Are embedded calls valuable? Evidence from agency bonds

Abstract This paper examines the call option values embedded in callable agency bonds. For FHLB, FNMA, and SLMA bonds, call value estimates range from 1.23% of par to 1.47% on average, which are between those for the treasury and corporate debt securities. FHLMC bonds, on the other hand, have an average call value estimate of 2.85%. Call values are significantly larger for bonds with a longer remaining maturity and greater default risk. Most interestingly, call values in the call protection period are significantly larger than those in the callable period except for the SLMA bonds, whereas previous studies on corporate debt find no significant difference in call values between these two periods. In general, call value exhibits a downward trend over time as the callable bond approaches maturity. Also, call value is inversely related to the level of interest rates. Interest rate drops are usually accompanied by an increase in call values. An analysis of the determinants of call values suggests the following conclusions. First, call values are negatively related to short-term interest rates and the slope of the yield curve, and positively related to coupon rate and remaining maturity. Second, bonds with a greater amount of call protection have smaller call values, which is in contrast with the finding in a previous study on corporate debt that call protection period has little effect on call value.

[1]  T. D. King An Empirical Examination of Call Option Values Implicit in U.S. Corporate Bonds , 2000, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[2]  R. Litzenberger,et al.  Arbitrage pricing, transaction costs and taxation of capital gains: A study of government bonds with the same maturity date , 1984 .

[3]  M. Marr,et al.  SEC Rule 415: The Ultimate Competitive Bid , 1984, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[4]  Arthur D. Warga,et al.  Measuring Potential GSE Funding Advantages , 2002 .

[5]  George M. Constantinides,et al.  Optimal bond trading with personal taxes , 1984 .

[6]  F. Longstaff Are Negative Option Prices Possible? The Callable U.S. Treasury-Bond Puzzle , 1992 .

[7]  D. Mauer,et al.  Corporate Call Policy for Nonconvertible Bonds , 2000 .

[8]  G. Duffee The relation between Treasury yields and corporate bond yield spreads , 1998 .

[9]  Bradford D. Jordan,et al.  Tax options and the pricing of treasury bond triplets: Theory and evidence , 1991 .

[10]  W. Fung,et al.  Pricing New Corporate Bond Issues: An Analysis of Issue Cost and Seasoning Effects , 1986 .

[11]  G. R. Thompson,et al.  The Shelf Registration of Debt and Self Selection Bias , 1990 .

[12]  Bradford D. Jordan,et al.  The relative pricing of U.S. Treasury STRIPS: empirical evidence ☆ , 2000 .

[13]  Ehud I. Ronn,et al.  Callable U.S. Treasury bonds: optimal calls, anomalies, and implied volatilities , 1998 .

[14]  P. Carayannopoulos,et al.  The mispricing of U.S. treasury callable bonds , 1995 .

[15]  P. Schultz,et al.  Corporate Bond Trading Costs: A Peek Behind the Curtain , 2001 .

[16]  G. Rodney Thompson,et al.  Risk premia and the pricing of primary issue bonds , 1988 .

[17]  Bradford D. Jordan,et al.  Salomon brothers and the May 1991 Treasury auction: Analysis of a market corner , 1996 .

[18]  A Reexamination of Option Values Implicit in Callable Treasury Bonds , 1995 .

[19]  Suresh M. Sundaresan,et al.  Does Default Risk in Coupons Affect the Valuation of Corporate Bonds?: A Contingent Claims Model , 1993 .

[20]  Sugato Chakravarty,et al.  Trading Costs in Three U.S. Bond Markets , 2003 .