Hi everybody,
They found rolldown return assuming no change in YTM by keeping the YTM of 2.95% constant as they move forward. I understand we have an assumption of static yield curve.
Where I’m confused. Are the assuming a FLAT yield curve so the YTM is 2.95% every year? If it was upward sloping, I’m assuming we would need more information (the YTM at maturity and one-year prior). We would then use both those YTM’s from year 0 and year 1 to find the bond prices.
Am I correct?
Maybe my question not clear for everybody.
I get BB3 uses a stable yield curve but are we assuming it’s flat at 2.95%? That’s what I think. That’s why we use 2.95% for PV0 and PV1.
If it was upward sloping (still static), we would have to be given YTM’s from day 0 right? We would then sub in the right YTM’s for PV0 and PV1 based on the upward sloping curve from day 0?
I’m not seeing the 2.95% yield.
Are you sure about the reading/example #?
It says manager is buying a 10-year 2.25% semi-annual coupon bond with a corresponding YTM of 2.9535%. This is BB3 on page 17 of the text in book 3.
They find rolldown return b finding difference between 10-years and 9.5-years with NO CHANGE in YTM. They should be assuming upward sloping static yield curve though meaning at 9.5 years it should be a lower YTM used.
I think right…?
Gotcha. You were rounding off the YTM.
You’re correct: the yield to get the price at 9.5 years should be lower than 2.95% given that we’re told that the yield curve slopes upward.
More sloppiness in the curriculum.