The structural approach offers an integrated framework to deal with yield spreads and default probability simultaneously. However, structural models perform poorly in predicting corporate bond spreads. It is unclear whether this poor performance is caused by characteristics of individual models, missing factors, or different calibration procedures. This study evaluates the performance of four structural models by incorporating two important factors, personal taxes and the liquidity factor, and calibrating these models to data. To ensure our results are not contingent on the calibration method, we further apply the maximum likelihood estimation method to a large sample of individual bonds. Results consistently show that the ability of structural models to predict spreads improves considerably when personal taxes and liquidity are taken into account. Our findings suggest that the poor performance of standard structural models is more likely due to missing factors than the characteristics of individual models or the calibration procedure.

This paper examines the effects of default risk, call risk, and their interactions on bond duration. We find that call risk decreases durations of default-free bonds, while default risk alone generally decreases durations for risky bonds with only a few exceptions. The joint effect of default and call risk always results in shorter durations for corporate bonds. Controlling for the effect of default risk, call risk has a negative effect on duration, which diminishes as bond ratings decline. Finally, the effect of call risk on duration depends on bond characteristics. Empirical evidence shows that the effect of call risk is smaller for discount bonds and for deep-discount fallen angels.