Search results

Summarize and review the key developments during the first three-quarters of 2021 relating to transition of the London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) to alternative risk-free rates, in accordance with the guidance of global regulators and market participants.

Outlines and explains four key events to date during 2021 that are instrumental to the success of LIBOR transition, including the ISDA 2020 IBOR Protocol and Supplement, the 5 March 2021 announcements by ICE Benchmark Administration and the Financial Conduct Authority, the transition of interdealer swap conventions from LIBOR to SOFR, and the ARRC endorsement of the CME Group SOFR term rate.

The global adherence to the ISDA Protocol and Supplement, the successful launch of “SOFR First” and other “RFR First” swaps convention transitions, and the ARRC’s endorsement of CME’s SOFR term rate have given the market the clarity and tools that it needs to complete the transition away from LIBOR by the deadlines fixed by the 5 March 2021 benchmark transition event.

It now is clear that market participants globally have the resources to, and must, move to adopt alternative reference rates and related operational systems and other infrastructure to cease origination of new LIBOR-linked contracts after 31 December 2021. The ARRC’s endorsement of the SOFR term rate for business loans and related derivatives and securitizations is a critical positive development for the structured finance market.

Expert analysis and guidance from experienced finance lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the gap between government bonds (index-linked and long-dated) and real estate yields/capitalization rates over time for the UK, Australia and the USA. The global financial crisis was a sharp shock to real estate markets, and while interest rates and government bond yields fell in response around the world, real estate yields (cap rates) have risen.

The absolute yield gap levels and their variation over time in the different countries are compared and linked to the theoretical reasons for the yield gap and, in particular, a changing real estate risk premium. Within this context, it assesses whether there have been structural breaks in long-term relationships during booms and busts based on autoregressive conditionally heteroscedastic (ARCH) models. Finally, the paper provides further insights by constructing statistical models of index-linked and long-dated yield gaps.

The relationships between bond and property yields go through a traumatic time around the period of the global financial crisis. These changes are sufficiently strong to be statistically defined as “structural breaks” in the time series. The sudden switch in the yield gaps may have stimulated a greater appreciation of structural change in the property market.

The research focuses on the most transparent real estate markets in the world, but other countries with less developed markets may respond differently.

The practical implications relate to how to value real estate yields relative to interest rates.

This is the first paper that has compared international yield gaps over time and examined the role of the gap between index-linked government bonds and real estate yields.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical model of a jump diffusion-mean reversion constant proportion portfolio insurance strategy under the presence of transaction cost and stochastic floor as opposed to the deterministic floor used in the previous literatures.

The paper adopts Merton’s jump diffusion (JD) model to simulate the price path followed by risky assets and the CIR mean reversion model to simulate the path followed by the short-term interest rate. The floor of the CPPI strategy is linked to the stochastic process driving the value of a fixed income instrument whose yield follows the CIR mean reversion model. The developed model is benchmarked against CNX-NIFTY 50 and is back tested during the extreme regimes in the Indian market using the scenario-based Monte Carlo simulation technique.

Back testing the algorithm using Monte Carlo simulation across the crisis and recovery phases of the 2008 recession regime revealed that the portfolio performs better than the risky markets during the crisis by hedging the downside risk effectively and performs better than the fixed income instruments during the growth phase by leveraging on the upside potential. This makes it a value-enhancing proposition for the risk-averse investors.

The study modifies the CPPI algorithm by re-defining the floor of the algorithm to be a stochastic mean reverting process which is guided by the movement of the short-term interest rate in the economy. This development is more relevant for two reasons: first, the short-term interest rate changes with time, and hence the constant yield during each rebalancing steps is not practically feasible; second, the historical literatures have revealed that the short-term interest rate tends to move opposite to that of the equity market. Thereby, during the bear run the floor will increase at a higher rate, whereas the growth of the floor will stagnate during the bull phase which aids the model to capitalize on the upward potential during the growth phase and to cut down on the exposure during the crisis phase.

A preceding paper by Baum examined the valuation of reversionary freehold interests, distinguishing between conventional and modern approaches. This paper applies the same approach to the valuation of leaseholds, and falls into two parts. Part 1 examined conventional leasehold valuations and the criticisms that may be made, concluding that both dual rate and single rate conventional valuations should be abandoned except in limited circumstances. Part 2 identifies three alternative modern approaches — real value, rational model and DCF — and compares their use in three general variations of leasehold valuation. The results are compared, and recommendations for their use are made. Finally an overview of the application of modern approaches to investment property valuation is presented.

The authors discuss the econometric underpinnings of Barro (2006)'s defense of the rare disaster model as a way to bring back an asset pricing model “into the right ballpark for explaining the equity-premium and related asset-market puzzles.” Arbitrarily low-probability economic disasters can restore the validity of model-implied moment conditions only if the amplitude of disasters may be arbitrary large in due proportion. The authors prove an impossibility theorem that in case of potentially unbounded disasters, there is no such thing as a population empirical likelihood (EL)-based model-implied probability distribution. That is, one cannot identify some belief distortions for which the EL-based implied probabilities in sample, as computed by Julliard and Ghosh (2012), could be a consistent estimator. This may lead to consider alternative statistical discrepancy measures to avoid the problem with EL. Indeed, the authors prove that, under sufficient integrability conditions, power divergence Cressie-Read measures with positive power coefficients properly define a unique population model-implied probability measure. However, when this computation is useful because the reference asset pricing model is misspecified, each power divergence will deliver different model-implied beliefs distortion. One way to provide economic underpinnings to the choice of a particular belief distortion is to see it as the endogenous result of investor's choice when optimizing a recursive multiple-priors utility a la Chen and Epstein (2002). Jeong et al. (2015)'s econometric study confirms that this way of accommodating ambiguity aversion may help to address the Equity Premium puzzle.

This paper examines whether target returns act as specific goals that impact risk-taking when individuals make investment decisions.

Using an experimental setting, the authors assign either a low or a high target return to participants and ask them to make independent investment decisions as the risk-free rate fluctuates around their target return and, for some of them, becomes negative.

Building on cumulative prospect theory, the authors find that the prevailing reference point of participants is the target return, regardless of the level of the risk-free rate. This result still holds even when the risk-free rate is negative, suggesting that (1) the target return drives risk-taking more than does a zero-threshold and (2) negative rates are limited as a tool to stimulate appetites for risk. In a follow-up study, the authors show that these conclusions remain valid when the target return is endogenously determined.

The authors' original approach, which pioneers the use of target returns in both the positive and negative interest rate contexts, provides insightful results about the “reach for yield” among regular people.

Lally (2007) concludes that regulators must estimate the risk‐free rate as the yield‐tomaturity on Government debt with a term‐tomaturity equal to the regulatory period, to ensure that the present value of expected cash flows equals the investment base. The analytics behind this conclusion assume that forward rates are an unbiased estimate of future spot rates, an assumption which is inconsistent with empirical evidence. This has an important economic implication. With the typical case being that the yield curve is upward‐sloping, adopting a short‐term risk‐free rate would result in equityholders being systematically undercompensated for the actual risk involved in a long‐lived project. If we adopt an alternative assumption that current rates are an unbiased estimate of future rates, the regulated rate of return is a function of the entire forward curve of interest rates and the accounting depreciation schedule. For long‐lived assets, benchmarking against the yield‐to‐maturity on long‐dated Government securities results in a far closer approximation of the appropriate return than the use of short‐term rates.

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.

In the context of public-private partnerships (PPPs), it has been argued that the standard valuation framework produces a paradox whereby government appears to be made better off by taking on more systematic risk. This has led to a range of approaches being applied in practice, none of which are consistent with the standard valuation approach. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that these approaches are flawed and unnecessary.

The authors step through the proposed alternative valuation approaches and demonstrate their inconsistencies and illogical outcomes, using theory, logic and mathematical proof.

In this paper, the authors demonstrate that the proposed (alternative) approaches suffer from internal inconsistencies and produce illogical outcomes in some cases. The authors also show that there is no problem with the current accepted theory and that the apparent paradox is not the result of a deficiency in the current theory but is rather caused by its misapplication in practice. In particular, the authors show that the systematic risk of cash flows is frequently mis-estimated, and the correction of this error solves the apparent paradox.

Over the past 20 years, PPP activity around the globe amounts to many billions of dollars. Decisions on major infrastructure funding are of enormous social and economic importance.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate the flaws and internal inconsistencies with proposed valuation framework alternatives for the purposes of evaluating PPPs.

The aim of this paper is to consider the appropriate benchmark risk free rate sui for pricing of property investments in the UK and, in doing so, investigate the financial characteristics and performance of the UK gilt yields. European investors have been significant players in the UK commercial property market during the last decade and in order to be competitive in bidding situations with UK‐based investors, require to be aware of the pricing criteria adopted.

This paper analyses the stability, yield distribution and volatility of both conventional gilts and index‐linked gilts with different maturities over the period 1980‐2010. It considers the changing structure of the UK commercial property market and reports on a questionnaire survey of the UK property investment community, which focused on the rationale behind the selection of the appropriate risk free rate of return.

The analysis suggests that ten‐year index‐linked gilts have been the most stable, but that if conventional gilts are preferred, then five‐year nominal appear to be more stable than ten‐year nominal; ten‐year real yields are smoother and relatively less volatile. In the authors' survey of the UK property investment fund managers and their advisors, the majority, but by no means all of the respondents, used the ten‐year nominal gilt yield as their risk free rate of return. However, questions were raised as to whether it was appropriate to use spot or average gilt yields, particularly when rates in 2009/2010 had fallen to such low level.

The findings provide a better understanding of how the different maturities of gilts behave. Insight is given on the criteria adopted by investors when selecting the risk free rate.