MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121666479 · doi:10.34989/tr-84

Yield Curve Modelling at the Bank of Canada

2021· article· en· W3121666479 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Jamieson Bolder, David Stréliski

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield curveCouponEconometricsParametric modelParametric statisticsInterest rateModel selectionFunction (biology)Government debtSet (abstract data type)EconomicsComputer scienceDebtEstimationMathematical optimizationMathematicsFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this paper is to produce a framework that could be used to construct a historical data base of zero-coupon and forward yield curves estimated from Government of Canada securities' prices. The secondary objective is to better understand the behaviour of a class of parametric yield curve models, specifically, the Nelson-Siegel and the Svensson methodologies. These models specify a functional form for the instantaneous forward interest rate, and the user must determine the function parameters that are consistent with market prices for government debt. The results of these models are compared with those of a yield curve model used by the Bank of Canada for the last 15 years. The Bank of Canada's existing model, based on an approach developed by Bell Canada, fits a so-called "par yield" curve to bond yields to maturity and subsequently extracts zero-coupon and "implied forward" rates. Given the pragmatic objectives of this research, the analysis focuses on the practical and deals with two key problems: the estimation problem (the choice of the best yield curve model and the optimization of its parameters); and the data problem (the selection of the appropriate set of market data). In the absence of a developed literature dealing with the practical side of parametric term structure estimation, this paper provides some guidance for those wishing to use parametric models under "real world" constraints. In the analysis of the estimation problem, the data filtering criteria are held constant (this is the "benchmark" case). Three separate models, two alternative specifications of the objective function, and two global search algorithms are examined. Each of these nine alternatives is summarized in terms of goodness of fit, speed of estimation, and robustness of the results. The best alternative is the Svensson model using a price-error-based, log-likelihood objective function and a global search algorithm that estimates subsets of parameters in stages. This estimation approach is used to consider the data problem. The authors look at a number of alternative data filtering settings, which include a more severe or "tight" setting and an examination of the use of bonds and/or treasury bills to model the short-end of the term structure. Once again, the goodness of fit, robustness, and speed of estimation are used to compare these different filtering possibilities. In the final analysis, it is decided that the benchmark filtering setting offers the most balanced approach to the selection of data for the estimation of the term structure. This work improves the understanding of this class of parametric models and will be used for the development of a historical data base of estimated term structures. In particular, a number of concerns about these models have been resolved by this analysis. For example, the authors believe that the log-likelihood specification of the objective function is an efficient approach to solving the estimation problem. In addition, the benchmark data filtering case performs well relative to other possible filtering scenarios. Indeed, this parametric class of models appears to be less sensitive to the data filtering than initially believed. However, some questions remain; specifically, the estimation algorithms could be improved. The authors are concerned that they do not consider enough of the domain of the objective function to determine the optimal set of starting parameters. Finally, although it was decided to employ the Svensson model, there are other functional forms that could be more stable or better describe the underlying data. These two remaining questions suggest that there are certainly more research issues to be explored in this area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical reportsSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207