Shantaram P. Hegde Ben Branch imultaneous spot and futures trading in T-bills permits investors to construct S a combination of spot and futures positions that is a close substitute for a corresponding pure spot bill position. If the net returns on the spot-futures combination exceed the comparable
An empirical analysis of the delivery option, marking to market, and the pricing of treasury bond futures
β Scribed by Simon Benninga; Michael Smirlock
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1985
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 788 KB
- Volume
- 5
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0270-7314
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
ike many other futures contracts, the Treasury Bond (T-Bond) futures contract L allows the holder of a short position to satisfy the contract by delivering one of the variety of T-Bonds on one of a number of delivery dates. Accordingly, the traditional approach to pricing such contracts has concentrated almost exclusively on the concept of "cheapest to deliver," which treats the futures contract as if i t were a forward contract and asserts that the price of the futures contract will be determined by the minimal cost of carrying any deliverable bond to the maturity of the contract. Several recent studies have extended the pricing analysis in two ways that incorporate the distinctions between forward and futures contracts. First, Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross (CIR) (1981), Jarrow and Oldfield (1981) and Richard and Sundarsen (1981) have stressed that marking to market drives a wedge between the futures price of an asset and the forward price of the same asset.' Second, Garbade and Silber (1981) and Gay and Manaster (1983) have presented alternative approaches that explicitly incorporate the deliverer's right to switch from one quality of deliverable goods to another at the time of maturity. If at the time the contract is purchased, knowledge of which of the deliverable assets will be cheapest to deliver is uncertain, then the "quality variation" option will have value.
Any attempt to explore the pricing of T-Bond futures must take account of both *The authors wish to thank Jay Mervrs for his exrellent reseawh assistance. 'The theoretical literature cited in the text indicates thal when thew is 110 tielively option, fntures at111 forward prices will diverge by a term that represents the cost of marking to market.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Jim Wook Choi of the Chicago Board of Trade and the helpful comments provided by Franklin Edwards, the editorial staff and the anonymous referees of the Journal. Iln light of the October 19, 1987 market "crash," this argument is also shared b
n recent years there has been a proliferation of futures markets for financial I assets. The most successful of these have been the Treasury Bill and Treasury Bond futures markets. While the growth of these markets has generated a large body of literature surrounding T-Bill market efficiency,' littl
However, several previous studies have focused on market imperfections (transactions costs, taxes) or market inefficiency 10 explain the differences between futures and forward prices. See Capozza and Cornell (1979), B n g and Rasche (1978), Burger, Lang, and Rasche (1977), and Kane (1980) for marke
The impact of the cold fusion announcement was not lost by the financial press. Numerous stories in both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that trading activity in the palladium market had pushed prices for the metal to the highest levels since early 1980, when 'Y . . rampant i