Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:07:26.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Unified Approach to Term Structure Estimation: A Methodology for Estimating the Term Structure in a Market with Frictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Eliezer Z. Prisman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper develops a methodology for term structure estimation from a no-arbitrage condition in markets with frictions. The methodology unifies existing estimation procedures, such as the regression and linear programming approaches, and substantially broadens the class of useful estimation techniques. The estimators derived in this way are capable of reflecting actual market conditions, such as the asymmetry in the tax treatment of long and short positions and the higher financial cost of establishing a short position. The methodology is derived by applying the conjugate duality theory of mathematical programming.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 127 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carleton, W. T., and Cooper, I. A.. “Estimation and Uses of the Term Structure of Interest Rates.” Journal of Finance, 31 (09 1976), 1067–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dammon, M. R., and Green, C. R.. “Tax Arbitrage and the Existence of Equilibrium Prices for Financial Assets.” Journal of Finance, 42 (12 1987), 1143–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dermody, J. C, and Prisman, E. Z.. “Term Structure Multiplicity and Clientele in Markets with Transactions Costs and Taxes.’ Journal of Finance, 43 (09 1988), 893–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dybvig, P. H., and Ross, S. A.. “Tax Clientele and Asset Pricing.” Journal of Finance, 41 (07 1987), 751–772.Google Scholar
Jordan, J.; Ehrhardt, M.; and Prisman, E. Z.. “Tests for Tax-Clientele and Tax-Option Effects in U.S. Treasury Bonds: Theory and Evidence.” Paper presented at the 1989 FMA meeting.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. V. “Tax Effect in Term Structure Estimation.” Journal of Finance, 39 (06 1984), 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litzenberger, R. H., and Rolfo, J.. “An International Study of Tax Effects on Government Bonds.” Journal of Finance, 39 (03 1984), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, S. C. “A Time State Preference Model for Security Valuation.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 3 (03 1968), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, J. H. “Measuring the Term Structure of Interest Rates.” Journal of Business, 44 (01 1971), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, J. H. “The Tax-Adjusted Yield Curve.” Journal of Finance, 30 (06 1975), 811–830.Google Scholar
Prisman, E. Z. “Bonds Pricing in Markets with Taxes, the Tax Clientele Model vs. the Non-Clientele Model.’ Journal of Banking and Finance(Forthcoming 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prisman, E. Z. “Duality and Term Structure Estimation.” Mimeograph, Georgia Institute of Technology (1984).Google Scholar
Rockafeller, R. T.Convex Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Princeton Univ. Press (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. A. “Return Risk and Arbitrage.” In Risk and Return in Finance, Vol. I, Friend, I., and Bicksler, J., eds. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger (1976).Google Scholar
Schaefer, S. M. “Measuring a Tax-Specific Term Structure of Interest Rates in the Market for British Government Securities.” Economic Journal, 91 (06 1981), 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, S. M. “Taxes and Security Market Equilibrium.” In Financial Economics: Essays in Honour of Paul Cootner, Sharp, W. F., and Cootner, C. M., eds. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall (1982).Google Scholar
Schaefer, S. M. “Tax Induced Clientele Effects in the Market for British Government Securities.” Journal of Financial Economics, 10 (07 1982), 121–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar