![]() | Yield curve is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a great article. Congratulations to all the editors involved.
Reasons for failure were:
(I say we wait about a month, and resubmit in late March.) -- Christofurio 20:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
"Stylized facts" are stylistically horrible. Facts must be true, otherwise a statement is either a falsehood or an opinion. Which make "stylized facts" ... mere economic jargon.
I deleted the paragraph quoted below because it is inaccurate/oversimplified. I wanted to explain before I got in a fight. You cannot merely assume, as the original author did, that a 5% 1yr rate and a 5.5% 2 year rate implies a 6% end of year 2 rate. It could imply a market assumption that rates will skyrocket at the end of the year (thus a market predicted rate in excess of 5.5%) or it could assume a January first jump to 5.5% and thus a 5.5% market predicted rate. Additionally, the author forgot that long term investments are inherently more risky and thus require a higher risk premium. If the fed GUARANTEED rates would remain 4% for 10 years, you'd still see a curve in the yield curve. -- Laxrulz777 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is wrong. The deleted section gives the formula for the Forward Rate. The article is incomplete without it. The (implied) Forward Rate is a fixture in fixed income calculations and the formula is based on a no-arbitrage argument.
Forward rates are extracted from the term structure and are implied by the spot rates at any given time. If a 2 year maturity bond is trading at a yield of r2 and a one-year bond trades at a yield of r1 and the investor in the one-year bond wants to reinvest for a second year after the one-year matures, in order to prevent arbitrage, both investments must be equal, and the following formula must hold
where F is the Face value of the bond(s) and is the Forward rate. This is exactly the formula that the (too) clever commentator extracted from the article.
The entire article, as well as many other topics in fixed income, suffer from a lack of rigor and mathematical accuracy. This is disappointing, considering the progress made in mathematics on Wikipedia in recent years. There seem to be a number of people contributing who think that finance and financial formulas are a matter of opinion.
While I agree that mathematical finance is not an accuarate picture of the real world, there are standard formulas that belong to the corpus of knowledge and they should be included. Davidrising ( talk) 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Gogas has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Although the article describes in length the evolution of the research on the yield curve up to 2000, it lacks more recent developments. The Nelson-Siegel model and the significance of level, slope and curvature of the yield curve in explaining the data generating process and forecasting future recessions.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Gogas has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeas ( talk) 02:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is repetitive, full of unexplained jargon, and doesn't really explain things very well.
I'd like to replace the intro graphic with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yield_curve_20180513.png based on later data and easier to read.
Please also consider using this graphic as well: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_treasury_yields.png
Lee De Cola ( talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The article contains this sentence:
Occasionally, when lenders are seeking long-term debt contracts more aggressively than short-term debt contracts, the yield curve "inverts", with interest rates (yields) being lower for the longer periods of repayment so that lenders can attract long-term borrowing.
Interest rates are set by the issuer (i.e., borrower), at the lowest rate judged necessary to attract the desired lending. It's confusing to talk about lenders trying to attract borrowers. I think the relationship is clearer if expressed this way:
Occasionally, when lenders are seeking long-term debt contracts more aggressively than short-term debt contracts, the yield curve "inverts", with interest rates (yields) being lower for the longer periods of repayment, because borrowers find it easier to attract long-term lending.
I'm making this change, but I'm far from an expert here, so I'd welcome correction from anyone more knowledgeable. JamesMLane t c 20:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)