[Theory predicts that funding conditions faced by financial intermediaries are an important limit to arbitrage. We identify and measure the value of funding liquidity from the crosssection of Treasury securities. To validate our interpretation, we establish linkages with funding conditions in the repo market, the shadow banking sector, and the overall economy. Looking at asset pricing implications, we find that increases in funding liquidity predict lower risk premia for all Treasury securities but higher risk premia on LIBOR loans, swap contracts, and corporate bonds. The impact of funding conditions on interest rates is large and pervasive throughout crises and normal times.]

Recent asset pricing models of limits to arbitrage emphasize the role of funding conditions faced by financial intermediaries. In the US, the repo market is the key funding market. Then, the premium of on-the-run U.S. Treasury bonds should share a common component with risk premia in other markets. This observation leads to the following identification strategy. We measure the value of funding liquidity from the cross-section of on-the-run premia by adding a liquidity factor to an arbitrage-free term structure model. As predicted, we find that funding liquidity explains the cross-section of risk premia. An increase in the value of liquidity predicts lower risk premia for on-the-run and off-the-run bonds but higher risk premia on LIBOR loans, swap contracts and corporate bonds. Moreover, the impact is large and pervasive through crisis and normal times. We check the interpretation of the liquidity factor. It varies with transaction costs, S&P500 valuation ratios and aggregate uncertainty. More importantly, the liquidity factor varies with narrow measures of monetary aggregates and measures of bank reserves. Overall, the results suggest that different securities serve, in part, and to varying degrees, to fulfill investors' uncertain future needs for cash depending on the ability of intermediaries to provide immediacy.

Standard Gaussian term structure models impose the Markov property: the conditional mean is a function of the risk factors. We relax this assumption and consider models where yields are linear in the conditional mean (but not in the risk factors). To illustrate, yields should span expected inflation but not inflation. Second, expected and surprise yield changes can have opposite contemporaneous effects on expected inflation. Third, the survey forecasts and inflation rate can both be in the state. These three features are inconsistent with the Markov assumption. These effects matter empirically in the USA and in Canada.

We build a model of bond yields in an economy with secular changes to inflation, real rate, and output growth. Long-run restrictions identify nominal shocks that do not influence the long-run real rate and output growth. Before the anchoring of inflation around the mid-1990s, nominal shocks lifted the output gap and inflation. This led to a higher and steeper yield curve because the short rate was expected to peak after several quarters, following declines in the responses of growth and inflation. With inflation anchored, nominal shocks have small impacts on inflation, output, and bond yields, mostly via the term premium.

The aggregate leverage of broker‐dealers responds to demand and supply disturbances that have opposite effects on financial markets. Specifically, leverage supply shocks that relax broker‐dealers' funding constraints increase leverage, liquidity, and returns and carry a positive price of risk, while leverage demand shocks also increase leverage but reduce liquidity and returns and carry a negative price of risk. Disentangling demand‐ and supply‐like shocks resolves existing puzzles around the price of leverage risk and yields consistent evidence across many markets of a central role for intermediation frictions and dealers' aggregate leverage in asset pricing.

Structural or no-arbitrage asset-pricing models emphasize risk factors that cannot be observed directly. We show that the term structure of risk implicit in option prices can reveal these risk factors. Empirically, the variance term structure reveals two predictors of the bond premium, the equity premium, and the variance premium, jointly. Similarly, the term structures of skewness and kurtosis measures also reveal risk factors, but these are subsumed in the predictive content of the variance. The predicted premium is countercyclical and robust to the inclusion of known returns predictors.