A combination of observed and unobserved (latent) factors capture term structure dynamics. Information about these dynamics is extracted from observed factors using restrictions implied by no-arbitrage, without specifying or estimating any of the parameters associated with latent factors. Estimation is equivalent to fitting the moment conditions of a set of regressions, where no-arbitrage imposes cross-equation restrictions on the coefficients. The methodology is applied to the dynamics of inflation and yields. Outside of the disinflationary period of 1979 through 1983, short-term rates move one-for-one with expected inflation, while bond risk premia are insensitive to inflation.

Standard approaches to building and estimating dynamic term structure models rely on the assumption that yields can serve as the factors. However, the assumption is neither theoretically necessary nor empirically supported. This article documents that almost half of the variation in bond risk premia cannot be detected using the cross-section of yields. Fluctuations in this hidden component have strong forecast power for both future short-term interest rates and excess bond returns. They are also negatively correlated with aggregate economic activity, but macroeconomic variables explain only a small fraction of variation in the hidden factor. The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]., Oxford University Press.

A firm's instantaneous probability of default is modeled as a translated square-root diffusion process modified to allow the process to be correlated with default-free interest rates. The parameters of the process are estimated for 161 firms. An extended Kalman filter approach is used that incorporates both the time-series and cross-sectional (term structure) properties of the individual firms' bond prices. The model is reasonably successful at fitting corporate bond yields, while key features of the term structures of yield spreads are captured in the signs and magnitudes of the resulting parameter estimates.

ABSTRACT Shocks to nominal bond yields consist of news about expected future inflation, expected future real short rates, and expected excess returns—all over the bond's life. I estimate the magnitude of the first component for short‐ and long‐maturity Treasury bonds. At a quarterly frequency, variances of news about expected inflation account for between 10% to 20% of variances of yield shocks. Standard dynamic models with long‐run risk imply variance ratios close to 1. Habit formation models fare somewhat better. The magnitudes of shocks to real rates and expected excess returns cannot be determined reliably.

ABSTRACT The conditional covariance between aggregate stock returns and aggregate consumption growth varies substantially over time. When stock market wealth is high relative to consumption, both the conditional covariance and correlation are high. This pattern is consistent with the “composition effect,” where agents' consumption growth is more closely tied to stock returns when stock wealth is a larger share of total wealth. This variation can be used to test asset‐pricing models in which the price of consumption risk varies. After accounting for variations in this price, the relation between expected excess stock returns and the conditional covariance is negative.

Because the option to call a corporate bond should rise in value when bond yields fall, the relation between noncallable Treasury yields and spreads of corporate bond yields over Treasury yields should depend on the callability of the corporate bond. I confirm this hypothesis for investment‐grade corporate bonds. Although yield spreads on both callable and noncallable corporate bonds fall when Treasury yields rise, this relation is much stronger for callable bonds. This result has important implications for interpreting the behavior of yields on commonly used corporate bond indexes, which are composed primarily of callable bonds.

ABSTRACT I document a dramatic increase in the importance of two types of variation in Treasury bill yields beginning in the early 1980s. The first is idiosyncratic variation in individual short‐maturity (less than three months) bill yields. The second is a common component in Treasury bill yields that is not shared by yields on other instruments, such as short‐maturity privately‐issued instruments or longer‐maturity Treasury notes and bonds. Some evidence suggests the first type reflects increased market segmentation. These results have important implications for the calibration and testing of no‐arbitrage term structure models and interpreting tests of the expectations hypothesis.

I document a dramatic increase in the importance of two types of variation in Treasury bill yields beginning in the early 1980s. The first is idiosyncratic variation in individual short-maturity (less than three months) bill yields. The second is a common component in Treasury bill yields that is not shared by yields on other instruments, such as short-maturity privately-issued instruments or longer-maturity Treasury notes and bonds. Some evidence suggests the first type reflects increased market segmentation. These results have important implications for the calibration and testing of no-arbitrage term structure models and interpreting tests of the expectations hypothesis.