[email protected]
New Member
David/
I have a couple questions regarding question 173.1. First unlike in question 172.6, there is no convexity adjustment in 173.1 where we take the future rate and convert it back to a forward rate. Is there a reason why we didn’t need a convexity adjustment here, even though we are using a futures rate?
My bigger question, however, is on the computation of the 390 day libor zero rate equation: [(.03(300) + .04035(90))/ 390 = 3.2389] I went back over the Hull readings, but I never saw an equation whereby you solve for a zero rate by weighting two separate zero rates by their times and then dividing by the time of the second rate. Can you clarify this equation or point me to where in the readings I can get an explanation. I’m very clear on the bootstrapping method to solve for zero rates but this approach eludes me.
Thanks again for all of the outstanding help/ contact from Bionic Turtle
I have a couple questions regarding question 173.1. First unlike in question 172.6, there is no convexity adjustment in 173.1 where we take the future rate and convert it back to a forward rate. Is there a reason why we didn’t need a convexity adjustment here, even though we are using a futures rate?
My bigger question, however, is on the computation of the 390 day libor zero rate equation: [(.03(300) + .04035(90))/ 390 = 3.2389] I went back over the Hull readings, but I never saw an equation whereby you solve for a zero rate by weighting two separate zero rates by their times and then dividing by the time of the second rate. Can you clarify this equation or point me to where in the readings I can get an explanation. I’m very clear on the bootstrapping method to solve for zero rates but this approach eludes me.
Thanks again for all of the outstanding help/ contact from Bionic Turtle