3
$\begingroup$

I'm following the famous paper Carry of Pedersen et al. I have a particular question about the section Global Fixed Income Carry.

My main questions are around equation 15. They define Carry as

$$C_t:=\frac{S_t-F_t}{F_t} (1)$$

for a fully funded position. My first question, why is this equivalent to for fixed income securities?

$$\frac{P_{t+1}^{T-1}+D\cdot 1_{[t+1\in \text{coupon dates}]}-P_t^T}{P_t^T} (2)$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How does he move from first to second line? Add and substract $P_{t+1}^{T-1}(y_t^T)$ and use the definition of yield (discussed before in the same section). Agree that some of their notation is a bit confusing. $\endgroup$ – fesman Oct 17 '20 at 13:43
  • $\begingroup$ @fesman could you please give some more details in an answer so that I can also accept it? thanks! $\endgroup$ – swissy Oct 22 '20 at 9:05
  • $\begingroup$ @swissy it is a previous version of the paper. So check also the new one. However, I would be also be very interested in seeing why these two definition for carry are the same $\endgroup$ – math Oct 26 '20 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ I think they only claim that they are approximately the same. $\endgroup$ – fesman Oct 26 '20 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ @fesman in a newer version the use $C_t=\frac{S_{t+1}^{T-1}-F^T_t}{F^T_t}=\frac{S^{T-1}_{t+1}-(1+r^f)S^T}{(1+r^f)S^T}$, looks like the $(1+r^f)$ is somehow too "much" on the equation $\endgroup$ – swissy Oct 26 '20 at 13:35
2
+50
$\begingroup$

As per the definition:

$C_t:=\frac{S_t-F_t}{F_t}$

Per the article, it should actually be: (tomorrow minus today ) divided by today:

$C_t=\frac{F_{t+1}-F_t}{F_t}$

but they assume price does not change so $S_{t+1}=S_t$. An equivalent assumption for the bond would be that the YTM does not change. But there are two predictable (model free) characteristics of bonds: it pays coupon and its maturity shrinks as time progresses. So tomorrow (t+1) the same bond will have one fewer day to maturity, and if tomorrow happened to be a coupon date, then the bond holder will get coupon as well, so the equivalent of $F_ {t+1}$ is $P^{T-1}_{t+1}+D (\,\mathrm{if}\; t+1 \;\mathrm{is \,coupon \,date}\,)$

Re-comment, the price of the asset or exchange rate is a random process so it will vary over time, and then there is the arbitrage/parity type relationship between the current price and the forward/future price. In the calculation of their carry, they assumed that the price remains constant over time, but the parity relationships are deterministic so they hold. If you have a non-dividend paying stock, then $F_t=S_t (1+r)$. If you substitute into the carry equation:

$C_t:=\frac{S_t-F_t}{F_t}=\frac{S_t-S_t (1+r^f)}{F_t}=-r^f \frac{S_t}{F_t}$

So the carry is minus funding rate. And if you have a dividend paying stock or FX, then $F_t=S_t (1+r)-E[D]$,so carry will be dividend minus the funding rate:

$C_t:=\frac{S_t-F_t}{F_t}=\frac{S_t-S_t (1+r^f)+E[D]}{F_t}=\left(\frac{E[D]}{S_t}-r^f \right)\frac{S_t}{F_t}$

So essentially they assume the price is not random over time, but parity type relationships hold.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for your answer. But the questions is, why $F_t = S_t$. I do agree with your form of $F_{t+1}$. The problem is for $F_t$ we use $(1+r^f)S_T$. If $F_{t+1}=P^{T-1}_{t+1}+D(\text{if }t+1\text{ is coupon date})$, then $F_t =S_t$, which seems wrong $\endgroup$ – swissy Oct 29 '20 at 8:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is it clear what I mean :) otherwise let me know as I'm very thankful for your help $\endgroup$ – swissy Oct 30 '20 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Just to clarify, you mean $f_t=S_t(1+r^f)$? This would be the case for a stock that pays no dividends? $\endgroup$ – Magic is in the chain Oct 30 '20 at 23:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you check the new version, link the comments above one can see that they write $F^\tau_t = (1+r^f_t)S_t^\tau$ $\endgroup$ – swissy Oct 31 '20 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, let me add details based on the current version, and we can then correct me if i get it wrong based on what you have seen in the new version! $\endgroup$ – Magic is in the chain Oct 31 '20 at 17:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.