We propose a dynamic asset pricing model in which two assets with identical cash flows can trade at different prices not only because of differences in liquidity but counterparty risk. Counterparty risk reduces lenders or borrowers’ willingness to supply funds and collateral, incentives to shortsell and lend, and the likelihood for new bonds to be on special, thereby narrowing on-/off-the-run spreads and affecting asset prices in spot markets. Consistent with this prediction, we find that on-/off-the-run spreads are low when counterparty risk is high and this relationship is much stronger during the financial crisis.

We propose a dynamic equilibrium model with stochastic interest rates in which agents hold heterogeneous valuations for the same asset and take on positions against each other. The model shows that interest rate uncertainty and investor heterogeneity are key determinants of price dispersion. Higher search intensity reduces price dispersion, while raising volume, leading to a negative volatility-volume relation. The sensitivity of volatility to volume is high when liquidity is low, interest rate variations are high and investors’ valuations are more heterogeneous. Evidence supports our model’s predictions and shows that search frictions play an important role in driving the volatility-volume relation.

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.

We develop a reduced-form approach for valuing callable corporate bonds by characterizing the call probability via an intensity process. Asymmetric information and market frictions justify the existence of a call-arrival intensity from the market's perspective. Our approach both extends the reduced-form model of Duffie and Singleton (1999) for defaultable bonds to callable bonds and captures some important differences between call and default decisions. A comprehensive empirical analysis of callable bonds using both our model and the more traditional American option approach for valuing callable bonds shows that the reduced-form model fits callable bond prices well and that it outperforms the traditional approach both in- and out-of-sample.

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.