How Bond Duration Changes with Interest Rates
Summary
The document examines whether bond duration is convex as interest rates change and shows that the answer depends on which quantity is called duration. For the unnormalized measure equal to the negative first derivative of bond present value, the discussion differentiates again and obtains a sum of nonnegative cash-flow terms for nonnegative coupons and cash flows. Under those assumptions, this measure is convex with respect to the rate.
For normalized duration, defined as the negative price derivative divided by present value, the answers do not reach a consistent conclusion. One response asserts concavity based on an expression involving higher derivatives, but admits it lacks a proof. Another gives an intuitive argument based on duration as the present-value-weighted average time of cash flows, suggesting convexity at positive rates and opposite curvature in negative-rate regions. These claims are not reconciled, and the exchange does not establish a general theorem for normalized duration. The key lesson is to specify the duration definition and examine its assumptions before making a curvature claim.
Key ideas
- The curvature question depends on whether duration is normalized by bond present value.
- The negative first derivative of bond value has a nonnegative second derivative for nonnegative cash flows in the stated setup.
- Normalized duration is the negative price derivative divided by price.
- The document's responses disagree about normalized duration's curvature and do not provide a conclusive proof.
- Cash-flow timing and present-value weights help explain how duration responds to rates.
Tags
Full text
# Is duration of a bond a convex function?
# Is duration of a bond a convex function?
I understand that in general, the NAV of a bond is a convex function.
However, I am not too sure if the same can be said for its duration.
Are there references on this? Thanks
## Answer by Kermittfrog (score 7)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71895
The generic bond pricing function is
$$ PV = \sum_i^n c_iD(t_i)+D(t_n) $$
#### Convexity of PV01
Let's identify its duration with the negative of its first derivate, and let's set $D(t_i)=e^{-rt_i}$
$$ D\equiv-\frac{\partial PV}{\partial r}=\sum_i^nt_ic_ie^{-rt_i}+t_ne^{-rt_n} $$
A function is (locally) convex, if its second derivative is (locally) positive. The second derivative of the duration equals the third derivative of the bond pricing function (w.r.t. $r$):
$$ \frac{\partial ^2D}{\partial r^2}\equiv-\frac{\partial ^3 PV}{\partial r^3}=\sum_i^nt_i^3c_ie^{-rt_i}+t_n^3e^{-rt_n} $$
As $D(r)\geq 0 \forall r$, and $t_i\geq 0$ as well, this function is strictly positive on the whole domain. This result holds irrespective of the used rate definition, and it holds strictly for any $c\geq0$.
#### Convexity of the Duration
Let us now identify duration as
$$ D\equiv -\frac{\frac{\partial PV}{\partial r}}{PV} $$
i.e. (negative of) first derivative over present value. Then
$$ \frac{\partial ^2D}{\partial r^2}=\frac{\frac{\partial^3PV}{\partial r^3}}{PV}-3\frac{\frac{\partial PV}{\partial r}\frac{\partial^2 PV}{\partial r^2}}{PV^2}+2\frac{\left(\frac{\partial PV}{\partial r}\right)^3}{PV^3} $$
We know that
$$ \begin{align} O(PV)&=1,\\ O(D)=O\left(\frac{\partial PV}{\partial r}\right)&=T,\\ O\left(\frac{\partial^2 PV}{\partial r^2}\right)&=T^2,\\ O\left(\frac{\partial^3 PV}{\partial r^3}\right)&=T^3 \end{align} $$ But with some trial-and-error, we find that for positive coupons $c$, the $k$ derivative increase "slower" than $T^k$. At the moment, I cannot find a mathematical proof, but trial-and-error shows that:
$$ \frac{\partial ^2 D}{\partial r^2}\leq 0 $$ valid for all $c\geq 0$, all rates $r$ and any $n\geq 1$.
Hence, under this definition, duration is concave.
## Answer by dm63 (score 5)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71893
Recall that duration is defined as the average time to receive the cashflow, with the weights being the present values of the cashflows. So when interest rates rise very high, the long dated cashflows have very low weights, and the duration goes monotonically down and asymptotically tends towards the time of the first coupon. When rates go to zero, the duration is much higher. Hence , thinking of duration as a function of rates, we have a function which must be positively convex in the region of positive interest rates.
In the region of negative rates, I believe it is negatively convex because it is bounded above by the time of the last cashflow.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.