Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1.
Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.1
Mathematical formulation................................................................................................2
2.2
2.3
Interpretation of Analysis.................................................................................................6
2.4
2.5
Discussion ........................................................................................................................8
3.2
3.3
Data Preparation.............................................................................................................13
4.2
Preliminary Analysis......................................................................................................14
4.3
4.4
4.5
References......................................................................................................................................25
1. Introduction
Term structure of interest rates has for long posed interesting challenges with regards to modelling,
explaining and predicting its behaviour. However, analysing term structure often involves dealing
with huge data sets that may cause the calculation processes to become slow and cumbersome and
the results difficult to be interpreted and used in further applications. On the other hand, interest
rates of different maturities exhibit distinguishable common behaviour. Therefore it may be very
useful to simplify the data or the data structure by identifying factors of common behaviour such
that not much of the contained information is lost.
This paper introduces principal component analysis (hereafter referred to as PCA) as a powerful
tool of identifying patterns in data of high dimension. PCA is a statistical technique in which the
original variables are replaced by a smaller number of artificial variables that preserve as much as
possible of the variability of the original variables. There are two objectives of data simplification:
to reduce the number of variables and to detect a structure in the relationships between variables.
The paper discusses PCA with focus on constructing a market model for different currency zones
term structures of interest rates. PCA is applied to four interest rate curves, namely EUR, USD, JPY
and GBP curves including both short and long term interest rates. Two different approaches are
compared: performing PCA separately for each curve and performing one PCA for all curves
combined. With regards to interest rates, the markets typically show three distinct patterns that are
represented by first three principal components (hereafter referred to as PCs): level or shift,
slope or twist and curvature or bow.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology of standard PCA
in detail. Section 3 introduces term structure of interest rates, presents some of the PCA modelling
performed on it in literature and discusses cases where it may be useful to apply PCA. In section 4,
PCA is performed on term structure and the results are analysed. Finally, section 5 draws together
conclusions and discussion arisen from the study.
X2
1. PC
X1
2. PC
The linear transformation allows describing the original data set exactly by the uncorrelated
artificial variables called principal components that are ordered with decreasing explanatory power.
However, the real purpose of PCA is to select those PCs that explain the variability of the data to a
required degree and accuracy. This allows considerably reduction in the dimension of variables,
which in turn simplifies calculation processes.
PCA is often discussed with relation to factor analysis. However, although these two methods are
similar statistical tools, they differ in the methodologies employed and the focus of the analysis.
While PCA attempts to find a series of independent linear combinations of the original variables
that provide the best possible explanation of diagonal terms of the matrix analysed, factor analyses
focuses on the off-diagonal elements of the correlation matrix (Jorion, 2002). What this means is
that PCA is not based on any particular statistical model whereas factor analysis is.
T x = i xi
i =1
= T = 1
Vector b is a weight vector that tells us by what weight does each of the variables xj affect the
variance of the linear combination T x . The condition
= T = 1
is a norming condition.
It can be shown that that
max D 2 ( T x) = 1T 1 = 1
T =1
where
l1 = largest eigenvalue of the covariance matrix S
T x = i xi
i =1
= T = 1
and
Cov( y1 , T x) = 0
Again it can be shown that
max
T =1
Cov ( y1 , T x ) = 0
D 2 ( T x) = T2 2 = 2
where
l2 = second largest eigenvalue of the covariance matrix S
The linear combination is uncorrelated with the previously identified linear combinations
From above it is trivial that the principal components are obtained from the eigenvalue
decomposition of the covariance matrix S:
= BDB T
in which
D = diag (1 , 2 ,..., n )
is the diagonal matrix composed of the eigenvalues
1 2 ... n
of the covariance matrix S, and the matrix
B = [ 1 M 2 M ...M n ]
is an orthogonal matrix
B T B = BB T = I
consisting of the corresponding eigenvectors as its columns.
Therefore the principal components can be expressed as
y i = Ti x = 1i x1 + K + Ni x N
i =1
N
i =1
> Threshold
Another criterion first sorts the eigenvalues in order of magnitude, then finds from the spectrum a
break point that divides the eigenvalues in large and small and finally chooses the PCs
corresponding to the large eigenvalues (Mellin, 2004).
If the original variables are standardized for PCA (see section 2.5), each of them will have a unit
variance. Therefore any PC with an eigenvalue of at least 1 explains more of the total variance than
any of the original variables. Thus a simple heuristic would be select those PCs that have an
eigenvalue of at least 1 (Clustan, 2006).
Deciding to keep only the first r PCs allows us to replace the previous exact relationship by a close
approximation:
xi i y = Bi1 y1 + K + ir y r
1 1 M 2 2 MLM r r
= B r D 1/2
r
where
B r = [ 1 M 2 MLM r ]
D1/2
1 , 2 ,K, r
r = diag
)
6
If PCs are calculated from standardized data (that is, from the correlation matrix), the PC matrix
elements represent the correlation between the r chosen PCs and the n original variables.
We can also compute principal component scores that represent the value of each PC with respect
to each observation:
y j = B r x j , j = 1,2,..., n
of r-vector
y j = ( y j1 , y j 2 ,..., y jr )
The main axis of the ellipsoid coincide with the directions of the eigenvectors of the covariance
matrix S and the lengths of the main axis relate to each other as numbers
7
i
where li is the ith eigenvalue of the covariance matrix S. The geometric interpretation is illustrated
in figure 1, where all principal component vectors are drawn for 2-dimensional data.
2.5 Discussion
Although PCA appears to have many benefits, few things should be kept in mind when considering
performing PCA to a particular data set. Firstly, PCA is not a statistical method from the viewpoint
that there is no probability distribution specified for the observations. Therefore it is important to
keep in mind that PCA best serves to represent data in simpler, reduced form.
Another challenge to be kept in mind is that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to discover the
true economic interpretation of PCs since the new variables are linear combinations of the original
variables.
In addition, for PCA to work exactly, one should use standardized data so that the mean is zero and
the unbiased estimate of variance is unity:
zi =
xi x
where
zi = i.th standardized variable
This is because it is often the case that the scales of the original variables are not comparable and
that (those) variable (variables) with high absolute variance will dominate the first principal
component.
There is one major drawback to standardization, however. Standardizing means that PCA results
will come out with respect to standardized variables. This makes the interpretation and further
applications of PCA results even more difficult.
Term structures are calculated for different classes of bonds, most typically for risk free government
bonds. The most important and widely used interest rates, however, consist of Interbank Offered
Rates and swap rates that derive from high credit rating banks borrowing money from each other.
These curves typically lie a little higher than government curves.
There are numerous, ongoing challenges offered by the term structure: how to estimate it, how to
use it to evaluate implicit interest rates in future (forward rates) and how to explain the shape and
the movements of the curve, the most demanding challenge.
where
E(W) = expected value of the portfolio at the end of the target horizon
W * = lowest portfolio value at the given confidence level
W0 = initial investment
R * = lowest portfolio return at the given confidence level
From the above definition, it is easy to compute for example parametric VaR as
VaRMEAN = W0 t
where
= standard normal deviate corresponding to desired left-tail confidence level
= standard deviation of portfolio return
A thorough discussion of VaR -methodology itself is beyond the scope of this study. A reader interested to explore the
field of VaR is referred to a comprehensive guide to VaR by Philippe Jorion (Jorion, 2004).
10
15000
10000
5000
assets
50
100
150
200
This poses two problems with large portfolios. Firstly, when the number of assets increases, it is
more likely that some correlations will be measured inaccurately or incorrectly. Secondly, the
computation time of covariance matrix and the subsequent VaR calculations can increase
dramatically, which is not feasible for making quick decisions on trading portfolio positions in fastchanging markets. Thirdly, the VaR of the portfolio may not be positive2.
The benefit of performing PCA is that to examine the behaviour of original variables we can
simulate the movements of principal components. Not only is the number of PCs much smaller but
also the covariance matrix is positive definite, because the eigenvalue decomposition produces
uncorrelated variables.
Consider a portfolio z = wR mapped into its exposures on the first K principal components:
VaR is proportional to portfolio variance, which is positive only if the covariance matrix is positive definite. This
requires the number of observations to be larger than the number of variables, and the series cannot be linearly
correlated. The problem of positive-definiteness occurs more likely when portfolio consists of a large number of highly
correlated assets such as zero-coupon bonds.
11
2 (z ) = * = w T 1 1T w 1 + ... + w T K TK w K
= (w T 1 ) 2 1 + ... + (w T K ) 2 K
= 12 2 ( y1 ) + ... + K2 2 ( y K )
In other words, the variance of the portfolio z is given by sum of the squared exposures times the
variance of each PC. This is a remarkable simplification compared to the variance calculated with
original variables because instead of requiring all of the variances and covariances of the original
variables, it is enough to use K independent variables. In other words, for a portfolio of m variables
the covariance matrix of dimension m*m can be replaced with just a few variables.
However, it is not difficult to construct a portfolio which has a large position sensitive to risk
factors that appears unimportant in the PCA (Kreinin et al., 1998). This means that to perform
efficient PCA on a portfolio, one should select the PCs not based on how much they explain of the
total variability of the data but on how much of the variability of the particular portfolio. For
example Hull (2005) presents a portfolio that has little exposure to the first component but
significant exposure to the second component (calculated for U.S. Treasury data). Using only one
component to hedge the position, which is similar to duration-based hedging that considers a
parallel shift in term structure, would dangerously understate VaR. This important remark is
surprisingly often not mentioned in literature regarding principal component analysis.
(Litterman et al, 1991). Given the simple computation of portfolio returns and variance, it is easy to
create portfolios that are immune to a factor by selecting asset holdings that make the sensitivity of
the portfolio equal to zero.
Macroeconomic Analysis
Empirical research in literature suggests that although PCA produces artificial variables that explain
the variability of interest rates, one can associate rational macroeconomic interpretations to these
variables (Wu, 2003). For example, there is tendency for strong correlation between surprises of
monetary policy and the subsequent movement of the slope component. This area of study is vital
among central bankers and agents involved in and directly affected by central bank actions.
In addition, PCA overcomes some computational problems often confronted in macroeconomic
analysis. Typical macroeconomic models try to explain or predict variations in response variables
by variations in prediction variables trough, for example, Multiple Linear Regression (MLR).
However, macroeconomic variables often tend to be somewhat linearly dependent which leads to
problems of multicollinearity. PCA resolves this problem by creating uncorrelated variables on
which the original response variables can be regressed. The methodology of combining PCA with
MLR is called Principal Component Regression.
In the cases studied in this paper, all of the variables represent interest rates with variances of
comparable magnitude. Evidence suggests that with such variables standardized and nonstandardized data produce very similar results (Rodrigues, 1997). Therefore we have not
standardized the data (except for the mean) to facilitate the interpretation of the results. Analysing
first differences, rather than levels, has the advantage that it allows constructing different interest
rate curve scenarios that are often very useful considering applications of PCA. The disadvantage,
however, is that taking first differences has a tendency to artificially increase noise and therefore
decrease the efficiency of estimation (Heidari et al., 2002).
I performed PCA on two different setups. Firstly, I analysed each currency zone term structures
independently and compared the correlations between PCs specific to different currency zones. In
the second setup I performed one aggregate analysis.
In fact, on 14th July 2006, during the writing of this paper and slightly after the end of the observation period used,
Bank of Japan ended its 6-year period of effectively zero interest rates by raising the key interest rate to 0.25%.
14
6M
12M
4,50
2Y
4,5
3Y
4,10
4Y
Percent
1M
3M
4,90
5Y
3,70
6Y
7Y
3,30
8Y
9Y
2,90
4
3,5
3
2,5
10Y
1M
3Y
4Y
6Y
8Y
5,30
5,20
5,10
5,00
4,90
4,80
4,70
4,60
4,50
4,40
4,30
25
Y
30
Y
20
Y
12
Y
15
Y
9Y
10
Y
8Y
7Y
6Y
Y
30
Y
25
Y
15
20
Y
12
10
9Y
8Y
7Y
6Y
5Y
20Y
25Y
4Y
15Y
1M
7.
4.
2
14 006
.4
.2
21 006
.4
.2
28 006
.4
.2
0
5. 06
5.
20
12
0
.5 6
.2
19 006
.5
.2
26 006
.5
.2
0
2. 06
6.
20
9. 06
6.
2
16 006
.6
.2
23 006
.6
.2
30 006
.6
.2
0
7. 06
7.
20
06
Maturity
30Y
1M
3M
6M
12M
2Y
3Y
4Y
Percent
5Y
6Y
7Y
8Y
9Y
10Y
12Y
25Y
9Y
10
Y
12
Y
15
Y
20
Y
25
Y
30
Y
8Y
7Y
6Y
5Y
4Y
3Y
2Y
M
12
20Y
6M
15Y
3M
06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06
5
6
5
5
6
6
4
4
4
6
6
5
4.
9. 16. 23. 30.
2.
5. 12. 19. 26.
7. 14. 21. 28.
Date
5,20
5,10
5,00
4,90
4,80
4,70
4,60
4,50
4,40
4,30
4,20
1M
4,90
4,80
12Y
5Y
5,10
5,00
9Y
10Y
2Y
7Y
3Y
5,20
5,40
5Y
Percent
12M
5,80
5,70
5,60
5,50
5,40
5,30
5,20
6M
2Y
Date
4Y
3M
5,80
4,80
3Y
Maturity
30Y
6M
5,00
2Y
25Y
6,00
5,60
6M
12
M
20Y
12
1M
7.
4.
2
14 00
.4 6
.2
21 006
.4
.2
28 00
.4 6
.2
0
5. 06
5.
20
12
0
.5 6
.2
19 00
.5 6
.2
26 006
.5
.2
0
2. 06
6.
20
9. 06
6.
2
16 00
.6 6
.2
23 00
.6 6
.2
30 006
.6
.2
0
7. 06
7.
20
06
Date
15Y
3M
12Y
3M
2,50
Maturity
30Y
1M
3M
6M
3,00
3,00
2,50
2Y
3Y
2,00
2,00
4Y
1,50
Percent
12M
2,50
5Y
6Y
1,00
7Y
8Y
0,50
9Y
0,00
10Y
-0,50
12Y
1,50
1,00
0,50
0,00
Date
Maturity
30Y
15
Y
30
Y
25
Y
15
20
Y
10
12
9Y
8Y
7Y
6Y
5Y
4Y
2Y
3Y
6M
25Y
12
20Y
3M
1M
7.
4.
06
14
.4
.0
6
21
.4
.0
6
28
.4
.0
6
5.
5.
06
12
.5
.0
6
19
.5
.0
6
26
.5
.0
6
2.
6.
06
9.
6.
06
16
.6
.0
6
23
.6
.0
6
30
.6
.0
6
7.
7.
06
15Y
that explain completely the variability of the original variables. The aim is to be able to explain at
least 90% of the total variability of interest rates across the term structure with as few PCs as
possible for each currency zone. In order to determine how many PCs are sufficient, we need to
analyse the explanatory power of them.
Similar analysis is conducted for aggregate data with 4 (currency zones) * 12 (maturities) variables
x = (x1, x2,, x72) and corresponding 72 principal components.
16
Cumulative % of Variance
102.00 %
100.00 %
98.00 %
96.00 %
94.00 %
92.00 %
90.00 %
88.00 %
100.00 %
98.00 %
96.00 %
94.00 %
92.00 %
90.00 %
88.00 %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Principal Component
Principal Component
Cumulative % of Variance
Cumulative % of Variance
102.00 %
100.00 %
98.00 %
96.00 %
94.00 %
92.00 %
90.00 %
88.00 %
86.00 %
102.00 %
100.00 %
98.00 %
96.00 %
94.00 %
92.00 %
90.00 %
88.00 %
86.00 %
84.00 %
82.00 %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Principal Component
Principal Component
Breaking down the explanatory power of principal components on the variability of original
variables reveals further insight (figure 5). Considering the wish to explain at least 90% of the
variability of the interest rates across all maturities, we require 5 first PCs for each currency zone.
Therefore the model for each currency zone is:
xi i y = Bi1 y1 + Bi 2 y 2 + Bi 3 y 3 + Bi 4 y 4 + i 5 y 5
The 1st PC explains very little of money market interest rates, almost all of medium-term swap rates
and quite well very long swap rates. The 2nd PC shows opposite behavior: money market and longterm rates are more explained than medium-term rates by it. 3rd PC, similarly, is responsible for
explaining some of the variation in short and long-term ends of the interest rate curve. However, the
variation patterns differ from that of 2nd PC (otherwise the 3rd PC variation would be included in 2nd
PC). Interestingly, 4th and 5th PCs are significant in describing movements of short-term interest
rates - a result not often confronted in literature.
17
4. PC
5. PC
Maturity
Y
25
5. PC
Maturity
Y
25
15
Total
8Y
1M
Y
25
15
Y
10
8Y
6Y
4Y
2Y
Total
4. PC
10
5. PC
3. PC
6Y
4. PC
2. PC
4Y
3. PC
1. PC
2Y
2. PC
Percentage
1. PC
6M
15
100,00 %
90,00 %
80,00 %
70,00 %
60,00 %
50,00 %
40,00 %
30,00 %
20,00 %
10,00 %
0,00 %
1M
10
Maturity
Percentage
8Y
Total
1M
Y
25
15
10
8Y
6Y
4Y
2Y
6M
Total
3. PC
6Y
5. PC
2. PC
4Y
4. PC
1. PC
2Y
3. PC
100,00 %
90,00 %
80,00 %
70,00 %
60,00 %
50,00 %
40,00 %
30,00 %
20,00 %
10,00 %
0,00 %
6M
2. PC
Percentage
1. PC
1M
Percentage
Maturity
PC coefficients
Figure 6 shows to coefficients of the first five principal components for each currency zone. The
coefficients describe loadings of each principal component on a particular variable, i.e. the effect
of each PCs on different maturity. The distinction of loadings to curves in figure 4 is that loadings
only describe what effect each PC has on each maturity without considering the absolute magnitude
of the effect, whereas in figure 4 the curves represent the amount of total variation explained by
each component. In general the 1st PC shows quite flat behavior and therefore explains shift of the
interest rate curves. Similarly, the 2nd PCs for each currency zones show clear downward trends,
therefore explaining twist of the interest rate curves. The 3rd PCs shows a bell-shaped trend and
therefore explains the bow of the interest rate curves4. The 4th and 5th PCs are important for shortterm interest rates, but their rational interpretation is more difficult.
In literature the first three components are most often referred to as level, slope and curvature. This notation is
meaningful when performing PCA on levels, rather than differences. Unfortunately, however, the notation is employed
for differences quite often, too. This is an example of findings that PCA is a black box that is widely used but poorly
understood.
18
Loadings - EUR
Loadings - USD
3. PC
4. PC
-0,3
5. PC
-0,5
-0,7
5. PC
Maturity (months)
Loadings - GBP
Loadings - JPY
0,9
0,7
0,5
0,3
0,1
1. PC
2. PC
3. PC
-0,1
-0,3
-0,5
4. PC
5. PC
-0,7
-0,9
coefficient value
0,5
1. PC
0,3
2. PC
0,1
3. PC
-0,1
4. PC
-0,3
5. PC
-0,5
-0,7
Maturity (months)
9Y
10
Y
12
Y
15
Y
20
Y
25
Y
30
Y
7Y
8Y
5Y
6Y
4Y
2Y
3Y
12
M
3M
1M
30
Y
20
Y
25
Y
12
Y
15
Y
10
Y
8Y
9Y
6Y
7Y
4Y
5Y
2Y
3Y
3M
6M
12
M
-0,9
6M
coefficient value
4. PC
-0,5
-0,7
-0,9
Maturity (months)
0,9
0,7
1M
3. PC
1M
3M
9Y
10
Y
12
Y
15
Y
20
Y
25
Y
30
Y
7Y
8Y
6Y
5Y
4Y
3Y
2Y
6M
12
M
3M
1M
-0,9
2. PC
9Y
10
Y
12
Y
15
Y
20
Y
25
Y
30
Y
0,1
-0,1
1. PC
0,3
0,1
-0,1
-0,3
7Y
8Y
2. PC
5Y
6Y
1. PC
0,3
0,9
0,7
0,5
3Y
4Y
0,5
Coefficient value
coefficient value
0,7
6M
12
M
2Y
0,9
Maturity (months)
Figure 6. Loadings of first 3 principal components as features of interest rate curve: shift, twist and bow
Scenarios
Changes or shocks in PCs cause the interest rate structure to shift relative to the loadings of
particular PC in question. For example, if there is a twist shock, the effect will be larger on the
mid-term (2-5y) interest rates than short (-12m) or very long interest rates (+5y). Therefore one can
use loadings to construct several market shock scenarios and investigate how well the market
model composing of the chosen components captures these scenarios.
There are different methods for creating market scenarios. For example, one can assume that PCs
can move up or down some amount (for example 2.33 standard deviations corresponding to 1st and
99th percentiles of standard normal distribution). This method allows constructing 2n different
scenarios as possible combinations of chosen n PCs. I decided to create scenarios based on Monte
Carlo simulation. I create random vectors whose elements are drawn from multinormal distribution
with zero mean and covariance matrix equal to diagonal matrix of chosen eigenvalues (that
correspond to variances of chosen PCs) and multiply this vector with PCs to get different linear
combinations representing daily interest rate movement scenarios. The advantage of Monte Carlo
method is that one can choose the number of scenarios arbitrarily, the formation of scenarios (i.e.
the combinations of changes in chosen PCs) randomly and examine the correlations between
scenarios and original data, for example. Compared to simulating the original data, we now only
need to simulate 5 variables each time instead of 18, which clearly shows the advantage of PCA in
saving computational time.
19
Figure 7 plots the different scenarios for each currency zones. Thicker long-dashed curves
representing 5th and 95th quantiles are drawn on the same diagram together with a particular days
observed changes shown in short-dashed curves.
The scenarios seem to vary as expected within the quantiles. Only in few occasions are the quantiles
exceeded by a particular scenario (such as for JPY). This suggests that the market model with the
chosen PCs performs quite well in estimating the daily changes.
9Y
10
Y
12
Y
15
Y
20
Y
25
Y
30
Y
Scenarios - JPY
Basis Points
0
-2
-4
-6
0
-2
-4
-6
Maturity
9Y
10
Y
12
Y
15
Y
20
Y
25
Y
30
Y
7Y
8Y
5Y
6Y
4Y
3Y
2Y
M
12
1M
-12
30
Y
20
25
Y
12
15
Y
10
9Y
8Y
7Y
5Y
6Y
3Y
4Y
2Y
12
3M
6M
-10
3M
-8
-8
6M
Basis Points
7Y
Maturity
Scenarios - GBP
1M
8Y
5Y
Maturity
6Y
1M
9Y
10
Y
12
Y
15
Y
20
Y
25
Y
30
Y
8Y
6Y
7Y
5Y
3Y
4Y
2Y
12
3M
6M
1M
-8
3Y
-6
4Y
-4
0
-2
2Y
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
12
4
Basis Points
Basis Points
3M
Scenarios - USD
6M
Scenarios - EUR
8
Maturity
Figure 7. Scenarios
Levels vs Differences
As noted before, taking first differences may artificially increase noise and therefore decrease
efficiency of PCA. To study this effect, I performed PCA on levels of interest rates, too. The results
suggest that 3 PCs is enough to explain most of the variation of all maturities (figure 8), compared
to 5 PCs required for differenced data. This supports the disadvantage of taking first difference.
Therefore one is faced with a trade-off between efficient estimation (low dimensionality of model)
and applicability of results (scenarios and other applications where standard deviation of PCs is
required). However, more extensive research, analysis and discussion on levels vs. differences are
beyond the scope of this study.
20
1. PC
2. PC
3. PC
Total
Percentage
Percentage
100,0
90,0
80,0
70,0
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Y Y Y Y Y Y
1M 3M 6M12M 2Y 3Y 4Y 5Y 6Y 7Y 8Y 9Y 10 12 15 20 25 30
Maturity
3. PC
Total
1. PC
2. PC
3. PC
Total
Percentage
1. PC
2. PC
3. PC
Total
1M
3M
6
12 M
M
2Y
3Y
4Y
5Y
6Y
7Y
8Y
9
10Y
12Y
15Y
20Y
25Y
30Y
Y
1M
3M
6M
12
M
2Y
3Y
4Y
5Y
6Y
7Y
8Y
9
10Y
12Y
15Y
20Y
25Y
30Y
Y
Percentage
2. PC
Y Y Y Y Y Y
1M 3M 6M12M 2Y 3Y 4Y 5Y 6Y 7Y 8Y 9Y10 12 15 20 25 30
Maturity
1. PC
Maturity
Maturity
Figure 8. Breakdown of explanatory power of principal components for levels of interest rates
Correlations
Research and analysis performed in literature proposes that some correlation between the first
components extracted from different country bond data exists although correlation between
second and third components is less evident (Rodrigues, 1997).
I investigated the correlations between first five principal components estimated for different
countries. Correlations are calculated from principal component scores for the observation period.
It can be seen that for 1. PC, all of the currency zones correlate quite strongly with each other,
highest being 0.79 for EUR/GBP and lowest being 0.53 for USD/JPY and GBP/JPY (table 1). This
means that the relative levels of interest rate changes have been quite stable between the currency
zones.
Only EUR/USD shows moderate correlation (0.33) for 2. PC, while other combinations correlate
much less obviously. This suggests that the twist effect (and therefore possibly monetary policy
21
actions) has been quite inconsistent between the currency zones during the observation period.
Similar small correlations are found for 3. PC. These findings support the evidence presented in
literature.
Interestingly, there is evidence of some EUR/USD, USD/GBP, USD/JPY and GBP/JPY correlation
for 4. PC. Similarly, 5. PC shows correlations of comparable magnitude. Taking into account
correlations for all PCs, it can be concluded that the interest rates fluctuate to some degree within
same dimensions. In other words, several variables can be found that explain movements of interest
rates across different currency zones, which suggests there exists some common global interest rate
movements.
1st Principal Component
Correlation
EUR
USD
GBP
JPY
Correlation
EUR
USD
GBP
JPY
EUR
1,00
0,77
0,79
0,64
EUR
1,00
0,20
0,00
0,06
USD
0,77
1,00
0,65
0,53
USD
0,20
1,00
0,12
-0,17
GBP
0,79
0,65
1,00
0,53
GBP
0,00
0,12
1,00
-0,15
JPY
0,64
0,53
0,53
1,00
JPY
0,06
-0,17
-0,15
1,00
Correlation
EUR
USD
GBP
JPY
Correlation
EUR
USD
GBP
JPY
EUR
1,00
0,33
-0,12
0,02
EUR
1,00
-0,10
0,04
0,05
USD
0,33
1,00
-0,17
-0,18
USD
-0,10
1,00
-0,11
-0,08
GBP
-0,12
-0,17
1,00
0,12
GBP
0,04
-0,11
1,00
0,00
JPY
0,02
-0,18
0,12
1,00
JPY
0,05
-0,08
0,00
1,00
EUR
USD
GBP
JPY
EUR
1,00
0,17
0,14
0,00
USD
0,17
1,00
-0,05
-0,16
GBP
0,14
-0,05
1,00
-0,19
JPY
0,00
-0,16
-0,19
1,00
However, it should be noted that the results are dependent on the observation period. Empirical
evidence has shown that correlations across different currency zones may change significantly over
a few-year observation period (Rodrigues, 1997). This suggests that multiple currency zone models
are less stable than single country models.
capture 99% of the total variability. In other words, quadrupling the dimensions about quadruples
the number of PCs needed to explain the variability of the data. This suggests that there is not much
scope for additional dimension reduction by combining different interest rate markets.
Cumulative % of Variance
9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69
Principal Components
Breaking down the explanatory power of PCs reveals that PCA on aggregate data seems most
efficiently work to long-term interest rates, while short-term interest rates show less common
behavior across currency zones. For example, while first common 5 PCs explain 99% of JPY 4 year
swap variability, the figure is less than 30% for 6 month Libor for the same currency zone (table 2).
However, the differences across currency zones are so large that further general conclusions are
hard to be extracted.
Currency
Zone
First 3
PCs
First 5
PCs
EUR
First 10
PCs
First 20
PCs
First 3
PCs
First 5
PCs
USD
First 10
PCs
First 20
PCs
1M
3,4 %
8,0 %
23,0 %
94,5 %
5,9 %
27,5 %
37,6 %
95,8 %
3M
0,3 %
1,4 %
62,5 %
88,6 %
2,8 %
73,8 %
87,1 %
97,5 %
6M
6,7 %
12,4 %
83,1 %
97,7 %
6,5 %
83,8 %
97,8 %
99,2 %
12M
16,4 %
22,1 %
90,3 %
99,1 %
9,5 %
84,4 %
98,2 %
99,7 %
2Y
74,4 %
84,0 %
98,3 %
99,5 %
85,7 %
90,6 %
98,9 %
99,8 %
3Y
78,7 %
89,6 %
98,6 %
99,6 %
90,4 %
94,0 %
99,3 %
99,8 %
4Y
83,8 %
94,5 %
99,4 %
99,9 %
94,1 %
96,8 %
99,5 %
99,7 %
5Y
85,4 %
96,6 %
99,4 %
99,8 %
96,6 %
98,3 %
99,8 %
99,9 %
6Y
87,4 %
98,4 %
99,5 %
99,9 %
97,8 %
99,0 %
99,7 %
99,8 %
7Y
88,1 %
99,4 %
99,6 %
99,8 %
99,0 %
99,8 %
99,9 %
99,9 %
8Y
87,9 %
99,7 %
99,7 %
99,9 %
99,2 %
99,8 %
99,8 %
99,9 %
9Y
87,8 %
99,4 %
99,6 %
99,8 %
99,3 %
99,8 %
99,8 %
99,9 %
10Y
87,3 %
99,1 %
99,6 %
99,9 %
99,0 %
99,5 %
99,7 %
99,8 %
12Y
86,5 %
98,4 %
99,7 %
99,9 %
98,5 %
99,2 %
99,8 %
99,9 %
15Y
83,9 %
97,0 %
99,7 %
99,9 %
97,5 %
98,4 %
99,8 %
99,9 %
20Y
80,8 %
94,7 %
99,2 %
99,8 %
95,8 %
97,2 %
99,8 %
99,9 %
25Y
80,2 %
93,9 %
98,9 %
99,8 %
95,0 %
96,6 %
99,7 %
99,9 %
30Y
78,4 %
92,5 %
98,8 %
99,8 %
93,7 %
95,6 %
99,5 %
99,8 %
Maturity
23
Currency
Zone
First 3
PCs
First 5
PCs
GBP
First 10
PCs
First 20
PCs
First 3
PCs
First 5
PCs
First 10
PCs
First 20
PCs
1M
7,3 %
14,3 %
26,1 %
38,7 %
20,2 %
22,5 %
49,1 %
67,8 %
3M
18,1 %
26,2 %
50,4 %
68,3 %
13,0 %
19,6 %
59,7 %
95,4 %
6M
20,5 %
42,1 %
76,3 %
96,2 %
19,2 %
28,0 %
68,1 %
97,2 %
12M
27,5 %
52,5 %
85,7 %
99,3 %
19,4 %
27,4 %
62,7 %
98,3 %
2Y
76,7 %
78,9 %
96,0 %
99,4 %
70,3 %
74,4 %
95,3 %
99,5 %
3Y
81,2 %
82,3 %
96,5 %
99,6 %
80,7 %
84,3 %
97,7 %
99,6 %
4Y
90,0 %
91,2 %
98,9 %
99,6 %
89,4 %
93,5 %
99,0 %
99,4 %
5Y
93,2 %
94,5 %
98,8 %
99,5 %
93,7 %
95,9 %
99,1 %
99,6 %
6Y
94,9 %
96,9 %
98,7 %
99,6 %
94,7 %
96,8 %
99,3 %
99,7 %
7Y
96,2 %
98,6 %
99,2 %
99,7 %
95,8 %
97,6 %
99,3 %
99,9 %
8Y
95,7 %
98,9 %
99,1 %
99,6 %
96,5 %
97,9 %
99,3 %
99,9 %
Maturity
JPY
9Y
94,9 %
98,8 %
99,0 %
99,7 %
96,8 %
97,9 %
99,1 %
99,7 %
10Y
94,9 %
98,8 %
99,0 %
99,5 %
96,3 %
97,1 %
98,8 %
99,5 %
12Y
95,1 %
98,1 %
98,8 %
99,1 %
88,8 %
91,2 %
97,5 %
98,4 %
15Y
90,1 %
95,5 %
97,4 %
99,6 %
86,4 %
88,3 %
96,4 %
99,6 %
20Y
89,1 %
94,6 %
98,1 %
98,8 %
81,7 %
85,5 %
98,0 %
99,5 %
25Y
79,7 %
83,7 %
90,7 %
99,9 %
78,2 %
82,7 %
98,8 %
99,7 %
30Y
80,0 %
89,0 %
95,3 %
99,6 %
74,9 %
80,0 %
98,2 %
99,7 %
Table 2. Cumulative explanatory power of principal components calculated from data consisting of all currency
zones interest rate curves.
24
References
[1]
Alexander, C., Key Market Risk Factors: Identification and Applications, The Q-Group
Seminar on Risk, April 2000
[2]
[3]
Cont, R., da Fonseca J., Dynamics of Implied Volatility Surfaces, Research Paper,
Quantitative Finance, Volume 2, No. 1, 2002, pages 45-60, http://www.instituteuroplace.com/files/pdf/doc977971.pdf, accessed 14.8.2006
[4]
Fengler, M., Hrdle, W. Villa, C., The Dynamics of Implied Volatilities: A Common
Principal Components Approach, Discussion paper No. 38/2001, Humboldt University,
Germany, 2001
[5]
Frye, J., Principals of Risk: Finding Value-at-Risk Through Factor-Based Interest Rate
Scenarios, NationsBanc-CRT, April 1997
[6]
Heidari, M. & Wu, L., Are Interest Rate Derivatives Spanned by the Term Structure of
Interest Rates?, The Journal of Fixed Income, Volume 13, No. 1, June 2003, pages 75-86.
[7]
Hull, J., Options, Futures, And Other Derivatives, Sixth Edition, Prentice Hall Finance
Series, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005
[8]
Jorion, P., Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk, Second
Edition, McGraw-Hill International Edition, Singapore, 2002
[9]
Litterman, R., Scheinkman, J., Common Factors Affecting Bond Returns, The Journal of
Fixed Income 1, June 1991, pages 54-61
[10]
Lpez, D., Value at Risk for the Term Structure of Interest Rates: An Orthogonal Approach,
The ICFAI Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 3, Issue 4, December 2005, pages 4976
[11]
Loretan, M., Generating market risk scenarios using principal components analysis:
methodological and practical considerations, Individual Research Paper, Federal Reserve
Board, March 1997, http://www.bis.org/publ/ecsc07c.pdf, accessed 14.8.2006
[12]
Kreinin, A., Merkoulovitch, L., Rosen, D., Zerbs, M., Principal Component Analysis in
Quasi Monte Carlo Simulation, Algo Research Quarterly, Volume 1, No. 2, December
1998, pages 21-30, http://www.gloriamundi.org/picsresources/aklmdrmz2.pdf, accessed
14.8.2006
25
[13]
[14]
Rodrigues, A., P., Term Structure and volatility shocks, Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
June
1997,
http://www.bis.org/publ/ecsc07d.pdf?bcsi_scan_9C13D4DDCDD1672E=0&bcsi_scan_filen
ame=ecsc07d.pdf, accessed 14.8.2006
[15]
[16]
Wu, T., What Makes the Yield Curve Move, FRBSF Economic Letter, Number 2003-15,
June 6, 2003
26