic view of the market. Read the rest of this entry »
If everything you’ve read up to this point describes your investing behaviors, you should also know that the simple remedy to this sin is trading less and enjoying it more. Reducing the frequency of trading may sound easy to those who aren’t guilty of this sin, but to investing gluttons, it seems antithetical to their entire investing philosophy. If you’re a glutton, you firmly believe that highly active trading is the key to success. If you want to stop being a glutton and stop losing money, then you should be aware of two studies that will disabuse you of your belief in hyperactive trading.
The first study was completed in 1998 by Brad M. Barber and Terrance Odean, professors at the graduate school of management at the University of California at Davis. They examined the trading activity of 78,000 investors over a six-year period and found that the average investor turned over the stocks in his portfolio 80 percent annually, which may explain why individuals usually don’t perform as well as the overall stock market. More significantly, Professors Barber and Odean broke down households into groups based on how frequently they turn over their portfolios. The low turnover group averaged just 1.5 percent turnover per year, meaning that they rarely traded out of stocks. Read the rest of this entry »
The good news about this investing sin is that you have a number of ways to reduce its negative impact. Here are some steps you can take to reduce your gluttony and find a more healthy balance between active trading and watchful waiting:
A. Reserve 5 to 10 percent of your portfolio for aggressive trading.
Just as a diet isn’t designed to eliminate all food—or even all junky food—a good regimen for the investing glutton isn’t to cut trading entirely. For whatever reason, you enjoy and need the action of buying and selling. What you don’t need is for this need to eat away at your portfolio. Therefore, reserve a small percentage to feed this habit. If you only actively trade 100 shares instead of 1,000, you probably won’t do much damage.
Remember, though, that this 10 percent high-end percentage is absolute! Invariably, a time will come when the actively traded 10 percent will be performing well, and the inner glutton’s voice will say, “Don’t be a sucker; you’re a much better investor now than before; up the percentage to 20 percent?’ Do not heed this voice. It is the same voice the dieter hears after losing ten pounds, the voice that says, “Another slice of chocolate cake won’t hurt you? Read the rest of this entry »
