Financial Exam Help 123

The place to get help for the CFA® exams

  • Welcome!
  • Bill Campbell III, CFA
  • Services
  • Registration
  • Log In
  • CFA Level I
  • CFA Level II
  • CFA Level III
  • Sample Articles
  • Sample Exam
  • FAQs
  • Submit a Testimonial
  • Contact Us
  • Store
  • Downloads
  • Errata

Classical Immunization

Posted by Bill Campbell III, CFA on June 4, 2016
Posted in: Level III Fixed Income.

The idea of immunization is fairly straightforward: you have a known set of liabilities due at known future dates, and you want to create a portfolio that will fund those liabilities with a minimum of risk, at a reasonable price.  Two types of immunization are discussed in the CFA curriculum: classical immunization and contingent immunization.  We’ll cover the former in this article and the latter in the companion article.

Classical (Single-Period) Immunization

Classical immunization involves a single holding period (i.e., a single, known liability at a known future date); it has two goals:

  1. Provide sufficient money on the date that the liability is due to be able to pay the liability.
  2. Do not lose any value in the company if interest rates change.

To achieve the first goal, the present value of the funding bond portfolio must equal the present value of the liability, discounted at the expected rate of return on the portfolio.

To achieve the second goal, at a minimum the money duration of the bond portfolio must equal the money duration of the liability; equivalently, their basis point values (BPVs) must equal each other.  This condition will ensure that the change in the value of the portfolio will equal the change in the (present) value of the liability for a single, instantaneous, relatively small, parallel shift in the yield curve.  If the present value of the bond portfolio equals the present value of the liability, this condition is equivalent to saying that the effective duration of the bond portfolio must equal the effective duration of the liability.

Here’s where the curriculum and I disagree on a point: determining the duration of the liability.  The curriculum refers only to the “duration” of the liability (without characterizing what sort of duration they mean), and it says that the duration of the liability is the time to maturity.  So, without admitting to it, the authors are talking about the Macaulay duration of the liability.  Unfortunately, they then equate the (Macaulay) duration of the liability to the (effective) duration of the funding portfolio, as the basis for immunization against interest rate risk.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work.  Macaulay duration is not a measure of interest rate risk.  (If you’re a bit foggy on the differences amongst Macaulay, modified, and effective duration, look here.)  Properly, we should compute the modified (or effective) duration of the liability (which will be slightly shorter than the Macaulay duration) and equate that to the effective duration of the funding portfolio.  The differences will be slight, I grant you, but as long as we’re learning how to do this, we might as well learn to do it correctly.

The effective duration of normal (i.e., fixed coupon) bonds is generally shorter than their maturity – perhaps much shorter, depending on the coupon rate – so matching the duration of the portfolio to the duration of the liability generally requires purchasing a bond whose maturity is longer than that of the liability.

Example

You have a liability of $2,000,000 coming due in 5 years; going with CFA Institute’s convention, we’ll assume that the (effective) duration of the liability is 5 years (though it’s really a bit shorter than 5 years).  You have two bonds that you can use to fund the liability:  a 4-year, zero-coupon, $2,000,000 par bond (really, 2,000, $1,000-par bonds) and an 8-year, zero-coupon, $2,000,000 par bond (again, really 2,000, $1,000-par bonds).  The current spot curve is:

Maturity Spot Rate
1 2.000%
2 3.000%
3 3.800%
4 4.440%
5 4.952%
6 5.362%
7 5.689%
8 5.951%

The 4-year ($2,000,000 par) bond sells at:

\[\frac{\$2,000,000}{1.04440^4}\ =\ \$1,680,980\]

and the 8-year ($2,000,000 par) bond sells at:

\[\frac{\$2,000,000}{1.05951^8}\ =\ \$1,259,475\]

The modified (and effective) duration of the 4-year bond is:

\[\frac{4\ years}{1.04440}\ =\ 3.83\ years\]

and the modified (and effective) duration of the 8-year bond is:

\[\frac{8\ years}{1.05951}\ =\ 7.55\ years\]

The present value of the liability is:

\[\frac{\$2,000,000}{1.04952^5}\ =\ \$1,570,639\]

The weighted average of the bonds’ present values has to equal the liability’s present value:

\[w_4\left(\$1,680,980\right)\ +\ w_8\left(\$1,259,475\right)\ =\ \$1,570,639\]

and the weighted average of the bonds’ durations has to equal the liability’s duration:

\[w_4\left(3.83\right)\ +\ w_8\left(7.55\right)\ =\ 5.00\]

I’ll spare you the linear algebra; the solution is:

\begin{align}w_4\ &=\ 0.7068\\
\\
w_8\ &=\ 0.3037
\end{align}

Therefore, the market value of the 4-year bond you need to purchase is:

\[0.7068\left(\$1,680,980\right)\ =\ \$1,188,188\]

which has a par value of:

\[\$1,188,188\ ×\ 1.04440^4\ =\ \$1,413,684\]

The market value of the 8-year bond you need to purchase is:

\[0.3037\left(\$1,259,475\right)\ =\ \$382,451\]

which has a par value of:

\[\$382,451\ ×\ 1.05951^8\ =\ \$607,319\]

Suppose that there is an instantaneous 50bp increase in interest rates, then the present value of the liability will be:

\[\frac{\$2,000,000}{1.05452^5}\ =\ \$1,533,755\]

the present value of the 4-year bond will be:

\[\frac{\$1,413,684}{1.04940^4}\ =\ \$1,165,704\]

the present value of the 8-year bond will be:

\[\frac{\$607,319}{1.06451^8}\ =\ \$368,315\]

and the total value of the portfolio will be:

\[\$1,165,704\ +\ \$368,315 =\ \$1,534,019\]

Note that the difference of $264 (= $1,534,019 − $1,533,755) is the result of the slightly different convexities of the portfolio and the liability.

By the way, if we had used 4.76 years (= 5 years ÷ 1.04952) as the duration of the liability (which is not what CFA Institute uses, but is the correct way to analyze the problem), the weights would be w4 = 0.7446 and w8 = 0.2533.

Rebalancing

Because the durations and values of the liability and the portfolio will change over time, the portfolio will occasionally need to be rebalanced.  One common way to rebalance the portfolio is based on the rebalancing ratio: the dollar duration of the liability divided by the dollar duration of the portfolio.

Example (cont.)

Suppose that one year later the spot curve has shifted and flattened somewhat:

Maturity Spot Rate
1 2.500%
2 3.400%
3 4.100%
4 4.640%
5 5.052%
6 5.362%
7 5.589%
8 5.751%

Classical Immunization Chart

The present value of the liability is now:

\[\frac{\$2,000,000}{1.04640^4}\ =\ \$1,668,165\]

and, assuming that its duration is 4 years,  its dollar duration is:

\[\$1,668,165\ ×\ 4.00\ years\ ×\ 1\%\ =\ 66,727\ dollar-years\]

The present value of the (original) 4-year bond is now:

\[\frac{\$1,413,684}{1.04100^3}\ =\ \$1,253,142\]

its effective duration is:

\[\frac{3\ years}{1.04100}\ =\ 2.88\ years\]

and its dollar duration is:

\[\$1,253,142\ ×\ 2.88\ years\ ×\ 1\%\ =\ 36,090\ dollar-years\]

The present value of the (original) 8-year bond is now:

\[\frac{\$607,319}{1.05589^7}\ =\ \$415,036\]

its effective duration is:

\[\frac{7\ years}{1.05589}\ =\ 6.63\ years\]

and its dollar duration is:

\[\$415,036\ ×\ 6.63\ years\ ×\ 1\%\ =\ 27,517\ dollar-years\]

The total dollar duration of the portfolio is, therefore:

\[36,090\ dollar-years\ +\ 27,517\ dollar-years\ =\ 63,607\ dollar-years\]

The rebalancing ratio is:

\[\frac{66,727}{63,607}\ =\ 1.0491\]

Thus, you need to purchase an additional 4.91% of the 3-year bond and the 7-year bond:

\begin{align}\$1,253,142\ ×\ 4.91\%\ &=\ \$61,468\\
\\
\$415,036\ ×\ 4.91\%\ &=\ \$20,378
\end{align}

Note that by using the rebalancing ratio, we’re not explicitly trying to match the present value and effective duration of the portfolio to those of the liability.  This is a flaw in the rebalancing ratio approach that never seems to be mentioned anywhere.  Well, except here, of course.

(To be fair, the differences are insignificant in this example.  Nevertheless, it seems a little silly to use the rebalancing ratio when it’s just as easy to calculate the values that match the liability’s value and effective duration.  Oh, well.)

Posts navigation

← Prepaid Variable Forward (PVF)
Contingent Immunization →
  • Search

  • What people have to say about Financial Exam Help 123

    Game-changer

    A few months ago, a colleague recommended that I try Bill Campbell’s classes for the essay part of the exam. His feedback on the mock-exams and tips were instrumental in helping me pass the exam at last. Bill is extremely knowledgeable, wise & patient and a pleasure to work with. His materials were great, particularly the mocks that were rather challenging, but arm you for the worst and make the actual exam a breeze. I hope that you will have the pleasure and privilege of working with him as well.

    Aleksandar Zavišić, CFA

    Aleksandar Zavišić
    Ilirika Investments

    Read More Testimonials »

  • Recent Posts

    • Valuing Risky Bonds
    • Yield Curve Strategies – Dynamic Yield Curve
    • Yield Curve Strategies – Static Yield Curve
    • Dividend Discount Models
    • Equity Valuation Models
    • Short Butterfly Spread
    • Short Strangle
    • Inverse (Short) Straddle
    • Yield Curve Strategies – General
    • Tax Bases
  • Archives

  • September 2023
    S M T W T F S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    « Apr    
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org
Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Parament by Automattic.

Copyright © 2013 - 2023 Bill Campbell III, CFA · (714) 694-0174  · Email: bill@financialexamhelp123.com

Financial Exam Help 123 is a CFA Institute Prep Provider. Only CFA Institute Prep Providers are permitted to make use of CFA Institute copyrighted materials which are the building blocks of the exam. We are also required to create / use updated materials every year and this is validated by CFA Institute. Our products and services substantially cover the relevant curriculum and exam and this is validated by CFA Institute. In our advertising, any statement about the numbers of questions in our products and services relates to unique, original, proprietary questions. CFA Institute Prep Providers are forbidden from including CFA Institute official mock exam questions or any questions other than the end of reading questions within their products and services.

CFA Institute does not endorse, promote, review or warrant the accuracy or quality of the product and services offered by Financial Exam Help 123. CFA Institute®, CFA® and “Chartered Financial Analyst®” are trademarks owned by CFA Institute.