IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/revfec/v19y2010i1p1-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delivery options and convexity in Treasury bond and note futures

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Grieves
  • Alan J. Marcus
  • Adrian Woodhams

Abstract

Using Treasury bond and note futures to hedge fixed‐income portfolios is complicated by the large number of bonds that are eligible to deliver against the contract. Grieves and Marcus [Grieves, R. and A. Marcus. (2005). Delivery options and Treasury bond futures hedge ratios. Journal of Derivatives, 13, 70–76.] show that, in some circumstances, only two bonds—those with the highest and the lowest duration—are relevant for the hedging problem, which makes computation of analytic hedge ratios tractable. We evaluate the empirical efficacy of their two‐relevant‐bonds model. We compare the maturities of actual cheapest‐to‐deliver bonds to the prediction of the two‐deliverables model and calculate empirical price values of a basis point for Treasury futures contracts to determine whether contract prices display the negative convexity predicted by the model. The model has worked very well for the note contract and very poorly for the bond contract. We show that the difference in model performance is related to the shape of the yield curve.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Grieves & Alan J. Marcus & Adrian Woodhams, 2010. "Delivery options and convexity in Treasury bond and note futures," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 1-7, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:revfec:v:19:y:2010:i:1:p:1-7
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rfe.2009.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2009.06.003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rfe.2009.06.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gay, Gerald D. & Manaster, Steven, 1984. "The quality option implicit in futures contracts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 353-370, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesca Biagini & Tomas Björk, 2007. "On The Timing Option In A Futures Contract," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 267-283, April.
    2. Kenneth Barbade & Paul Bennett & John Kambhu, 2000. "Enhancing the liquidity of U.S. Treasury securities in an era of surpluses," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Apr, pages 89-119.
    3. Paul Bennett & Kenneth Garbade & John Kambhu, 1999. "Enhancing the Liquidity of U.S. Treasury Securities in an Era of Surpluses," New York University, Leonard N. Stern School Finance Department Working Paper Seires 99-083, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business-.
    4. Feunou Bruno & Tafolong Ernest, 2015. "Fourier inversion formulas for multiple-asset option pricing," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(5), pages 531-559, December.
    5. Pirrong, Craig, 2017. "The economics of commodity market manipulation: A survey," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 1-17.
    6. Kane, Alex & Marcus, Alan J, 1986. "Valuation and Optimal Exercise of the Wild Card Option in the Treasury Bond Futures Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 41(1), pages 195-207, March.
    7. Merrick, John Jr & Naik, Narayan Y. & Yadav, Pradeep K., 2005. "Strategic trading behavior and price distortion in a manipulated market: anatomy of a squeeze," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 171-218, July.
    8. Kristoffer Lindensjö, 2016. "The End of the Month Option and Other Embedded Options in Futures Contracts," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 23(1), pages 69-83, March.
    9. Sanjay Mansabdar & Hussain C Yaganti, 2020. "Valuing the quality option in agricultural commodity futures: a Monte Carlo simulation based approach," Papers 2006.11222, arXiv.org.
    10. Grieves, Robin & Marcus, Alan J. & Woodhams, Adrian, 2010. "Delivery options and convexity in Treasury bond and note futures," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-7, January.
    11. Peter Ritchken & L. Sankarasubramanian, 1995. "A Multifactor Model Of The Quality Option In Treasury Futures Contracts," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 18(3), pages 261-279, September.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/9850 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Reichardt, Susana & Balbás, Alejandro, 2006. "On the future contract quality option: a new look," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb063711, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    14. João Pedro Vidal Nunes & Luís Alberto Ferreira De Oliveira, 2007. "Multifactor and analytical valuation of treasury bond futures with an embedded quality option," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 275-303, March.
    15. Adam-Müller, Axel F. A. & Wong, Kit Pong, 2002. "The impact of delivery risk on optimal production and futures hedging," CoFE Discussion Papers 02/08, University of Konstanz, Center of Finance and Econometrics (CoFE).
    16. Christopher L. Gilbert, 2021. "Regional premiums in nonferrous metals markets," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(11), pages 1693-1714, November.
    17. Anne E. Peck & Jeffrey C. Williams, 1992. "Deliveries on Commodity Futures Contracts," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 68(S1), pages 63-74, December.
    18. David C. Ling, 1993. "Mortgage‐Backed Futures and Options," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 47-67, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:revfec:v:19:y:2010:i:1:p:1-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1873-5924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.