Forecasting the yield curve of government bonds: a dynamic factor approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Forecasting the future movement of yield curves contains valuable information for both academic and practical issues such as bonding pricing, portfolio management, and government policies. The purpose of this paper is to develop a dynamic factor approach that can provide more precise and consistent forecasting results under various yield curve dynamics. Design/methodology/approach The paper develops a unified dynamic factor model based on Diebold and Li (2006) and Nelson and Siegel (1987) three-factor model to forecast the future movement yield curves. The authors apply the state-space model and the Kalman filter to estimate parameters and extract factors from the US yield curve data. Findings The authors compare both in-sample and out-of-sample performance of the dynamic approach with various existing models in the literature, and find that the dynamic factor model produces the best in-sample fit, and it dominates existing models in medium- and long-horizon yield curve forecasting performance. Research limitations/implications The authors find that the dynamic factor model and the Kalman filter technique should be used with caution when forecasting short maturity yields on a short time horizon, in which the Kalman filter is prone to trade off out-of-sample robustness to maintain its in-sample efficiency. Practical implications Bond analysts and portfolio managers can use the dynamic approach to do a more accurate forecast of yield curve movements. Social implications The enhanced forecasting approach also equips the government with a valuable tool in setting macroeconomic policies. Originality/value The dynamic factor approach is original in capturing the level, slope, and curvature of yield curves in that the decay rate is set as a free parameter to be estimated from yield curve data, instead of setting it to be a fixed rate as in the existing literature. The difference range of estimated decay rate provides richer yield curve dynamics and is the key to stronger forecasting performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".