Ben Emons (Auth.) - Mastering Stocks and Bonds - Understanding How Asset Cross-Over Strategies Will Improve Your Portfolio's Performance-Palgrave Macmillan US (2015)

Mastering Stocks and
Bonds
The author of this book is employed by Pacific Investment management
Company LLC (PIMCO). The views contained herein are the authors but
not necessarily those of PIMCO. Such opinions are subject to change
without notice. This publication has been distributed for educational
purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a
recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment prod-
uct. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources be-
lieved to be reliable, but not guaranteed.
This publication contains a general discussion of investment portfolio
analysis. The analysis contained herein does not take into consideration
any particular investor’s financial circumstance, objectives or risk toler-
ance. Investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.
References to specific securities and their issuers are not intended and
should not be interpreted as recommendations to purchase, sell or hold
such securities. The author of this book did not hold positions in any
of the companies discussed herein at time of writing this book. PIMCO
products and strategies may or may not include the securities referenced
and, if such securities are included, no representation is being made that
such securities will continue to be included.
Nothing contained herein is intended to constitute accounting, legal,
tax, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appro-
priateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. This book
includes discussions of financial concepts that are theoretical in nature
such as the “risk free rate” or “riskless default-free”; readers should be
aware that all investments carry risk and may lose value. The informa-
tion contained herein should not be acted upon without obtaining
specific accounting, legal, tax, and investment advice from a licensed
professional.
Mastering Stocks and
Bonds
Understanding How Asset Cross-Over
Strategies Will Improve Your
Portfolio’s Performance
Ben Emons
MASTERING STOCKS AND BONDS
Copyright © Ben Emons, 2015.
All rights reserved.
First published in 2015 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN®
in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world,
this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-1-349-56608-2 ISBN 978-1-137-47625-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137476258
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Emons, Ben.
Mastering stocks and bonds : understanding how asset cross-over
strategies will improve your portfolio’s performance / Ben Emons.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-349-56608-2
1. Investments. 2. Portfolio management. I. Title.
HG4521.E5243 2015
332.63⬘2—dc23 2015009369
A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.
Design by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India.
First edition: September 2015
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
List of Figures and Tables vii
1 The Cross-over 1
2 Fixed-Income Strategies for the Equity Investor 43
3 Equity Strategy for the Bond Investor 93
4 Options 133
5 The Portfolio Construction 159
Bibliography 199
Index 201
v
Figures and Tables
Figures
1.1 Total stock and bond fund flows 9

1.2 The Greenspan put and the Bernanke call 12
1.3 Dividend discount model 16
1.4 S&P median PE multiple in periods of
high and low real interest rates 23
1.5 Historical returns between stocks and
bonds over different periods 25
1.6 S&P earnings/share versus nominal GDP 26
1.7 T-bill rate and potential GDP 28
1.8 Tobin’s Q 33
1.9 US ten-year Treasury term premium 35
1.10 Equity risk premium 38
2.1 Asset allocation frontier along the capital
structure 66
2.2 FX swap agreement 82
2.3 Cross-currency basis swap 83
2.4 Coke vs. Pepsi stock and bond price spread 88
3.1 IG CDX an S&P 500 Index 107
3.2 S&P 500 vs. SPDR Convertible Bond ETF
Total Return is after fees 120
3.3 CoCo’s design diagram 124
3.4 Bank Capital Structure in Basel II vs. Basel III 125
3.5 Iboxx USD and EUR CoCos/AT1 index vs.
S&P 500/Eurostoxx index 126
3.6 Bank Loan Index and the S&P 500 Index 128
4.1 SPX Index and put write strategy on
the index, cumulative return 141
4.2 Implied correlations equity versus Bonds 149
vii
viii Figures and Tables
4.3 Bond-Stock portfolio in options 151

5.1 Different equity strategies 164
5.2 Large-cap equity and diversifying strategies 167
5.3 AT&T dividend versus bond return 169
5.4 Total return indices for AT&T carry, bond,
and stock 170
5.5 Total return indices 173
5.6 Total return indices 174
5.7 Carry and roll strategy 176
5.8 Treasury, Tips, and inflation 179
5.9 Bond and stock ladder 185
5.10 Cumulative return of portfolios 187
5.11 Cumulative return of the rebalanced portfolios 194
Tables
1.1 Returns of different sectors versus changes

in Fed interest rates 20
1.2 Sector performance relative to the S&P
500 Index 22
2.1 Spot vs. forward of a hypothetical stock price 58
2.2 S&P 500 Utility stocks comparison 69
2.3 Utility sector different measures of “yield” 70
2.4 Utility sector and different measures of
price and duration 71
2.5 Stock carry per unit of duration 72
2.6 Equity carry/unit of equity duration
across sectors of the S&P 500 74
2.7 Utility sector dividend yields and
payment dates 75
2.8 Domestic and foreign stock price and
the implied exchange rate 81
2.9 Hedged dividend yield 84
3.1 Intrinsic value model 97
3.2 Approximate growth rates for companies 101
Figures and Tables ix
3.3 IBM capital structure 108

3.4 IBM input 109
3.5 Apple capital structure 111
3.6 Apple Inputs 112
3.7 Comparison valuation of Alibaba’s
corporate bonds 113
3.8 Alibaba bond comparison 114
3.9 Earnings yield versus bond yield 115
3.10 Twitter convertible bond valuation 117
4.1 S&P 500 break-even volatility (2009–2014) 139
5.1 Historical returns of 60/40 equity/bond
portfolio 162
5.2 Stock and bond selection 172
5.3 Credit metrics for Utilities 181
5.4 Equity summary 183
5.5 Credit comparison 190
5.6 Relative value metrics 193
1
The Cross-over
I
magine you had a choice between only two investments:
stocks and bonds. Which would you choose? Investors
in bonds are conservative, seek stable income and have
a longer-term investment horizon. Investors who purchase
stocks are “aggressive” and want high returns in a shorter
period of time. The distinction between stocks and bonds
has been in place since the 1920s, when investing became
popular. The distinction has been quantified by a correlation
that has been mostly negative between the price of bonds
and the price of stocks. Investors who seek diversification
would therefore have a portfolio of bonds and stocks, for
example, weighted by 40 percent in bonds and 60 percent in
stocks. The question of which of the two investments would
be the top choice is answered by the weights of each in the
portfolio. The answer should also focus on the cross-over
return between the two asset classes. The cross-over return
is defined as the return on bonds that is influenced by the
return on stocks and vice versa. Investors may not under-
stand how much, in certain periods, the returns of bonds can
be closely correlated with stock returns. The future returns
of bonds and stocks may be influenced significantly by the
cross-over return. When monetary policymakers use stocks
3
4 Mastering Stocks and Bonds
and bonds to stage a sustainable economic recovery, the cor-

relation between stocks and bonds is an important factor to
consider in asset allocation decisions. Often investors look at
valuation to determine whether the correlation will change.
Perhaps more specifically, the way Benjamin Graham in
his book Security Analysis (1934) described intrinsic value as
“in general terms, it is understood to that intrinsic value is
justified by the facts (e.g., the assets, earnings, dividends,
definite prospects as distinct, let us say, from market quota-
tions established by artificial manipulation or distorted by
psychological excesses). But, it is a great mistake to imagine
that intrinsic value is as definite and as determinable as is
the market price” (Graham, 1934, p. 68).
Although Benjamin Graham’s point is greatly relevant,
the intrinsic value of individual stocks and bonds is where
a cross-over return opportunity resides. In today’s market-
place, it is critical to understand how intrinsic value has
been influenced by factors such as global capital flows and
monetary policy. There are several aspects to the “cross-over
perspective” of investing. A person who invests in bonds
may have a different mind-set than a person who invests
in stocks. Neither may be aware of how the other may
think when it comes to asset allocation. Several studies on
investor behavior by the Federal Reserve (Bernanke, 2003),
suggest that bond and stock investors have “active” and
“passive” asset allocation tendencies. Active management
is best described as “bargain hunting.” Every day there are
“good deals” or “bad choices” in financial markets. Active
management is a method to identify securities that are
“good deals” and those that would be a “bad choice.” In
active investment management there are methods used
such as fundamental analysis, technical analysis, and macr-
oeconomic analysis. These methods are typically combined
The Cross-over 5
in an investment strategy to spot trends in the economy

and market place. Passive investment management on the
other hand does not distinguish individual securities, nei-
ther to predict their price movements nor to actively time
markets. A passive manager invests in the broad market,
like the S&P 500 Index. A passive manager has a similar
motivation as an active manager: to make a profit. The dif-
ference between passive and active managers is the former
is willing to accept the average market index return. The
active manager on the other hand does not accept earning
just the benchmark index return. These managers actively
seek opportunities outside the index universe to generate
excess return. Active managers are called “alpha” inves-
tors, whereby alpha is defined as the return in excess of the
index return. In principle, there should be no difference
between an equity and a bond investor in the application
of active or passive strategies. There are, however, different
ways of investing passively or actively in bonds as com-
pared to stocks. An active fixed-income approach to a stock
portfolio is an example of a “cross-over strategy.” Thinking
of such a strategy, one has to identify the difference charac-
teristics of bond and stock investors.
A bond investor applies a different set of methods to
identify value than an equity investor does. For example,
investing in bonds requires an understanding of yield curve,
duration, and convexity. There are differences between
bonds in terms of risk premiums (“spreads”), yields, and
liquidity. Bonds are about the reinvestment principle of
interest and principal, rolling down the yield curve, and
earning “carry” over holding a portfolio in cash. There are
also fixed-income managers who specialize in arbitrage
and relative value. These fixed-income concepts are often
not applicable to equity investing. A stock investor looks
at earnings of a company and compares the stock within

a specific sector and to the broader market. An equity
investor can, however, apply fixed-income techniques
to asset allocation. At the same time, bond investors can
incorporate equity investing principles in their investment
strategy. For example, credit analysis, albeit tradition-
ally applied in selecting investment-grade and high-yield
bonds, is rarely applied when assessing government bonds,
agency bonds, and municipal bonds. Equity investing, in
contrast, uses methods for comparing return on equity
(ROE) or invested capital to the cost of capital. A return
on equity calculation applied to a bond is a measure for
determining how much institutional demand there is for
fixed-income securities. For banks, for example, holding
government bonds became a profitable business because
of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policies since
November 2008. Government bonds became therefore an
earnings generator. This is a reason why return on equity
could be applied in fixed-income analysis. The demand by
institutions may therefore materially impact future returns
on fixed income. A stock is traditionally valued based upon
its price-to-earnings (PE) ratio, but the calculation can
be applied to bonds as well. Similarly, the yield curve on
which bonds are evaluated can be applied to equities by
constructing an equity yield curve. A stock value can be cal-
culated from discounting dividends or by using a forward
price-earnings ratio. Stocks, like bonds, have duration. By
discounting a stock’s present value over its dividend yield,
a stock’s duration is the weighted average time dividends
are paid. Equity duration, however, is not static number
because stocks are not issued with a final maturity. Based
on general dividend payout policy, equity duration is meas-
ured as the reciprocal of the dividend yield. On average,
The Cross-over 7
equity duration can be as long as 30 years, but may fluctu-

ate significantly if dividend payout ratios change.
People who invest in stocks and bonds have a different
styles and different investment horizons. A cross-over strat-
egy focused on investing in companies at numerous stages
of the business life cycle can support a successful mix of
stocks and bonds in a portfolio. The strategy is the direct
opposite of the buy-and-hold method, in which the inves-
tor does not trade between the period when a security is
first bought and when it is finally sold. The goal of the cross-
over strategy is to get the best returns during shorter peri-
ods of time (three months up to a year). A buy-and-hold
method focuses on long-term growth. Cross-over investing
has been applied in specialized products. There are convert-
ible bonds that are hybrid securities in which bond holders
can convert a bond into common stock. A convertible bond
also involves merger and acquisition arbitrage. That arbi-
trage is subjected to corporate governance and entails divi-
dend policy and earnings. There are other “debt for equity”
securities, such as contingent capital notes issued by finan-
cial institutions, subordinated debt, and distressed corporate
debt. Investment-grade corporate bonds can trade closer in
price terms to subordinated debt when there is financial
stress. In other words, when bonds have higher credit risk,
they may behave more like equity in times of high price
volatility. Historically, there has been a positive correlation
between the broader equity market and investment-grade
and high-yield fixed-income securities when markets expe-
rience upheavals.
Cross-over investing also addresses several other issues,
such as market technical factors, supply and demand,
and risk premium. Liquidity in bonds and stocks is gen-
erally determined in a similar way (as it is for currencies
and commodities), and measured by a bid-and-ask price

quoted by dealers and market makers. Stocks and bonds
are traded electronically, and individual stock futures were
introduced in recent years. Dealers’ treatment of inventory
does not always discriminate between bonds and stocks
because they are subject to a similar risk budget set by man-
agement. The financing of bonds and stocks in terms of a
collateral swap works relatively similarly too. Both bonds
and stocks can be borrowed or lent on margin. In terms
of flows, bond funds have seen a surge since 2009. This
increase has been fueled by uncertainty as to why people
would rather save by investing in securities than borrow
to start a business. Market commentators view this surge
as a result of Federal Reserve policy that attracted risk tak-
ing in financial markets. As a result, flows in stock and
bonds funds have been in lockstep since 2009. Flows into
stock index funds and government bond funds have been
at a high record following the 2008 financial crisis. In a
modestly recovering economy with inflation but ongoing
uncertainty, interest rates and stock prices tend to move
closely together. This is likely why people have been diver-
sifying between stocks and bonds. The relationship has
strengthened by way of flows into stock and bond funds.
Figure 1.1 on page 9 demonstrates the trend. Bond funds
in particular have moved more than $1 trillion away from
their normal growth trend. Equity funds have remained
below the trend since the early 2000s.
The relationship between bonds and stocks can be put
into a framework. When interest rates rise in an orderly
way, stock prices tend to rise because a rising rate environ-
ment contains future inflation and ensures stable economic
growth. Stable economic growth and moderate inflation
should be positive for companies’ future earnings, and
The Cross-over 9
2500 2500
Cumulative Bond Mutual
Fund Flows
2000 Cumulative Equity Mutual 2000
Equity Fund Flows, $ bn

Bond Fund Flows, $ bn
Fund Flows
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
Jan-84
Sep-85
May-87
Jan-89
Sep-90
May-92
Jan-94
Sep-95
May-97
Jan-99
Sep-00
May-02
Jan-04
Sep-05
May-07
Jan-09
Sep-10
May-12
Jan-14
Figure 1.1 Total stock and bond fund flows.
Source: ICI Mutual Fund series (www.ICI.com).
hence supportive for stock prices. Bond prices go down

when interest rates rise but if inflation remains moderate,
longer term interest rates tend to stabilize. There is also
an inverse relationship between stocks and bonds. When
interest rates fall (bond prices go up), stimulus is provided
to the economy. The value of stock prices goes up because
future earnings are discounted at a lower interest rate.
From a cross-over investing perspective, stocks and
bonds have several unique features. They provide duration
risk, liquidity, and credit quality to a portfolio. It should
be emphasized, however, that a bond is not the same as a
stock and vice versa. Rather the correlation between their
returns to the overall market can be highly positive during
certain periods. Bonds and stocks therefore both play an
important role in asset allocation decisions. The decisions
can be made by using a top-down macro view. Decisions to
allocate between bonds and stocks also involve bottom-up
analysis. One of the most important macro factors is the
Federal Reserve. Since the late 1990s, Fed policy has increas-
ingly focused on the volatility of asset prices.
Valuation: The Fed Model
From a top-down macro view, the “Fed model” is commonly

used for equity valuations. Since the late 1990s, the concept
of a “put” purchased on the S&P 500 Index by the Federal
Reserve has become popular in the media. The “Greenspan
put” is one that market observers closely follow. The put gained
attention after the 1997 Humprey Hawkins testimony, when
former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan explained
how the Fed looks at stock valuations. The Fed model com-
pares the stock market’s earnings yield to the yield on a long-
term government bond. The earnings yield is the reciprocal
of the S&P 500 Index price-to-earnings ratio. According to
the model, the bond and stock market are in equilibrium,
and fairly valued, when the one-year forward-looking earn-
ings yield equals the ten-year Treasury yield. The Fed model
expresses a relationship between stock- and bondholders in
terms of options analogy. A bond can be seen as a put on the
future success of the company. Basically, an investor who is
buying a bond expects to receive a fixed coupon return and
the initial investable amount (typically $1,000) returned at
maturity. If the company experiences trouble or default, the
bondholder has a claim on the company’s assets. A stock is
a call on the future success of the company. A stock investor
receives a dividend in the form of shares or cash. When the
company sees profits turn to losses, an equity holder could
eventually get wiped out. In case of a liquidation, equity hold-
ers own a put on the firm because equity stakeholders owe
principal and interest to the bondholders. The bondholders
own a call because in a liquidation, they will be paid before
the equity holders. The Fed model has been advanced by
The Cross-over 11
calculating the Greenspan put as the difference between the

reciprocal of the actual PE Index ratio and the adjusted Index
Price/Earnings ratio. The adjusted PE ratio is the long-term
real interest rate minus expected earnings growth. Figure 1.2
shows historically the Greenspan put and the Bernanke call.
Back in the 2000s, the Greenspan put premium was close
to 3 percent when stock prices were at record highs, but
nowadays it is more or less worthless. When Bernanke took
over as chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2006, market
participants wondered if he would continue the Greenspan
put policy. Less than two years after taking office, Bernanke
faced the biggest financial crisis in history. In November
2002, he delivered a speech titled “Deflation, Let’s Make
Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here” at the National Economist
Club in Washington, DC, in which he outlined several
measures for combating deflation risk and a financial cri-
sis by buying unlimited short-maturity government bonds.
Bernanke’s policy can be viewed as an insurance for bond-
holders. To calculate the “Bernanke put,” the put-call par-
ity may provide an answer. The put-call parity formula is
the stock price plus put = call plus value of a zero coupon
bond. The assumption is that Greenspan put benefits the
stockholders the Bernanke put is beneficial to bondholders.
In other words, the Bernanke put is a “call” on bonds. That
is because when the Federal Reserve buys US Treasuries, it
supports the price of bonds. This has a payoff profile like
a call on an underlying asset. There is limited downside,
because if interest rates were to rise too fast, the Federal
Reserve would buy more Treasury bonds to keep yields low.
When plugging the Greenspan put into the put-call par-
ity there are two additional assumptions. The first one is
the S&P 500 Index’s dividend yields that approximates the
return for the stockholder. The other one is the ten-year
real interest rate taken from Treasury Inflation Protected

Securities. This real interest rate represents the real return
for the bondholder.
The Bernanke put fell to zero in 2014 as the Federal
Reserve ended its third quantitative easing (QE) program. A
few years earlier, it was as high as 1.5 percent, as shown in
Figure 1.2. This put-call comparison says that when mon-
etary policy favors one set of stakeholders, investors are
enticed to support other stakeholders. Under Greenspan,
stockholders were favored by Fed policy. This led to a sharp
rise in major equity indices by the late 1990s, but the subse-
quent crash drove investors into bonds. Following the 2008
financial crisis, Fed policy shifted to support bondholders
with quantitative easing. This led to a “taper tantrum cri-
sis” in 2013 when then-Fed chairman Bernanke signaled
an end to quantitative easing (QE). As a result, investors
have been gradually rotating from bonds into stocks. The
20
15 Greenspan put
Bernanke call
Put-call Value (%)
10
5
0
–5
–10
–15
–20
3/1/1996
12/1/1996
9/1/1997
6/1/1998
3/1/1999
12/1/1999
9/1/2000
6/1/2001
3/1/2002
12/1/2002
9/1/2003
6/1/2004
3/1/2005
12/1/2005
9/1/2006
6/1/2007
3/1/2008
12/1/2008
9/1/2009
6/1/2010
3/1/2011
12/1/2011
9/1/2012
6/1/2013
3/1/2014
Figure 1.2 The Greenspan put and the Bernanke call.

Source: Federal Reserve Board, Greenspan Put = 1/actual PE ratio – adjusted PE ratio.
Bernanke call = Greenspan put – Equity index dividend yield – ten-year real yield from
Tips.
* Adjusted PE ratio = ten-year real yield from Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
(Tips) – expected earnings growth (Index EPS).
The Cross-over 13
central bank put and call is theoretical, but is significant

for financial markets. Because of these central bank put
policies, stock and bond markets may at times trade at very
different valuations. A subtle change happened in 2013,
whereby QE was no longer seen as effective. Political argu-
ments pointed out that QE caused income inequality. At
the same time, central banks have kept short-term inter-
est rates near zero because inflation has remained very
low. Although short-term interest rates are expected to lift
gradually in the future, if the economy were to face a reces-
sion, the capacity for central banks to cut interest rates has
sharply diminished. The Greenspan put and the Bernanke
call can therefore move quickly back in the money because
quantitative easing would return to support the economy.
Like an option, its value moves “in the money” when the
market price of the underlying asset rises above the strike
price. This is largely the result of rising volatility. Monetary
policy could be viewed that way, whereas the policy action
(e.g. quantitative easing) drives up asset prices well above
what investors generally expected given the direction of
the economy. The Greenspan put and Bernanke call option
move “in the money” as asset prices rise above fundamen-
tal values. This is a powerful tool that central banks may
continue to use to achieve their mandate goals. As a result,
bond and stock investors may continue to face a land-
scape in which monetary policy plays an important role
in influencing asset prices. Hence, this is why the theoreti-
cal Greenspan put, the Bernanke call, and, perhaps in the
future, the Janet Yellen put will remain relevant.
Dividend Discount Model
There are different ideas about how to value equities. Several

economists say stocks should be valued as the present value
of dividend payments. Nobel Laureate economist Paul

Krugman is an advocate of that approach. He said on his
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) website in
2006 that “earnings are not the same as dividends, by a long
shot; and what a stock is worth is the present discounted
value of the dividends on that stock.” Franco Modigliani
and Merton Miller posited in their famous 1958 article “The
Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of
Investment” the “irrelevance” of dividend policy. That is,
the underlying expected earnings and cash flow of compa-
nies, not their dividend payouts, determine market values.
There are models such as the risk premium facto model
that show that earnings and interest rates drive the value of
the stocks, not the dividend stream. The dividend policy of
companies is a choice: they use dividends to repatriate cash
to shareholders or choose not to pay dividends in order to
reinvest in their business. Some companies borrow to sustain
or increase dividends as part of a decision to include more
debt in their capital structures, or finance share buybacks.
With debt financing on the rise, investors should demand
more current yield from their stockholdings because future
price appreciation may be at higher risk. To think in terms
of “yield,” equity investors look at an earnings yield or divi-
dend yield. Bond investors earn a fixed or floating coupon
that is discounted over a yield to maturity over the life of
the bond investment.
In recent years, in a growing number of instances, divi-
dend yields on stocks have been exceeding the yields on
corporate bonds issued by the same company. Although
dividend-paying stocks are not riskless, an investor may
fare equally well with a portfolio of steady dividend-paying
stocks versus a portfolio of high-rated corporate bonds.
Investors can find opportunities when they dissect the mar-
ket and drill down to industry-level comparisons. This has
The Cross-over 15
become a further pressing issue in asset allocation strategies

because low bond and dividend yields created a “conun-
drum.” Of the 321 companies reporting in the S&P 500 that
have pension plans, the median expected in 2013 a rate
of return on their plan assets of about 7.7 percent. Their
market cap weighted return was 7.5 percent, and the aver-
age corporate debt-to-cash holding stood at 42 percent, but
their dividend yield was close to 3 percent. The average cor-
porate bonds yielding also near 3.5 percent. In their projec-
tions, pension plans may assume equities will deliver high
(expected) returns in the future. With record low yields and
historically tight corporate bond risk premiums, attention
has been drawn to the total return of the equities. This
return would include both the current yield, the growth of
the dividends, and the price appreciation of the underlying
stocks. Dividend growth is unknown. There can be various
methods for arriving at an estimate from sample data:
● Five-year historic median growth rate per year is 8 percent.

● The Bloomberg median dividend projected three-year
growth is 10 percent.
● The median consensus estimates of dividend for the next
three years is 9 percent.
● The median consensus estimates for earnings-per-share
(EPS) growth for the next three years is 9 percent.
● The median consensus estimate for Sales growth for the
next three years is 5.6 percent.
● The implied improvement in profit margin is +1.5 per-
cent over the next three years.
● The median PE ratio is 18x (earnings yield of 5.5%).
Financial theory developed a model that became famous

among academics, but perhaps less so among investors.
This is the “dividend discount model” (DDM), which was
originated by Myron Gordon in 1959. This model values

the price of a stock by using predicted dividends and dis-
counting them back to present value. If the value obtained
from the DDM is higher than what the shares are currently
trading at, the stock is undervalued. This model calculates
a stock’s value such that the sum of the dividend yield and
the growth rate equals the investor’s required total return.
Although the model is derived only from dividends, the
investor will in practice realize the returns from growth
as capital gains. By using different dividend growth esti-
mates and assuming a level of interest rates, Figure 1.3
models two different paths of dividend income streams.
Importantly, there are different assumptions that dem-
onstrate how “sensitive” the value of a stock can be to
interest rates. Dividends received are discounted to their
present value at purchase and accumulated as the holding
period increases. The higher the dividend yielding a stock,
Present Value of Cumulative Dividend Payments Received

120%
as % of Stock Purchase Price
100%
80%
60%
40%
7.0% Growth rate 3.0% Dividend Yield
4.0% Growth rate 6.0% Dividend Yield
20%
# Years to Recover % of Purchase Price

0%
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
Figure 1.3 Dividend discount model.

Source: Author.
The Cross-over 17
the faster it recovers its purchase price. The lower the divi-
dend yield, the longer it takes to earn back the original cost
price.
Interest-Rate Sensitivity
Stock prices are in general not insulated from changes in

interest rates. A stock may produce dividend payments, but
those are not always certain and they are not specified by a
stated maturity. The term “terminal value” is for stocks less
reliable than it is for bonds. A stock is a discounted cash
flow of dividend payments, and therefore the term “present
value” does apply in the same way as it does for bonds.
When interest rates change, the present value of stocks can
change. Historically, stocks have shown to be very sensitive
to interest rate changes such as those in the 1970s and early
1980s. During those periods of sustained rise in interest
rates, stocks in general did not perform well. Bonds did not
perform during the 1970s and 80s so well either. A key differ-
ence between stocks and bonds is that the latter has a fixed
coupon, which provides stability of regular payment. Bonds
are also higher up in the capital structure of a company.
That means in a liquidation or bankruptcy, corporate bond
holders are likely to get their coupon paid before the stock
holder gets its dividend. When a company issues corporate
debt, it can impact its earnings positively when bonds are
issued in a falling interest rate environment. That is because
a lower cost of debt brings down a company’s weighted aver-
age cost of capital. The result is that a company can use the
favorable cost of capital to invest in new equipment or to
buy back its shares. The buy-back of shares has been a trend
that intensified since 2009. The S&P 500 Index companies
have bought back their stock in greater numbers since 2009
and that has supported the broad market index. Having said
that, while the level of the S&P 500 Index may matter, the
reverse is true for earnings estimates and forward multiples.
Their movements are driven by whether or not the Federal
Reserve is hiking or cutting rates, and the earnings and mul-
tiples cycles often counteract one another.
Forward earnings estimates grow robustly when the Fed
is hiking rates and fall when it begins to cut rates before
expanding again, albeit at a slower pace than in the earlier
stages. Multiples, on the other hand, expand considerably
in stages when the Fed cuts, and contract sharply when the
Fed starts to hike. In other words, the behavior of earnings
estimates is procyclical – they rise much more when the
Fed is hiking rates (trying to cool off a robust economy)
than when it is cutting them (trying to rejuvenate a tepid
one). Relative sector estimates respond in kind. Late cycli-
cal stocks like Industrials and Materials rise the most when
the Fed is hiking, and defensive stocks like Utilities hold up
the best when the Fed begins cutting. Early cyclical stocks
like Technology enjoy the biggest expansion when rate
cuts continue after the federal funds rate is below a long
run average. The behavior of earnings multiples is coun-
tercyclical and sector leadership realigns accordingly. Table
1.1 on page 20 shows the early cyclical stocks have the best
of the multiple expansion in Phase I when the Fed hikes
slowly, and share leadership with the defensives in Phase II
when the Fed hikes quickly. This happens before the defen-
sive stocks take over in Phase III (when the Fed cuts slowly).
All of the late cyclical sectors’ relative multiples expand in
Phase IV, and they are the winners on balance from a mul-
tiples perspective when the Fed is easing quickly. This pat-
tern broadly supports the notion that stocks are forward
looking, beginning to discount the effects of policy moves
before they occur.
The Cross-over 19
Exploring past Phase IV and Phase I patterns provides

some insight into what to expect for equities in the inter-
mediate term, especially as the extraordinary easing
measures by the Federal Reserve are slowly wound down.
Historically, when the two-year Treasury yield bottoms, it
seems to have a good record of leading peaks in the overall
S&P 500 price-to-earnings multiple. This pattern has held
across Phase IVs for the early cyclical sectors (see Table 1.1
on page 20), just as the reverse (higher yields lead to higher
multiples) has held for the late cyclical stocks and technol-
ogy. Another way in which this dynamic can be seen is in
the tendency of early cyclical stock earnings multiples to
peak well ahead of the end of Phase IV (the phase the Fed
cuts quickly). Health care’s relative multiple, on the other
hand, has steadily declined across all of Phase IV. The rest
of the defensive sectors’ multiple histories during Phase IV
are mixed.
Interest-rate sensitivity is measured by duration. Duration
is the weighted-average term to maturity of a bond’s cash
flows, and measures its price sensitivity to changes in inter-
est rates. Duration drives capital gains in the fixed-income
market. There have been academic attempts to extend the
concept of duration to equities, but with little success.
Equities expressed as a discounted stream of dividend pay-
ments represent a good example of a cross-over characteris-
tic with bonds. Unlike the coupon, however, the dividend
is variable and perhaps better compared with a floating-
rate note [FRN] that earns variable interest as a spread over
a reference index (typically the London Interbank Offer
Rate Index [LIBOR]). A floating-rate security has little
duration however. Equity duration, however, in the con-
text of the discount dividend model sees common esti-
mates of around 20 to 30 years based on the long history
Table 1.1 Returns of different sectors versus changes in Fed interest rates
S&P 500 Individual Index average performance
Consumer Financials Energy Industrials Materials Utilities Technology
Phase I: Fed hiked slowly 8% –2% 30% 18% 9% –10% 12%

(1997, 1999–00, 2004–06 cycles)
Phase II: Fed hiked quickly –7% –6% 3% 9% –6% –7% –2%
(1980–81, 1983–84, 1988–89, 1993–94 cycles)
Phase III: Fed cut slowly 11% 31% 21% 22% –1% 5% 4%
(1996 cycle)
Phase IV: Fed cut quickly –18% –28% 19% 4% 3.80% 15% 10%
(2007–08 cycle)
Source: FRBNY. Annual data from 1990–2014.

The Cross-over 21
of dividend policy from major blue chip companies. In

contrast to the contractually established schedule of bond-
holder payments, cash streams accruing to stockholders
are not predictable and therefore not stable. The relation-
ship between rates and equity security valuations weakens
when additional variables driving credit and equity prices
make themselves felt. Such variables are default, earnings
misses, or corporate governance. While duration facili-
tates the comparison of interest-rate sensitivities across
bonds, providing a quantitative basis for hedging interest-
rate exposure within a fixed-income portfolio, it serves lit-
tle function in a stock portfolio. Historically, stocks with
the highest dividend payout ratios exhibit negative cor-
relations with interest rates. They tend to underperform
the broader market when rates are rising, and outperform
when rates fall. The negative correlations for those divi-
dend stocks are seen as a sign that the market views them
as proxies for bonds.
There are several prominent examples of proxies for bonds.
These are real-estate investment trusts (REITs), Telecoms, and
Utilities. These companies face tight regulatory constraints
that limit their earnings potential, and much of these stocks’
total returns come from stable dividends. The impact of rela-
tive reliance on dividends to satisfy shareholder returns are,
for example, Household Products, Hypermarkets, Packaged
Foods, Soft Drinks, and Tobacco. Sectors that are positively
correlated with interest-rate changes include Casinos,
Construction and Engineering, Health-Care Facilities,
Internet Software and Services, and Life Sciences. These sec-
tors are shown in Table 1.2 on page 22.
The data in Table 1.2 show that most sectors’ performance
has a directly related return to interest rates. In general,
investing in high-dividend payout-ratio stocks implies a
Table 1.2 Sector performance relative to the S&P 500 Index
Rising Rates Falling Rates
Pharmaceuticals –60% 50%

Electric Utilities –62% 69%
Health–care Equipment –6% 9%
Soft Drinks –53% 59%
Hypermarkets –71% 78%
Packaged Foods & Meats –35% 47%
Tobacco –16% 110%
Household Products –55% 52%
Source: FRB, 1971–2014. *Performance of sector relative to S&P 500. Periods are selected
during rising rate periods (1980–1982, 1994, 1999, 2004–06) and falling rates periods
(1995–1998, 2007–08, 2010–2011, 2014).
reliance on current income and an accompanying elevated

sensitivity to changes in interest rates. That sensitivity may
at times attract investor flows to high dividend-paying
stocks from bonds when interest rates fall. In case inter-
est rates rise however, those stock funds may experience
outflows. Bonds and dividend-paying stocks are therefore
not perfect substitutes, especially for investors who value
capital appreciation over current income. Earnings have
a level of cyclicality, and stocks that experience earnings
variability exert a meaningful influence on the interest-rate
sensitivity of the overall portfolio. The greater the cyclical-
ity of earnings, the more likely the aggregate stock price
is to be positively correlated with interest rates. Using the
variability of earnings estimates over time as a proxy for
earnings cyclicality, the variability can serve as a robust pre-
dictor of directional sensitivity to interest rates. All eight of
the industry groups shown in Table 1.2 demonstrated con-
sistent underperformance versus the S&P 500 Composite
Index when rates rose and outperformance when interest
rates fell. Sectors like Airlines, Health Care Supplies and
the composite REIT industry group failed to demonstrate
The Cross-over 23
consistent relative performance when their stock prices are

positively correlated with rate changes. The empirical link
between earnings cyclicality and interest-rate sensitivity is
especially strong among several of the subindustries within
the Materials and Utilities sector.
S&P 500 earnings multiples have demonstrated a robust
positive correlation with real interest rates except at
extremely low and high levels of real rates. In an econ-
omy characterized by widespread disinflationary influ-
ences, interest rate changes may serve as a robust leading
indicator of growth prospects, reinforcing the robustness
of the link between earnings cyclicality and interest rate.
The level of long-term real interest rates has a relation-
ship with the PE multiple. In periods when the multiple
expands, real interest rates rise and are positive. That is a
sign of a strong economy with healthy earnings. When
real interest rates are negative, PE multiples may expand,
but that could be a sign of a weak economy when compa-
nies slash costs to keep positive earnings. Figure 1.4 shows
20
Median S&P 500 P/E Ratio
15
10
–5
Average Real Long-Term Treasury Yield (%)
Median S&P PE Real Long Term Treasury Yield Average
Figure 1.4 S&P median PE multiple in periods of high and low real interest
rates.
Source: Robert Shiller: 1971–2014.
the long-term relationship between real interest rates and

the PE multiple.
Equity Returns
The universe of financial securities (stocks, bonds, curren-

cies, commodities, and cash equivalents) derives returns
from the performance of the real economy. The real econ-
omy is driven by various factors like capital, labor, materials,
and productivity. These factors determine gross domestic
product (GDP), and GDP growth is the ultimate source of all
cash flows and returns across the capital structure of finan-
cial assets. There has been a historical relationship between
equities and productivity growth. Within the universe
of assets, stocks are an asset class that reflects the upside
potential of productivity. The reason for this is because cor-
porate profit margins are the residual of the costs of labor,
capital, raw materials, and credit. A quantitative measure of
equity risk and return is historical performance. Figure 1.5
on page 25 shows historical returns and return volatilities
of bonds and stocks over the past 100 years.
During this long period, the risk and return profiles were
uneven across both assets. Lower volatility assets, such as
cash alternatives and Treasury bonds, provided low upside
and low downside within a relatively symmetric distribu-
tion. Higher volatility assets such as stocks provided more
upside than downside during short-term periods. To take
history at face value, total returns on equity can be decom-
posed into three distinct factors: income return (dividend),
growth return (GDP and earnings), and valuation returns
(changes in PE ratios). The returns from income are the lower
volatility aspect of equity return. It is mainly driven by two
subcomponents, which is the cash flow from dividends, and
the cash flow from gross repurchases of outstanding shares.
The Cross-over 25
15
10
Annulized Rerurn (%)
0 Cash Tsy Bonds Corp Bonds HighYield

Stocks
–5
Best Decade average

–10 Worst decade
Geometric average
–15
0 1 3 5 8 10 12 18
Standard Deviation of annual returns (%)
Figure 1.5 Historical returns between stocks and bonds over different
periods.
Source: Ibbotson, Shiller. Period 1900–2011, annual data.
It is important to distinguish, however, whether returns

from income comes from the use of financial leverage or
from earnings retention. Returns from GDP and earnings
growth are also driven by two factors. The most important
factor is nominal GDP. The relationship between nominal
GDP growth and earnings growth is fairly consistent over
longer periods (up to 20 years). The third component is the
return from valuation changes. Over the long term, equity
prices have tended to keep pace with earnings. This has
given equity valuations a mean-reverting character.
In his book Irrational Exuberance (2000), Robert Shiller
derived the “cyclically adjusted P/E multiple” with these
three return components. This ratio describes earnings as
being volatile (historically, earnings are twice as volatile
as equity prices). Stock prices derive their valuation from
those volatile earnings. Thus, a cyclical adjustment is useful
in removing volatility from earnings. Shiller uses a trailing

ten-year average of reported earnings as a cyclically adjusted
portion of the PE ratio. When taking the three major com-
ponents (GDP, PE ratio and dividend), equity total returns
can be expressed as the following sum:
1. stock index dividend yield

2. percent change in nominal GDP
3. percent change in profits’ share of GDP
4. percent change in cyclically adjusted P/E ratio
5. percent change in real long-term Treasury yield
To calculate equity total returns, a fundamental discount-

ing factor should be included which has generally been
defined as the return on a long-term government bond.
When considering components 1 through 5 above as the
main sources for equity return, a simple comparison is
the S&P 500 earnings per share and US nominal GDP in
dollars. Figure 1.6 shows the two series track each other
US Nominal GDP in US dollars, normalized
S&P 500 Earnings per share, normalized
2.8 5.5
2.6 5
2.4 4.5
2.2 4
1993=1
1993=1
2 3.5
1.8 3
1.6 2.5
1.4 2
1.2 1.5
1 1
3/1/1993
3/1/1994
3/1/1995
3/1/1996
3/1/1997
3/1/1998
3/1/1999
3/1/2000
3/1/2001
3/1/2002
3/1/2003
3/1/2004
3/1/2005
3/1/2006
3/1/2007
3/1/2008
3/1/2009
3/1/2010
3/1/2011
3/1/2012
3/1/2013
3/1/2014
US Nominal GDP S&P 500 Earnings per Share
Figure 1.6 S&P earnings/share versus nominal GDP.

Source: Robert Shiller, data 1993–2014.
The Cross-over 27
relatively closely. The close trend between GDP and S&P

500 earnings explains that nominal GDP is ultimately the
key source for long-term expected returns.
Bond Returns
A yield on a bond can be decomposed as the sum of the

following: expectations of the path of future short-term
interest rates, and a risk premium for bearing uncertainty,
known as the term premium. Historically, bond returns can
be broken down into three components:
● returns resulting from change in economic growth

● returns resulting from change in inflation
● returns resulting from change in the term premium
A bond return is closely related to the expectations of a

short-term rate, such as the federal funds rate. The third com-
ponent is a residual after growth and inflation-related return
expectations are subtracted from the bond’s total expected
return. Historically, a ten-year maturity US Treasury bond
has returned around 5 percent annually. When the three
components are stripped out, 0.5 percent is attributed to
economic growth, represented by the long-term real return
on three-month Treasury bills. There is about 3 percent of
the ten-year yield that is accounted for change in inflation
as measured by the consumer price index (CPI) index, and
about 1.25 percent is contributed by the term premium.
This is the excess return on ten-year US Treasury bond after
accounting for the real returns on T-bills and inflation. The
most critical component of bonds’ total return is the real
policy rate. The real policy rate has been on average around
0.4 percent since the 1900s, rising as high as 5 percent in
1933 and falling as low as –6 percent in 1951. Today, the real
policy rate stands at around –1.25 percent (The fed funds

rate minus the CPI year-over-year growth rate). The path of
the real policy rate has historically been too low when the
rate was below fundamental fair value, which is known as
the “neutral rate.” There have been other times when the
real policy rate was well above the neutral rate, like in the
1980s. The neutral rate has been subject to intense debate
by both academics and market participants. In general, the
neutral rate can be determined when real policy rates are
too low relative to their fundamental fair value and that
results in the acceleration of inflation. When the real policy
rate is too high relative to fundamental fair value, a deceler-
ation of real growth below potential growth may occur. The
basic forecast assumes there is a linear relationship between
the real policy rate approximated by the Treasury bill yield
adjusted for inflation, and the potential real growth rate of
the economy, as shown in Figure 1.7.
The historical path of the real policy rate has not been
optimal at all times. In the 1930s, it appeared that the
10%
8% Potential GDP
T-bill rate in real terms
6%
GDP, T-billl rate (%)
4%
2%
0%
–2%
–4%
–6%
–8%
12/1/1952
10/1/1956
8/1/1960
6/1/1964
4/1/1968
2/1/1972
12/1/1975
10/1/1979
8/1/1983
6/1/1987
4/1/1991
2/1/1995
12/1/1998
10/1/2002
8/1/2006
6/1/2010
4/1/2014
2/1/2018
12/1/2021
Figure 1.7 T-bill rate and potential GDP.

Source: FRB, Congressional Budget Office, 1952–2014, quarterly data.
The Cross-over 29
real policy rate should have been falling to a negative rate

instead of actually rising to a positive rate. And in the 1950s,
it appeared that the policy rate should have been rising to
a positive rate instead of actually falling to a negative rate.
Barring those two periods, it appears that the generally the
relationship between potential GDP growth and the real
policy rate has held, and continues to do so today. There
is a macroeconomic debate behind the policy rate over the
long term. The debate was sparked by “secular stagnation,”
which became a popular topic in the media and among
several economists, like Krugman and Lawrence Summers.
Secular stagnation is caused by low demand stemming from
deleveraging and tight credit. The resulting output gap and
slack are large and exert downward pressure on nominal
wages and inflation. The path of short-term interest rates
remains near zero for an extended time. The policy rate
can only return to equilibrium when the output gap is fully
closed. In the event that the economy faces a supply-side
problem, it is caused by demographics, a falling labor force
participation rate, and low capital investment. The output
gap is smaller, inflation pressure can start to build, and
rates hikes may follow sooner. However, because of lower
potential output and lower returns on capital, the policy
rate eventually ends at a lower neutral rate.
By late 2006, the Fed acknowledged something had changed
in US potential output. The Fed staff forecast a slower labor
force growth because of looming baby boom retirement. That
implied that the expansion of potential GDP could be lower
than what was witnessed in the earlier 2000s. The subse-
quent downward shift in potential GDP since the 2008 crisis
was coupled with an acceleration in early retirement. With
potential GDP settling at a more permanent lower level, the
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has incorporated
into its forecasts a number of structural factors that have

contributed to a persistent decline in interest rates, such as
global savings, demographic changes, slower potential GDP,
and fiscal and credit restraints. A downward shift in poten-
tial growth as a result of these factors means the equilibrium
between aggregate demand and supply has equally moved
down. This has led to a debate on what the level equilibrium
policy rate could be. There are a number of different ideas
about how the “equilibrium real interest rate” can be estab-
lished. A school of thought is the equilibrium rate is the
required rate of return to keep an economy’s output near
potential. Potential output represents the sum of popula-
tion, labor force participation, and productivity growth. A
deviation by actual output from potential is a direct measure
of future change in employment and inflation. The rise or
fall of actual output versus potential has therefore a level of
speed driven by inflation expectations. The equilibrium real
return that approximates the speed is the “ex ante real inter-
est rate.” This ex ante rate is the nominal rate minus long-
term inflation expectations. The developed economies are
likely suffering from a combination of supply and demand
constraints. In overlevered, highly indebted economies, the
equilibrium real rate is also a measure of an interest rate
that stabilizes large debt to GDP. This rate is a function of
how the cyclically adjusted primary balance relates to debt
to GDP and real GDP. In order to forecast what the level of
the real policy rate may be in the next decade, there is a set
of assumptions to take into account. These assumptions are:
(1) potential GDP growth in the United States will gradually
decline from a 2 percent rate today, to a 1.5 percent rate
by 2023; (2) US debt-to-GDP ratio will broadly stabilize at
today’s levels of around 100 percent; (3) realized inflation
will broadly follow market expectations expressed in the
inflation-linked bond market.
The Cross-over 31
Under these assumptions, the real policy rate may poten-

tially average –1 percent per annum for the next decade,
and if there are no major changes to the assumptions
beyond that, actually fall gradually toward –1.25 percent by
2030. Against this secular forecast, the market expected in
2014–2015 the real policy rate to rise from –1.3 percent to
about –0.6 percent by 2023, and to a positive 0.6 percent by
2030. Assuming the forecast for the secular horizon of the
“optimal” real policy rate is correct, and assuming inflation
follows the path of market expectations, the bond market
may deliver positive expected returns for the decade ahead
(excluding any exogenous shocks). If policymakers follow
the optimal path of secular real policy rates from this point
forward, the ten-year US Treasury note (a proxy for the bond
market) can be expected to deliver an average total return of
about 2.0 percent to 3.0 percent per annum over the next
five to ten years. Further, an expectation of –1 percent real
policy rates, combined with 2.5 percent expected inflation,
produces a risk-neutral fair value yield of 1.5 percent for ten-
year US Treasuries. Given that the current yield at time writ-
ing was around 2 percent to 2.5 percent, the term premium
is determined to be 1 percent below its long-term average.
There is a word of caution about the assumptions and
interest rate forecast. History taught one lesson, and that
is policymakers often make mistakes either due to regime
changes or because of observational errors. Although there
is broad confidence in the FOMC following the histori-
cally derived optimal path of real policy rates, there remain
concerns that either external currency pressures and/or
domestic political pressures might cause a deviation from
the prescribed lower-for-longer path. As has been the case
historically, the errors in suboptimal policy are likely to
be repeated in generally the same way. The result of a too
high real policy rate path relative to the one prescribed by
historical optimization will undoubtedly be a sharp rise

in private defaults given the historically high debt/GDP
ratios with which we are confronted today. Conversely, the
result of a too low real policy rate path relative to the one
prescribed by historical optimization will likely be a more
rapid erosion of confidence in the US dollar as a sustain-
able global reserve currency, sparking financial and then
real deglobalization, leading to economic stagflation.
Other Valuation Metrics: Tobin’s Q and

Equity-Bond Risk Premium
When theory is applied in practice, the observed reality can

be different from derived reality. Portfolio balance theory
is such an example. It promises future returns by exchang-
ing assets. An important measure of portfolio balance is
Tobin’s Q ratio. This is the ratio of the price of existing asset
prices relative to the marginal cost of producing new assets.
Whenever the ratio is below one, companies are underval-
ued because new businesses cannot be created as cheaply
as where they would be trading in the market. The Q ratio
tends to mean revert near one and has done so since quanti-
tative easing began in 2009. At that time, the ratio was at its
lowest since the 1950s, as shown in Figure 1.8 on page 33.
Today’s ratio stood at 1.15 in 2014, and in Tobin’s view an
above parity suggests deploying real assets will earn a suf-
ficient future rate of return. The reason for this is that the
replacement cost of producing new assets is likely sufficient
to regenerate today’s returns. When the Q ratio is below
one, as was the case from 2008 to 2013, investors have
had to accept a discount to the replacement value if they
desired to sell their assets. When the market-wide Q ratio
is less than parity, investors are probably pessimistic about
future asset returns. Because those returns expectations
The Cross-over 33
1.8
1.6 Tobin’s Q ratio
1.4
1.2
Q Ratio
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1945Q4
1952Q3
1954Q4
1957Q1
1959Q2
1961Q3
1963Q4
1966Q1
1968Q2
1970Q3
1972Q4
1975Q1
1977Q2
1979Q3
1981Q4
1984Q1
1986Q2
1988Q3
1990Q4
1993Q1
1995Q2
1997Q3
1999Q4
2002Q1
2004Q2
2006Q3
2008Q4
2011Q1
2013Q2
Figure 1.8 Tobin’s Q.
Source: Federal Reserve Z.1 Financial Accounts of the United States, H.4 reserve balances
Q ratio: nonfinancial corporations’ value/nonfinancial corporations’ replacement cost
(residential/nonresidential).
lower future expected values, those expectations question

the assumptions behind existing assets relative to their
marginal production cost. The cost would have to be low-
ered in order to get broader investment. In the “theory” of
Tobin, this can only be achieved by changing expectations
about future discount rates. When this is done appropri-
ately, it changes the rate of returns on existing and future
assets, thereby creating new supply of assets. Because there
is a given demand for those new assets, replacement costs
will fall again relative to market values. If that is the case,
it will presumably move Tobin’s Q over 1, suggesting an
investment cycle may commence, which seemed to be the
case in 2014, albeit corporate capital expenditure plan sur-
veys pointed at caution. In Tobin’s work, expected interest
rates are a function of demand for cash and bonds. When
expected interest rates exceed current interest rates, there
will be more demand for cash than for bonds (vice versa).
Different types of investors set different expected rate of

returns. In order not to have those returns deviate too
materially, Tobin suggested that assets need to be substitut-
able in order to change expected returns. The return that is
achieved over the life of a bond investment is the coupon
interest discounted by the yield to maturity. The yield to
maturity, however, fluctuates because it resembles a sum of
expectations that change frequently.
These expectations range from what investors see as future
inflation, where they expect short-term interest rates to
be, and what they think is the “term premium.” The term
premium is the extra return investors demand for hold-
ing a longer maturity bond. According to the expectations
hypothesis, the term premium is the same as the expected
return from rolling over a series of short-maturity bonds with
a total maturity equal to that of a long-maturity bond. In
other words, investors require compensation across the term
structure of interest rates, the yield curve. The further out
on the yield curve, the more expectations express a greater
uncertainty about the trajectory of inflation, and the less
clarity there is about the path of short-term interest rates.
The term premium is also demanded as compensation for
volatility and liquidity. The liquidity preference theory says
that short-term securities are less risky, and as a result, yield
curves have an invariably small, positively sloped “tail” on
the far left side. At this part of the curve, investors would be
willing to give up some liquidity premium in exchange for
investing in longer maturity securities. Interest rate options
provide information on parts of the yield curve that exhibit
higher excess returns because of localized higher volatility.
The Federal Reserve has published a model that estimates
the term premium. The researchers, Don Kim and Jonathan
Wright, employ a three-factor model that uses the level of
interest rates, the slope, and curvature of the yield curve. At
The Cross-over 35
each major point of the curve—two-year, five-year, and ten-

year maturity—the residual value (term premium) is calcu-
lated after adjusting for long-term inflation expectations and
expected real short-term interest rates. What can be concluded
from Figure 1.9 is that term premiums have been falling over
the last 20 years as interest rate tightening cycles became fur-
ther spread out and interest rate volatility fell. The term pre-
mium can experience sudden sharp changes. For example,
when in May 2013 Fed chairman Bernanke indicated asset
purchases could be slowed in the foreseeable future, markets
quickly demanded a higher term premium—dubbed as the
“taper tantrum.” This tantrum was caused predominately
by a shift in perceptions the Federal Reserve would maintain
near-zero interest rates and asset purchases for an “indefi-
nite” period of time. Even so, the term premium remains well
below the historical average of 1 percent, and currently stands
at 0 percent, according to the Fed’s Kim-Wright model.
The low value of the term premium was addressed by
Bernanke in his speech from March 2006, titled “Reflections
on the Yield Curve and Monetary Policy.” Bernanke noted
3.5
3
2.5
Term Premium (%)
2
1.5
Taper
1
tantrum
0.5
0 Greenspan
–0.5 “conundrum”
–1
–1.5
7/19/1990
7/19/1991
7/19/1992
7/19/1993
7/19/1994
7/19/1995
7/19/1996
7/19/1997
7/19/1998
7/19/1999
7/19/2000
7/19/2001
7/19/2002
7/19/2003
7/19/2004
7/19/2005
7/19/2006
7/19/2007
7/19/2008
7/19/2009
7/19/2010
7/19/2011
7/19/2012
7/19/2013
Figure 1.9 US ten-year Treasury term premium.

Source: Federal Reserve Board, Don H. Kim and Jonathan H. Wright (2005, 2013). Data:
daily, July 1990-March 31, 2014.
the fall in the term premium in 2004–2006 was attributed to

several factors, such as reduced macroeconomic volatility,
stable long-term inflation expectations, recycling of dollar
reserves by foreign official institutions, a change in pension
fund accounting toward long-term asset-liability match-
ing, and a fall in the issuance of long-term securities. In a
follow-up speech, titled “Long Term Interest Rates,” which
was delivered at the Annual Monetary Conference in San
Francisco in March 2013, Bernanke showed that the term
premium had fallen to a negative value during 2011–2012.
This phenomenon may occur during times of heightened
uncertainty when safe have demand for longer maturity
Treasury securities dominates. The Fed’s asset purchase pro-
grams and Operation Twist also had an influence on the
level of the term premium. In a separate study that was
posted on the New York Fed blog Liberty Street Economics
in August 2013, research staffers Adrian and Fleming dem-
onstrated that the sell-off in interest rates during May-
August 2013 was largely caused by the term premium that
saw a greater change than during the 2003 or 1994 long-
term interest rate rises. The term premium therefore matters
to policymakers and financial markets. During 2004–2006,
low term premiums were dubbed a “conundrum” because
the rise in short-term interest rates barely changed the level
of long-term interest rates. Central bank forward guidance
that continues to anchor the shorter end of the yield has
a similar effect on likely maintaining a downward bias on
long-term term premiums.
The equity risk premium is the excess return that an indi-
vidual stock or the overall stock market provides over a “risk-
free rate.” A way to calculate this is to use the reciprocal of
the P/E ratio of the stock index and subtract a risk-free rate,
a Treasury bill, or a Treasury bond yield. Numerous studies
have compared long-term returns between stocks and bonds.
The Cross-over 37
Academics such as Robert Shiller and Robert Ibbotson have

researched extensively associated equity and market risk
premiums. A simple conclusion from this research can be
drawn: equities always outperform bonds over the long run,
albeit with periods of extreme volatility. To visualize, one way
to show this holds true is to look at the historical real earn-
ings yield of the S&P 500 Index and at long-term Treasury
yield, adjusted for annual inflation. Historically, long bond
real yields have averaged around 4.5 percent, and the equity
real earnings yield has been around 6.9 percent. The gap
between the two is known as the “equity risk premium.” The
equity risk premium is shown in Figure 1.10 on page 38. To
compare expected returns between “safe haven” bonds such
as Treasuries and stock returns, the “cyclically adjusted PE
ratio” used by Shiller may provide additional insight. This
PE ratio uses a trailing ten-year average of reported earnings
to smooth out their cyclical volatility (earnings can be twice
as volatile as the equity prices). Based on Shiller’s most recent
estimate, the cyclically adjusted PE ratio stood around 26
versus 18 for the actual ratio of the S&P 500 Index by early
2015. Projected five years forward, the compounded annual
growth rate (CAGR) of the cyclically adjusted PE ratio is
7.5 percent, adjusted for annual inflation. This number
presents a forward return on the broader stock index that
may not necessarily materialize. But it does say that, based
on low interest rates, the excess return premium demanded
on stocks is higher than on bonds. For example, from 1945
to 1970, when real interest rates were on average 2 percent
negative, the average historical CAGR five years and ten
years projected forward of the PE ratio were around 4 per-
cent adjusted for inflation. That CAGR equal to an excess
premium of 4 percent is about similar to the recent period
of 2008 to 2014 when real interest rates were also negative
1 percent to 2 percent. The historical comparison between
Equity Risk Premium in real terms (%) 20
15
10
–5
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2014

–10
Figure 1.10 Equity risk premium.

Source: Robert Shiller, 1860–2014, quarterly data.
the two periods may suggest a few things. On the one hand,
negative real interest rates can generate higher PE multiples
when free cash flow improves because of a lower discount
rate. On the other hand, PE multiple expansions may also
happen because of uncertainty that results in lower (real)
interest rates. In each case, the equity risk premium is likely
to be positive (see Figure 1.10).
When Equity Is Like Debt and Debt Is Like Equity
There are numerous of examples of a cross-over between

stocks and bonds. The cross-over becomes most evident when
a stock has embedded bond features or a bond has equity char-
acteristics. A good example is the “convertible bond.” This is a
bond the holder can convert into a specified number of shares
of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal
value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity features.
Convertible bonds were originated in the mid-nineteenth
The Cross-over 39
century, and used by early speculators to counter market cor-

nering. Convertible bonds are often issued by companies with
a low credit rating and high growth potential. To compen-
sate for having additional value through the option of con-
verting the bond to stock, a convertible bond typically has a
coupon rate lower than that of similar, nonconvertible debt.
The investor receives the potential upside of conversion into
equity, while protecting the downside with cash flow from
the coupon payments and the return of principal upon matu-
rity. These properties lead naturally to the idea of convertible
arbitrage, in which a long position in the convertible bond is
balanced by a short position in the underlying equity.
Another way to spot cross-over opportunities is to look
at the correlation between high-yield, hybrid, senior unse-
cured, corporate, and subordinated debt, and a company’s
stock or broader equity index. The reason why there is a
positive correlation is due to the placement in the hierarchy
of the capital structure. High-yield and subordinated debt
are at the lower end of the capital structure, closer to the
equity holders who are at the bottom. The rank order exists
because of bankruptcy codes or regulatory reasons, such as
the “bail-in” mechanism. That mechanism has been put in
place in Europe to have bond- and equity holders partially
pay for the bailout of a failed bank. This has not always been
the case, however. During the 2008 banking crisis, tradi-
tional hybrid and subordinated debt was frequently unable
to absorb the losses of failed entities, with the consequence
that governments had to step in and recapitalize banks at
the taxpayer’s expense. Contingent convertible capital notes
(“CoCos”) were the industry’s response to both the needs of
the banks and investors’ requirements for a larger capital
base without diluting shareholders’ equity. Contingent con-
vertible capital instruments are loss-absorbing hybrid secu-
rities issued by banks. They are debt obligations that either
convert into equity or allow principal to be written down,

often at a predefined capital trigger. Once converted or writ-
ten-down, CoCos fully absorb capital without triggering
the bank’s default. There are further examples of cross-over-
type instruments such as hybrid securities, and convertible
coupon step-up notes. The reason for cross-over between
bonds and stock is often mentioned in the context of credit
risk. In that regard, even government bonds from time to
time correlate positively with equity risk. It is important to
understand why there is a positive correlation and how that
might change. Earning a return on an individual stock or
bond can be an absolute matter. Investors who want earn a
coupon or dividend may not want to consider active cross-
over investing in stocks and bonds. Cross-over investing in
stocks and bonds is strategic and dynamic. Most important
is to identify which specific stocks and bonds are a natural
“pick” to maximize returns.
Crossing over the Pickers
The ability to successfully select the best bond and the best
stock is what differentiates the consistently effective picker.
In 2008, Bill Miller stepped down from the Legg Mason
Value Trust fund, which he had managed for 30 years. In
the five years since the streak ended, Miller’s fund lost 9 per-
cent annually and ranked last out of the 840 funds in its
category, according to Lipper. The reason for his spectacular
crash after his equally spectacular run was that his winning
streak was so extraordinary because Miller was an impressive
stock picker. A newsletter published by Credit Suisse-First
Boston in 2003, a few years before Miller’s winning streak
ended, calculated the odds of a manager’s outperforming
the market on chance alone for 12 straight years to be one
in 2.2 billion. Some would say that Miller’s ability to pick
The Cross-over 41
the right stocks was merely a coin toss. If Miller was sin-
gled out at the start of 1991 and calculated the odds that by
pure chance the specific fund manager selected would beat
the market for precisely the next 15 years, then those odds
would indeed have been astronomically low.
On the other side of the investment spectrum stood Bill
Gross, the astute bond investor who beat the Barclays
Aggregate Bond Index from 1987 up until 2011. Gross was
and still is a superb bond picker. His ability to see value within
the fixed-income universe was based on basic principles of a
total return approach to bonds. By 2011, the market chal-
lenged his approach because of high uncertainty and central
bank action that drove US Treasury yields lower and strength-
ened the dollar. Both factors led to falling emerging market
currencies and bonds, and a flatter Treasury yield curve. The
rise and fall of a stock/bond picker may also be explained
by the historical returns of active fund managers. According
to ICI Mutual Fund research, for the past 20-year period
(1994–2014), active equity investors earned 3.83 percent and
asset allocation fund investors earned 2.56 percent (after fees)
compared to the S&P 500 return of 9.14 percent. For the same
period, fixed-income investors earned 1.01 percent compared
to the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index return of 6.89 percent.
The return differences can be explained by the fact that inves-
tors diligently seek investments that they hope will produce
the best returns, but lose much of that benefit when they yield
to psychological factors. Investors who limit the time reten-
tion for investments erode the alpha created by professional
investment management. The average equity investor earned
an annualized return that outpaced inflation for both the
twenty-year and the one-year time frames. Fixed-income and
asset allocation investors continue to lose ground to inflation
as their investments lag the cost of living in all but the excep-
tional one-year time frame. History shows that mutual fund
investors generally increase inflows after observing periods

of strong performance. They buy at high prices when future
expected returns are lower, and they sell after observing peri-
ods of poor performance when future expected returns are
now higher. This results in what author Carl Richards called
the “behavior gap,” in which investor returns are well below
the returns of the funds in which they invest. Perhaps with
this observation in mind, Warren Buffett once said, “The
most important quality for an investor is temperament, not
intellect” (The Motley Fool, 2014). That statement says that
stock- or bond picking is a way to consistently outperform.
This book addresses the methods of picking bonds and
applies those methods to picking stocks. The chapters in this
book focus on how to use bond strategies to enhance stock-
picking strategies. The same analysis is applied to equity strat-
egy to identify value in individual bonds. The approach is
a relative value concept as opposed to a deep-value or fun-
damental analysis. The book does not argue that by using
fixed-income strategies, a stock investor is guaranteed to out-
perform. The same can be said for a bond investor using equity
strategy to enhance returns. Every investor makes her or his
own judgment as to why a stock or a bond has value or why
it has not. This book’s purpose is to help investors understand
different selection methods by analyzing and presenting
practical cases of individual selection. The following chapters
devote bottoms up analysis, relative value frameworks and
ideas on cross-over opportunities between stocks and bonds.
The author of the book hopes the investor can apply some of
the presented techniques to her or his asset allocation strat-
egy to further optimize his or her portfolios.
2
Fixed-Income Strategies for
the Equity Investor
I
n fixed-income investing and bond trading, “picking”
always played an important role. Picking individual
bonds relative to an index or on a stand-alone basis can
make a difference in earning excess return on a bond portfo-
lio. Bonds are, therefore, with regard to the asset allocation
process and individual security selection, not too dissimi-
lar from stocks. Bonds are, however, mathematically very
different from stocks. To be a good bond or stock picker
requires an eye for the underlying detail that supports the
decision to buy or sell a bond or a stock. There are num-
ber of ways to pick a bond. The following sections provide
frameworks for how to look at bond picking and how to
incorporate such methods into picking stocks.
A Carry Framework
Bonds earn a fixed or floating rate coupon from which a

yield can be derived by discounting the coupons over a
certain term. Bonds may look at face value boring as all
that the investor would do is “clipping coupons.” That is
not always true, however. The coupon and yield of a bond
provide an income that is called “carry.” Carry is the differ-
ence between the coupon and the interest earned on cash,
say, interest on a deposit. The carry is therefore a trade-off.
45
Either an investor is willing to take some risk by investing

in a bond or he keeps his liquidity in cash by earning a
lower interest rate. The carry can also be calculated as the
difference between the coupon and a “repo rate.” The repo
rate is the rate of interest at which bonds can be financed
by lending or borrowing them as collateral in money mar-
kets. From a financing perspective, stocks also have a carry
component. A stock can be financed on margin at the stock
exchange. Alternatively, a stock’s dividend yield can be
compared to where a company funds in the commercial
paper market. Another way would be to subtract a com-
pany’s corporate debt yield from it’s stock’s earning yield
(reciprocal of the Price to Earnings ratio). The carry pre-
mium can also be calculated by analyzing the “free cash
flow yield”. The free cash flow yield is expressed as the
ratio of free cash flow divided by company’s market value.
The stock’s carry can be calculated by taking the difference
between the free cash flow yield and a company’s cost of
debt or commercial paper yield. In comparing the free cash
flow, dividend or earnings yield with a company’s financing
rate, “carry” as it is commonly used in fixed income, may
not be too different for stocks. Only the “stability” of carry
is different. Bonds and stocks represent a discounted cash
flow. However, a coupon is fixed over the life of the bonds
unless otherwise stated (for example, floating rate securi-
ties). A stock’s dividend yield, cash flow yield, or earnings
yield is not fixed and may experience variability. In addi-
tion, a dividend, cash flow, or earnings yield is a ratio rather
than a fixed percentage. Therefore “carry” in the traditional
sense of bonds based on comparing coupon interest versus
a funding rate has more stability than carry from a stock
based on comparing dividend, free cash flow or earnings
yield to shorter term financing.
Fixed-Income Strategies for the Equity Investor 47
A carry return can also be calculated in other ways. For

example, carry can be earned from taking a position in a
foreign currency. If an investor were to buy a bond denomi-
nated in a foreign currency, then in addition to the bond’s
total return (coupon interest plus principal and potential
price appreciation), the short-term interest-rate differential
implied from the currency could be an additional source of
return. A currency’s value is predominantly determined by
the interest-rate differential between the home country and a
foreign country. Many companies issue bonds denominated
in different currencies. Companies do this to take advantage
of interest-rate differences as well as getting access to liquid-
ity provided by foreign investors and financial intermedi-
aries. Multicurrency issuance can also be applied to stocks.
Many multinational companies have their shares traded on
domestic and foreign stock exchanges, or they are issued as
American depository receipts (ADRs) to list shares. An ADR
is a negotiable certificate issued by a US bank represent-
ing a specified number of shares in a foreign stock that is
traded on a US exchange. For an investor to take advantage
of a mismatch in share valuation of company, a currency
valuation model may be effective. Currencies may exhibit
volatility, however, that at times negates the positive return
that can be earned from the interest-rate differential implied
by the exchange rate. Investors can, however, benefit from
additional “currency carry return” when selecting interna-
tional stocks and bonds. Buying the stock of a company in
a foreign currency that is undervalued relative to its stock
listed in its home country could provide the potential of
higher returns (although there are no guarantees).
Another source for carry return is credit risk. Credit risk
can be measured by a company’s credit rating provided by
rating agencies like Standard and Poor’s. Credit risk is also
measured by a company’s corporate bonds that are priced

with an option-adjusted spread (OAS) over the compara-
ble “risk free” Treasury bond yield. The OAS, known as the
“credit spread”, is wider when credit risk is higher. When
credit risk rises, bonds and stocks can come close to each
other in terms of price volatility and risk-adjusted returns.
When comparing the OAS spread or yield of a company’s
corporate bond to the dividend yield of stock, it is a basic
measure of capital structure valuation. When the yield on
corporate debt is expressed as a ratio of the dividend yield,
the investor can gauge whether corporate debt is over- or
undervalued to the stock.
It is often said in the financial media that stocks reside at
the “lower end of the capital structure.” The capital structure
is the sum of the amount of corporate debt and stock out-
standing of a company. In practice that means that because
stocks reside at the lower end of the capital structure, in
case of a liquidation or bankruptcy, stockholders could get
wiped out first. Equity holders therefore bear the greatest
risk in the capital structure of a company. This is especially
the case for companies that have a rating below investment
grade, which is called “junk status.” Those companies issue
high-yield bonds and subordinated debt. Historically, the
price volatility of newly issued high-yield and subordinated
debt has not been too dissimilar from the volatility of stock
prices. In that respect, high yield and subordinated debt
are the closest linked to equity of a firm. When an inves-
tor wants to determine how bond valuation relates to stock
valuation, the comparison between volatility of high yield
debt and volatility of the stock can be another gauge.
An other way to compare bond volatility to stock vola-
tility is to look at the credit risk premium on corporate
debt. A higher credit risk premium on corporate debt may
imply the earnings yield of a stock could be high as well

(as a result of a lower Price to Earnings multiple). The rea-
son is that when a company issues large amounts of debt,
the credit risk premium should be higher. A company that
uses higher leverage through debt issuance can also have
bearing on earnings and thereby the price of the stock. The
PE ratio could fall because of higher earnings as a result of
leverage. That should result in a higher earnings yield on
the stock and therefore provide potentially a higher equity
carry return. There have also been cases in which compa-
nies that issue high-yield debt, pay a fairly high dividend
yield on their stock. To find stocks with high carry, inves-
tors need to look at companies that issue a fair amount of
high-yield debt. A greater weight of debt in the capital struc-
ture of company may also provide relative-value opportu-
nities by comparing stock earning yields with high-yield
debt returns. In that context, carry return is a comparison
between a stock and corporate bond with a similar amount
of price volatility.
A fixed-income investor looks for value in bonds on the
yield curve. The yield curve is defined as the term structure
of interest rates. A component of carry return that can be
derived from the yield curve is called “roll down.” The roll
down comes from the slope of the yield curve. The slope is
measured by the difference between yields on bonds with
different maturities and the rate on overnight cash (short-
term rate). If short-term interest rates do not fluctuate or
change too much, an investor can capture the roll-down
return by “sitting” on a bond for a certain period of time.
In practice that means for example an investor purchased
a bond with a five-year maturity that has a coupon/yield
of 2 percent and a price at par (100). If a four-year matu-
rity bond from the same issuer (or comparable issuer) is
yielding 1.8 percent, then a roll-down return is 20 basis

points (0.002 percent, the difference between the yield of a
five-year and four-year maturity). The roll down return can
be earned over the period of one year, provided the slope of
the yield curve does not change materially. The total return
would be calculated by multiplying the duration of the five-
year maturity bond (that has 4.8 years of duration) times
20 basis points of the roll down return, plus the bond’s
yield of 2 percent. The total return would be approximately
3 percent, all else being equal. It is not a guaranteed return,
but it is capital gain that can be collected over time if an
investor is patient. The roll down return can be captured
in almost any bond, provided short term interest rates are
stable. To take the roll down return concept to stocks, it is
quite differently applicable. It is difficult to imagine stocks
having a yield curve. Stocks do not have a yield to maturity,
and the only company-specific yield curve would be corpo-
rate debt issued at different maturities. For example, Apple
and Verizon have issued corporate bonds with a maturity as
short as one year and as long as thirty years. Let us think for
a moment conceptually about the “equity yield curve.” For
example, a common stock trades at a different PE multiple
than the preferred stock, convertible preferred, class A shares
or class B shares, or its internationally issued stock. There
would be different earning yields or free cash flow yields on
each of these stocks of the same company. Comparing the
earnings yield or free cash flow yield to locally issued debt
would be the “carry return” of a stock. That would explain
price differences between stocks of a company on different
exchanges (which is also caused by foreign currency valu-
ation). This is because the free cash flow yield (after sub-
tracting the cost of debt) could be higher in a company’s
foreign market country versus its home market. One could
also do this yield comparison by using dividend yields of
companies that operate in the same sector and have similar

activities.
There could be a “yield curve” of dividend, free cash flow
and earning yields of different companies in the same sec-
tor. It is not a traditional term structure of yields like in
fixed income. Rather, it is a “credit curve” that expresses
the different risks between stocks on domestic and foreign
stock exchanges. The risks would be liquidity, currency, and
cost capital that can be lower overseas than at home due to
favorable funding or taxation. However, unlike in bonds,
an investor would not “sit on a stock” and earn a roll-down
return. That is because the credit curve of stocks may not be
upward sloping. The way a stock investor would earn “carry”
would be through the average free cash flow yield derived
from different parts of the world. That carry return is then
the difference between the global free cash flow yield and
the average global cost of capital derived from parts of the
world in which a company may operate. The carry concept
is based on looking at a yield curve as to how such is prac-
ticed in fixed income. The yield curve carry is likely most
applicable to multinational companies that have overseas
operations and stocks listed on foreign exchanges.
There is another way to capture carry from the yield curve.
This technique is called “laddering.” An investor would pur-
chase several bonds with a different maturity rather than
one bond with a single maturity. The sizing of the ladder
portfolio is most important. Instead of putting all of the
investable money into one bond, the ladder portfolio sizes
appropriately the total notional investment across different
maturities. This is an effective way of minimizing interest-
rate risk and enhancing the liquidity profile of the portfo-
lio. Typically the bonds’ maturity dates are evenly spaced
across several months or several years. That means, when
bonds are maturing, the proceeds are reinvested at regular
intervals and the prevailing market rate. When liquidity

needs rise, the preference is to have bond maturities. The
strategy reduces the reinvestment risk associated with roll-
ing over maturing bonds into similar fixed-income products
all at once. It also helps manage the flow of money, ensur-
ing a steady stream of cash flows throughout the year.
In stocks, laddering is not a common strategy. That is
not to say the technique cannot be applied to stocks. The
bond ladder is a strategy that does not express a view on
the direction of interest rates on daily basis. The ladder is
about maximizing income with the highest efficiency to
generate liquidity. This approach can be applied to regu-
lar paying dividend stocks that have dividend dates spread
out. Laddering in that context is also about achieving a sta-
ble dividend reinvestment return. A stock ladder of com-
panies that have stable dividends and free cash flow would
become a diversification tool through the reinvesting of
dividend proceeds from one stock into a different stock.
The risk is, however, that the diversification is negated
by unstable dividends. Hence, unlike in fixed income, in
which a ladder is stable because of fixed coupons, an inves-
tor in stock should be more careful constructing a ladder
strategy to ensure the selection of individual stocks have
stable dividend payouts.
Laddering during an initial public offering (IPO) by pur-
chasing shares at a given price is known as “price support.”
That means, other investors must also agree to purchase
additional shares but at a higher price. The effect is the
stock price gets artificially inflated, while insiders have the
opportunity to buy the stock at the lower price. A lower
price guarantees they will be able to sell at a higher price in
the near future. This manipulation of stock prices has been
under significant investigation. A different way of laddering
is when some institutional investors are allocated shares at

the IPO offer price both before and after secondary trading
has started. It is assumed that allocations (plus secondary
market purchases) exceed optimal holdings and that the
lead investment bank can control the offloading of exces-
sive shares in the secondary market. Controlling additional
purchases and the sale of shares by specific investors allows
the lead investment bank to respond optimally, on behalf
of the issuer, to the arrival of informed secondary market
investors. Approaching a stock portfolio with this ladder
has been deemed illegal and subject to investigations.
Perhaps the most predominant source of carry in bonds is
duration. Macauley duration is the weighted average time
until cash flows are received, and is measured in years. This
metric named after its creator, Frederick Macauley, who in
1938 published an article titled “The Movements of Interest
Rates, Bond Yields and Stock Prices” for the National Bureau
of Economic Research. Modified duration is the name given
to price sensitivity, and is the percentage change in price
for a unit change in yield. Generally, when one values and
analyzes equities, interest rates can be an important factor.
There is a direct link between the value of a stock and the
short-term interest rate. Hence, stocks should theoretically
also have a first derivative in price sensitivity in relation
to the short-term interest rate. In a dividend discounting
model, the change in value of a stock is completely deter-
mined by the growth in the dividends that the stock will
pay in the future. If you estimate the growth in dividend
yield by a certain rate, the value of the price of a stock is
its dividend amount divided by the difference between the
interest rate and growth rate, shown by the formula below.
D
P= .
r g
In order to calculate the interest rate sensitivity, in other

words, the duration of the value of the stock, one must take
the first mathematical derivative of the stock value with
respect to the interest rate. By putting it in the duration
formula, which is the rate of change of the stock value
with respect to the rate, it shows the following (whereby D
presents dividend yield):
1
Duration = .
D
The duration of a stock is therefore inversely related to its

dividend yield. In other words, the higher the dividend yield,
the lower the duration of the stock. In terms of the carry
framework, the higher the duration of a bond or lower for a
stock, the higher the bond yield (dividend yield) in relative
terms to a short-term interest rate or funding rate (e.g., com-
mercial paper in the case of companies). This also depends,
however, on the shape of the yield curve. The flatter the yield
curve caused by the minimal difference between long-term
and short-term interest rates, the less carry return. This hap-
pens during times when the Federal Reserve hikes interest
rates by a large amount. Carry in long maturity bonds is lower
because that segment of the yield curve is generally flatter
even when short-term interest rates are low. For stocks, carry
return derived from duration does not have the same mean-
ing as in fixed income. If a company has a high dividend
yield, then its equity duration is low. Per unit of duration
(dividend yield—short-term funding rate divided by equity
duration), the carry per unit or risk could be high.
Relative-value Framework
Arbitrage opportunities may arise because of the mispricing

of similar type securities. In U.S. Treasuries, there are bonds
issued with different coupons but similar maturities, and

they trade sometimes at different prices. The driving factors
can vary, but in general liquidity, financing and deliverabil-
ity into a bond futures contract or credit default swap are
reasons why an arbitrage opportunity may exist. In stocks,
such factors may be less at work because there are not iden-
tical shares issued by a group of companies in the same
sector. In other words, a stock issued by company A is not
identical to a stock issued by company B, even if both com-
panies pay the same amount of dividend. This may provide
in general fewer arbitrage opportunities in stocks as com-
pared to bonds. That being said, stocks and bonds can be
compared in a relative-value framework by applying some
of the fixed-income relative-value techniques.
In relative value, there is a “natural” arbitrage between
a cash and a futures instrument. The reason is that a cash
instrument represents a spot price, while a futures price is
about an expected price or a forward price. Bond futures
are based on the delivery of a tangible basket of underlying
bonds at some date in the future. The contracts are asso-
ciated with “cash-and-carry arbitrage.” The cash-and-carry
strategy entails holding a long position in a bond, while
simultaneously holding a short position in the bond futures
contract. In a cash-and-carry trade, the long position in the
underlying bond is held until the contract delivery date,
and is used to cover the short futures position’s obligation
to deliver. In practice, an investor buys a bond that is deliv-
erable into the futures contract, finances the bond in the
repo market, and at the same time sells the bond futures
contract. The bond is held until expiry of the bond futures
contract, when it is delivered against the short futures posi-
tion. An investor can make a gain when the cost of holding
the bond is less than the gains on the futures contract.
For equities’ cash-and-carry arbitrage, stock index futures

can be a viable instrument. A stock index future is a cash-
settled futures contract on the value of a particular stock
market index. A forward price of an equity index or indi-
vidual stock is calculated by computing the cost of carry of
holding positions in index constituents or shares. The cost
of carry is the “risk-free” interest rate because the cost of
investing in stocks is the opportunity loss of earning inter-
est on cash. The dividend yield on the index is an estimated
yield because receiving dividends on the component stocks
can occur at different times.
The cost-of-carry arbitrage for a stock index future would
be as follows:
1) An investor buys a portfolio of shares that replicates the

stock index (with proportions matching the construc-
tion of the index)
2) The portfolio is financed by secured borrowing, e.g., a
stock repurchase agreement (repo)
3) The investor subsequently sells one stock index futures
4) The portfolio would be held until the last trading day
of the stock futures index contract to collect and invest
interim dividends received
5) On the last trading day, the underlying shares are liqui-
dated at the moment when trading in the index future
ceases and cash settles
6) The proceeds of share sale and futures settlement are
used to repay the stock repo
7) The net difference between proceeds and borrowing cost
would the cash-and-carry return
The main purpose of cash and carry in bond and equity

futures is to estimate how fairly priced the futures contract is
relative to the underlying cash instrument (e.g., individual
stocks and bonds). There is a “basis” between futures and

cash that presents the difference between the futures price
and the (forward) prices of the underlying constituents. An
investor would want to know what the fair futures price
(FP) is. This price could be calculated for stock futures using
the following formula:
FP = I0 [1 + (r – d)].
The I0 is the stock index value, r is the borrowing rate, and

d is the index dividend yield. This value is relatively easy
to calculate. The fair futures price embeds cash and carry
because of the way in which forward prices are calculated.
In bonds, commodities, and stocks, the forward price for-
mula has similar features:
∑De
( r q )(T
( T ti )
F = S0 e( r q )T
i .
i =1
The S0 is the spot price, r the “risk-free rate,” q the cost of

carry, and Di the dividend paid at time ti. By buying the stock
“forward” and selling the index future or single stock future,
an investor captures the basis risk. For stocks, bonds, or com-
modities, this is monetizing the cost of carry when such cost
is low. The other way to calculate basis risk is to take the dif-
ference between the current price and the “fair price.” The
fair price can also be calculated as the cost of carry plus the
spot price minus the forward price. Whenever the spot price
is higher than the fair price, it means the cost of carry is high.
Table 2.1 on page 58 shows two situations: A and B, in which
the spot price is below or above the fair price. The cost of
carry can be assumed as the company’s cost of capital or its
average interest cost when it can finance short-term in capital
markets.
Table 2.1 Spot vs. forward of a hypothetical stock price
Situation A Situation B
spot price 100 102

cost of carry 2% 4%
Risk-free rate 4% 4%
Dividend 2% 2%
time (days) 30 30
Forward 98.36 102.24
Fair 100.037 100.038
* Fair price = Cost of Carry + (spot – forward)

* Forward = Spot stock price * e(Rf-cost of carry) + Dividend * 360/30,
whereby 360/30 is the annualized factor.
A Bond-Picking Framework
Although bonds and stocks are different in nature, there is

a case to be made that there is no real difference between
stock and bond picking. Security selection starts with a bot-
tom-up analysis (credit, technicalities) and is supplemented
with a top-down assessment (macroeconomic politics, cor-
porate governance and management analysis). A micro
or macro approach should see the same result: a bond or
stock is fundamentally over or undervalued. The technical
aspects (micro approach) that shows over- or undervalua-
tion would be another confirmation. If that is all true, then
how to pick a bond? And how would that technique help
the equity investor in stock selection and asset allocation?
There are several ways in which bond picking can be
applied. To start, the fixed-income universe comprises over
$100 trillion in notional amount outstanding globally.
There is, therefore, lots of variety in fixed-income instru-
ments. There are ways to identify “value” when picking a
bond. Bonds trade along a yield curve, and so there is a
carry and roll-down return for each individual bond. Bonds
with the highest carry and roll down return are called the
“sweet spot” on the curve. That is the part where a bond

investor can maximize carry and roll down return (although
that is not without risk). The yield curve analysis is also a
function of relativity because bonds trade at different yields
or spreads relative to other bonds. Relative value opportu-
nities often appear when a bond trades at a much higher
yield or wider spread than a comparable bond does. There
is a return in terms of yield pick-up or additional spread to
LIBOR (a gauge for credit risk premium) while rolling down
the yield curve.
Bonds trade with a “basis” to liquid derivatives like credit
default swaps (CDS) and bond futures. There can be a profit
opportunity between a bond’s forward price and the futures
price. This is known as the cash-and-carry arbitrage or
“basis trading.” The basis strategy entails buying a bond and
financing it in the repo market, and subsequently delivering
the bond through the futures contract. In corporate bonds,
there is the Credit Default Swap (CDS) that is often used to
explore opportunities between corporate cash bonds spreads
and the CDS. A CDS contract is a swap that is designed to
transfer the credit risk between parties. The purchaser of the
swap makes payments until the final maturity of the CDS
contract, whereby the payments are made to the seller of
the swap. In case there is a debt default, the seller agrees to
pay off the third party that defaults on the debt or loan. The
CDS contract therefore functions as an insurance against
default. When a CDS contract is sold, it is called “selling
protection.” When an investor buys a CDS contract, it is
called “buying protection.” An arbitrage opportunity is to
buy the CDS contract and lock in the difference between
the underlying bond and the CDS contract. The difference
between the cash bond and CDS is called “positive” or “neg-
ative” basis. That means when a corporate bond credit risk
premium (OAS spread) is wider than the CDS spread, there

is a “negative basis” and when the OAS spread is tighter
than CDS there is a “positive basis.” When corporate bonds
have a significant change in their CDS basis, there is valu-
ation difference relative to the stock. For example, if cor-
porate bonds of company Z trade at a significant negative
basis (OAS wider than CDS), it indicates that the corporate
bond has greater default risk than what the CDS contract
implies. That means the corporate bond is priced with a risk
that is closer to the equity of the firm. If at the same time,
the stock of company Z trades with a high PE ratio or Price
to Tangible book, then the negative basis of the corporate
bonds suggest they are undervalued relative to the stock and
CDS. The negative basis can also be compared to the put
option premium of the stock. If the stock’s put premiums
are higher than the negative basis of the corporate bonds,
that is an indication credit risk is rising and CDS protection
is relatively attractive to buy (since it is lower than the OAS
spread and stock put premium). By making basic compari-
sons between corporate bonds, CDS and stocks, the capital
structure valuation can be tracked real time.
Bonds can trade special in repo financing, which may
provide the opportunity to lend the security at a very favo-
rable, low, or even negative financing rate and use the pro-
ceeds to invest in other bonds. That repo financing can be
used as a form of leverage. When applied in a short period
of time, the risks of excessive leverage can be mitigated. A
yield curve has bonds with different coupons, and the yield
curve may at times even look “kinked.” That happens when
interest-rate expectations shift at certain parts of the yield
curve. There are mathematical functions that calculate a
“spline curve.” This is a theoretical yield curve that smooths
yield maturities on individual bonds by treating them as
zero-coupon bonds. The actual yield curve has bonds with

different coupons. The difference between the actual and
the spline curve is what bond fund managers and fixed-
income traders use to identify “rich” or “cheap” bonds. A
bond that is trading rich or cheap versus the spline curve
often has something specific going on like a very high cou-
pon, low liquidity, a special financing rate, or, for example,
it is being bought back by the government.
Bonds with different maturities can be spread as a “butter-
fly.” The butterfly is a portfolio of market value weighted,
short- and long-maturity bonds compared to an intermedi-
ate maturity bond. The butterfly spread indicates whether
short- and long-maturity bonds trade at a lower or higher
yield historically relative to an intermediate-maturity bond.
In bond market lingo, butterfly spreads identify whether
the “belly” of the curve is rich or cheap versus the “wings.”
In a similar vein, bond investors compare bonds with short
and long maturity as a yield curve spread. A yield curve
trade expresses a view that a segment of the yield curve will
become steeper or flatter as a result of a change in inter-
est rate and inflation expectations. There are also statisti-
cal regression methods like principal component analysis
(PCA) to analyze the yield curve. Those regressions are used
to calculate three effects: the level, the slope, and the curva-
ture of the yield curve. The method shows that bonds with
high convexity (that measures the change in duration) can
be at times under- or overvalued to bonds with lower con-
vexity. There are bonds that are “on the run,” which have
been recently issued and are considered to be benchmark
bonds. There are bonds that are “off the run,” which are
no longer issued but which have maintained a benchmark
status. That means these bonds remain tradable in the sec-
ondary market. There is a spread between on-the-run and
off-the-run bonds that is a measure of liquidity. In times

of distress, the spread between on-the-run and off-the-run
bonds can become significantly wider. That is a sign sec-
ondary market liquidity has materially deteriorated.
There is a technique that is called “coupon stacking.” In
mortgage-backed securities (MBS), the coupon stack is often
traded when interest rates rise or fall. In general, bonds in
a certain segment of the curve can be stacked by coupon
in order to obtain higher accruing interest paid. This strat-
egy is for investors who seek coupon return instead of price
return. The same strategy is applied in laddering that aims
at maximizing coupon return.
Liquidity in the bond market can be measured by invento-
ries. The secondary market in bonds is almost entirely driven
by what is available in dealer inventories. Those positions
are either proprietary positions or leftover positions from a
recent new issue, or securities bought from customers. The
bond market over the years has transformed significantly,
with many corporate bonds traded on electronic platforms.
The bids or offerings in those bonds, however, come almost
exclusively from inventory. To that end, the repo mar-
ket allows dealers and market makers to take a short posi-
tioning in bonds. The repo market has been shrinking since
2009 because of the Dodd-Frank Act and other regulations.
As a result of inventory not being equally dispersed among
dealers, there can be significant price discrepancies in cer-
tain bonds. Understanding the depth of the secondary mar-
ket by understanding positioning and “color” (a term for
information) about who is trading what bonds can make a
meaningful difference in achieving excess returns.
Fund managers, dealers, and traders often switch bonds.
There are several reasons for switching. A switch is meant
to improve in yield, to pick up in spread, and to address
credit quality. A reason to switch can be to bolster liquidity

or to benefit from currency changes. Other factors that drive
bond switching can be to average high dollar prices. That
means by blending low and higher dollar price bonds, the
liquidity of the portfolio can be improved. A bond switch
can also be done to lengthen or shorten the duration risk
of the portfolio. Active bond switching can add alpha to a
portfolio, but not without potentially significant transaction
costs. Switching bonds can also be viewed in the context
of bond index arbitrage. Bond indices are a representative
of the fixed-income universe. When bonds are bought that
are not in the index but are permissioned to be acquired,
such bonds add alpha and tracking error to the portfolio.
Tracking error is the difference between the portfolio return
and the index return as an expression of the portfolio’s vola-
tility (measured by standard deviation). When an investor
actively trades bonds that are not in the index, such a strat-
egy is called “off index bets.” The investor can pick specific
bonds that are not in the index even when the respective
issuer is part of the index universe.
Another way of enhancing the yield on a bond investment
is by “selling noise.” Whenever there is lots of noise that
is treated the same as information, options with a longer
maturity get overpriced. That is because when short-term
volatility is used as input to value options with a longer
expiration, there is a maturity mismatch. This often hap-
pens with callable or putable corporate bonds or in some
cases municipal bonds. Those bonds see their OAS spreads
widen quickly when short-term volatility picks up. The
spread widening may not be justified by fundamentals, and
therefore there is at times opportunity to “sell the noise”
by buying callable longer maturity bonds. Bond futures
and high-yield debt have embedded options that can get
overpriced when short-term volatility is high. The mispric-

ing of (embedded) options provides an opportunity to add
additional return to the portfolio collected from option
premiums. Those premiums should normalize after events
such as political crises or a military conflict subsides.
There are also ways to identify arbitrage boundaries in
fixed income. An arbitrage boundary is a situation in which
there is a specific range or time when arbitrage is profita-
ble. This boundary can be seen in liquid, short-term futures
markets like Eurodollar futures. These futures are traded on
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. They provide a market in
which an investor can borrow or lend short-term funds up
to a specified date in the future. Eurodollar futures are based
on the underlying LIBOR index. A bank could arbitrage bor-
rowing and lending in money markets by borrowing short,
selling Eurodollar futures, and then lending out the funds
to a date further out in the future. These are called “two-
way transactions,” and they should net out cash flows when
Eurodollar futures are fairly priced. If Eurodollar futures are
not fairly priced, then a riskless profit could be earned. The
two-way transactions present, therefore, “arbitrage bounda-
ries.” When an investor buys a longer maturity corporate
or Treasury bond, financing the bond in the repo market or
borrow on margin, and selling a Eurodollar futures, there
is spread to be earned. That spread is a “riskless” profit
when Eurodollar futures are “mispriced” because of exces-
sive interest-rate expectations. Mispricing of a futures con-
tract relative to a cash instrument produces the same profit
opportunity whether that is a stock or a bond.
Let us Put the Frameworks to Work
The preceding analysis discussed a variety of fixed-income

strategies and relative-value methods. It is important to
understand that not every carry, relative-value, or bond-pick-

ing method is directly applicable to stocks. That is because
bonds and stocks are not mathematically the same instru-
ment even though they both present a discounted stream
of cash flow. An important component of bond investment
strategy is the yield curve. In stocks, a yield curve is a theo-
retical concept and is not practical. Even though dividend
stocks have duration, and stocks in general have a forward
price, the yield curve strategy is better applied in bonds than
in stocks. Stocks can be financed on margin and that cost
of financing can be measured relative to their yield derived
from free cash flow or earnings. The same comparison can
be made relative to the dividend yield or return on invested
capital. A stock investor can earn carry when comparing
finance cost with the yields from free cash flow, earnings,
dividend, or invested capital. A stock investor can also do
a “basis trade” between individual stocks and stock index
futures. In addition, in a stock portfolio, much like a bond
portfolio, an investor can buy stocks of companies not
included in a broader index. Just like in fixed income, there
are opportunities to sell noise when short-term stock volatil-
ity is high. Last, a stock investor can design an equity ladder
by stacking stable dividend stocks. When it comes to a stock
or bond portfolio strategy in general, the most important
part of the analysis is the fundamentals. When stocks and
bonds are compared on a fundamental basis, an investor
has to take a view on the capital structure of a company.
That requires a thorough understanding of the specifics of
the company’s outstanding debt and covenants, as well as
the specific rights of the stock holder.
The capital structure is the assembly of the investable uni-
verse the company plans to use to make capital expenditure
decisions, mergers, or acquisitions, to pay dividends, or to
12%
10%
Small Cap
Mid Cap equities
8%
Return (%)
equities
6% Blue Chip
stocks
4%
Investment Grade
Bonds
2%
Money Market
0%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Risk (%)
Figure 2.1 Asset allocation frontier along the capital structure.

Source: Author, historical averages for risk and return estimated by Shiller/Ibbotson.
buy back stock. Fundamental analysis ties back to asset allo-

cation, in which bonds and stocks play a pivotal role in sizing
the appropriate weights within a portfolio. Stock and bond
returns present a frontier, as shown in Figure 2.1. The bond-
picking frameworks discussed can help in allocating along
the frontier that presents the capital structure of a company.
For practical purposes, the analysis focuses on major sec-
tors of the S&P 500 index. Those sectors represent stocks
from companies that issue stock and debt and that are from
different industries and have multinational operations. It is
important to note that the author has no position in the compa-
nies at the time of writing this book. The analysis is not intended
and should not be viewed as investment advice to sell or pur-
chase the shares of the specific companies discussed.
Utilities
Utility stocks have long been thought of as stocks that

behave like bonds. That is because of their stable revenue
model and historically anchored dividend payout ratios.
Utility stocks exhibit fixed-income characteristics in terms

of stable cash flow streams. They may therefore be a sec-
tor in which some of the previously discussed fixed-income
frameworks can be applied. There is an easy comparison to
make between S&P 500 utilities stocks. Table 2.2 on page 69
shows the S&P 500 Utility sector. There are general stock
valuation measures posted, such as the PE ratio, price-to-
sales (PS) ratio, ROE, and cash dividend coverage. Analysis
of Table 2.2 would suggest that on a comparison basis,
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is not an attractive stock.
Although it has a high PE multiple, its earnings growth is
negative and there is low cash dividend coverage. On top
of that, the company has a low ROE with sluggish sales
growth and a high debt-to-equity ratio. This basic compari-
son would suggest that PG&E is a “rich” stock. Public Service
Enterprise (PSE) stock, in contrast, may look “cheap.” It has
the lowest PE multiple in the sector, a high earnings growth
and ROE, and its enterprise to earnings before interest and
taxes (EV/EBITDA) multiple suggests there could more
upside potential. A stock picker reading this table would
add more factors to the analysis to ensure the valuation of
the stock accounts for all aspects. That additional analysis
may argue the opposite conclusion. For example, in 2014
some analysts noted that the cash contribution of deferred
taxes might significantly reduce the need for PG&E to raise
equity. The lower share count was expected to increase the
earnings power of the company, making PG&E attractive
on a valuation basis. PSE, however, had been hurt in prior
years by higher expenses to repair facilities and restore elec-
tricity to customers in the wake of “Superstorm Sandy”
and other storm-related expenses. Its 2014 second-quarter
earnings fell 36 percent as the power company’s operating
revenue declined, which was driven by higher operating
expenses. This gives a different comparison picture of the

rich/cheap analysis. In other words, there are many reasons
why or why not a stock is under- or overvalued.
What if there were a different way of analyzing these stocks?
If PG&E is a rich stock on multiples, but because it has the
potential to appreciate in price, could the fixed-income frame-
works provide additional insight? Utility stocks have relatively
stable dividend yields, free cash flow yields, and return on
invested capital. Although the debt-to-equity ratios shown in
Table 2.2 is mostly over 100, the debt profiles of utility com-
panies seem relatively spread out, with limited rollover risk
of short-term debt. When we look at utility stocks, “carry” is
probably the most logical fixed-income type of return that
may provide another conclusion to the fundamental stock
valuation. Other fixed-income analysis included could be
forward price comparison to the cash price, the laddering or
stapling of dividend yields, evaluation of stock duration, and
the basis between futures and cash stock prices. Based on each
of the stocks’ fixed-income valuation measures, Table 2.3 on
page 70 shows the following comparison.
Table 2.3 would also suggest that PG&E is not an attrac-
tive stock on a carry basis. It has a significant negative free
cash flow yield, and the simple carry measures of dividend
yield and free cash flow versus cost of debt show little or
negative carry for the stock. PSE, however, has a better
profile, albeit not the best in terms of carry from free cash
flow and dividend return. The better carry stock appears
to be Duke Energy, which has positive carry overall due to
high dividend and lowest weighted average cost of capi-
tal. Fundamental equity analysts would argue in the case
of Duke that there is a convergence of positive invest-
ment measures that are drivers for growth in earnings per
share, increase in net income, and revenue growth. These
Table 2.2 S&P 500 Utility stocks comparison
Price/ Price/ Price/ EV/ EPS Sales ROE Tot Debt/ Cash Div
EPS Sales Cashflow EBITDA Growth Growth Equity Coverage
Duke 15.74 2.08 8.59 12.33 16.07 4.96 5.45 104.06 1.32
Dominion 20.48 3.17 13.41 14.85 106.54 –0.16 13.63 211.1 N.A.
Southern 15.51 2.2 6.37 9.32 7.18 6.87 11.89 126.24 1.23
AE 14.8 1.58 5.37 8.57 16.07 9.65 10.77 118.25 1.77
PG&E 30.04 1.37 6.71 10.11 –23.81 4.84 5.13 102.6 0.89
Xcel 17.08 1.42 6.36 9.63 –5.18 7.55 10.11 126.38 1.67
Nextra 23.35 2.68 7.98 11.65 11.21 9.75 11.12 162.52 1.63
Sempra 25.86 2.45 15.35 13.43 –15.64 2.42 9.99 122.89 1.73
PSE 13.09 1.82 5.77 7.69 10.35 4.44 10.36 76.22 1.61
Source: FRB, SEC, September 2014.

Table 2.3 Utility sector different measures of “yield”
Cost of Dividend Free cash “carry” vs. “carry” vs.

Debt WACC ROIC Yield flow yield Free Cash Flow Dividend
Duke Energy 2.45% 4.60% 5.20% 4.25% 3.8% 1.4% 1.80%

Dominion Resources 2.50% 5.60% 9.10% 3.37% –1.8% –4.3% 0.87%
Southern Co 2.46% 5.30% 6.92% 4.81% 1.8% –0.7% 2.35%
American Electric 1.90% 5.60% 6.79% 3.75% 1.30% –0.6% 1.85%
PG&E Corp 2.70% 5.40% 4.99% 3.97% –9.80% –12.5% 1.27%
Xcel Energy Inc 2.10% 5.50% 6.43% 3.85% –6% –8.1% 1.75%
NextEra Energy Inc 2.10% 5.70% 6.13% 3.05% 4.98% 2.9% 0.95%
Sempra Energy 2.50% 5.80% 6.74% 2.49% –3.60% –6.1% –0.01%
Public Service Enterprise 2% 5.60% 6.33% 3.86% 2.14% 0.1% 1.86%
Source: Yahoo finance, FRB, SEC September 2014. Carry vs. Free Cash flow = Free cash flow yield – cost of debt. Carry vs. Dividend = Dividend yield – cost
of debt. WACC = weighted average cost of Capital, ROIC = Return on Invested Capital.
strengths could outweigh the fact that the company has a

weak operating cash flow. The analysis in Tables 2.2 and 2.3
can be combined to judge whether a stock is really “rich,
cheap, or fair.” To take that analysis a step further, Table 2.4
displays each stock’s forward and fair price, net earnings
yields, CDS, equity duration, and beta to the S&P 500.
At first glance, Table 2.4 suggests that Duke, PSE, and
Southern Company are attractive on the basis of their stock
prices, which trade below fair value, and they have a lower
stock duration as well as high net earnings yields. On that
comparison, Duke and Southern Company stocks look
“cheap,” while PG&E stock looks “rich.” In a fixed-income
analogy, when we analyze Table 2.4, there is a way to express
“carry per unit of duration.” In bonds, often the excess return
per unit of risk is a useful measure for determining the suit-
ability of the bond investment. The longer the maturity of a
bond, the less carry per unit of duration can be earned, even
if the yield curve is upward sloping. As argued previously,
Table 2.4 Utility sector and different measures of price and duration
Net
Current Forward Fair CDS Beta to Stock Earnings
price price price (basispoints) S&P 500 duration yield
Duke 74.38 74.48 74.403 20.5 0.79 23.5 6.3%

Dominion 68.9 68.96 68.925 37.5 0.76 29.7 4.9%
Southern 43.69 44.03 43.71 N/A 0.67 20.8 6.4%
AE 53.28 53.15 53.3 24.5 0.81 26.7 6.7%
PG&E 45.84 42.64 45.81 52 0.67 25.2 3.3%
Xcel 31.29 31.47 31.309 32 0.77 26.0 5.8%
Nextra 95.14 94.65 95.65 75 0.78 32.8 4.3%
Sempra 106 105.85 106.019 35.5 0.73 40.2 3.8%
PSE 38.3 38.1 38.321 99.41 0.67 25.9 7.6%
Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB, SEC. September 2014.

* Fair price = Cost of Carry + (spot –forward), * Forward = Spot stock price * e(Rf-cost of carry)
+ Dividend. Rf * 360/30, Stock duration 1/Dividend yield, Net earnings yield = 1/PE – total
cost of debt.
stocks do not have a yield curve, and although Table 2.4

shows that for each stock’s duration there is an earnings
yield, the so-called equity yield curve is inverted. The higher
the earnings yield, free cash flow yield, or dividend yield, the
lower the stock duration. In fixed income, this is typically
the opposite. The higher the yield, the longer the maturity
of the bond and thereby its duration (except during certain
times when short-term interest rates rise significantly due to
very tight monetary policy or default risks). The most effec-
tive way to calculate stock carry per unit of stock duration is
to take the difference of the stock’s forward and current price
and divide that by the stock’s duration. Table 2.5 shows the
comparison.
Carry/Duration = (Stock Forward Price – Stock Spot

Price) * 100/Stock Duration. Stock
duration 1/dividend yield
This ratio includes the dividend yield in the stock’s for-

ward price and the excess return (carry) earned expressed
in unit of equity duration. Table 2.5 once more re-enforces
that PG&E is an unattractive stock as it earns significant
Table 2.5 Stock carry per unit of duration
Carry/duration
Duke Energy 0.425

Dominion Resources 0.2022
Southern Co 1.6354
American Electric –0.4875
PG&E Corp –12.704
Xcel Energy Inc 0.693
NextEra Energy Inc –1.4945
Sempra Energy –0.3735
Public Service Enterprise –0.772
Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB, SEC. September 2014.

negative carry over the life of the equity (free) cash flow.
Southern Company stands out best as the carry multiple
suggests that investors will be 1.6x rewarded in earning
dividend per unit of equity risk. In principle the concept
of a stock total return when applying fixed-income analysis
would the same as the coupon (e.g. dividend) plus capi-
tal gains. This “total return” is driven by carry, the excess
return earned by the equity holder after stripping out the
weight average cost of capital (e.g., debt). This carry frame-
work can be applied to any stock cost of or equity index as
long the shares pay a stable dividend. If the dividend stream
is irregular or uncertain, the carry framework does not work.
Hence, the more stable the dividend, the more convincing
the argument that a stock behaves likes a bond. The meas-
ure of stock carry per unit of equity duration is therefore
perhaps the most effective way of identifying stocks with
fixed-income features. This has to be underscored, however,
by the stability of the equity carry multiple (equity carry
per unit of equity duration). The more stable carry per unit
of equity duration, the higher the excess return from free
cash flow when compared to the overall cost of capital.
In Table 2.6 on page 74 the carry framework is applied
to the S&P 500 Index and its individual index constitu-
ents. By calculating the cost of carry (weighted average cost
of capital for each index) and assuming a “risk-free” rate
of 2 percent, each index has a forward price. The equity
carry per unit of equity index duration can be seen on the
left side of the column. Utility stocks may be viable for a
“ladder” strategy because their dividend payout ratio has
been historically stable. If we take a sample of the utility
companies shown in Table 2.7 on page 75 the dividend
pay dates are somewhat spread out. The most important
assumption would be that the dividend stays stable and has
Table 2.6 Equity carry/unit of equity duration across sectors of the S&P 500
Dividend WACC Carry duration Spot Forward Carry/unit of equity

Sector Yield (%) (%) (yrs) price Price duration (bps)
S&P 500 INDEX 2.0 6.0 51 1950 1952 394

S&P 500 TELECOM SERV IDX 4.7 4.5 21 638 639 439
S&P 500 UTILITIES INDEX 4.0 5.0 25 633 634 542
S&P 500 CONS STAPLES IDX 2.8 5.5 35 562 563 181
S&P 500 MATERIALS INDEX 23 5.0 43 519 521 433
S&P 500 ENERGY INDEX 2.1 5.5 47 442 442.5 196
S&P 500 INDUSTRIALS IDX 1.9 5.2 52 435 436 212
S&P 500 FINANCIALS INDEX 1.7 4.8 60 289 291 344
S&P 500 HEALTH CARE IDX 1.7 4.6 61 279 281 351
Source: FRB, SEC. Carry/Duration = (Stock Forward Price– Stock Spot Price) * 100/Stock Duration. Forward = Spot stock price * e(Rf-cost of carry) + Dividend.
Rf * 360/360.
Table 2.7 Utility sector dividend yields and payment dates
Dividend Payout Div growth Dividend

Yield Frequency Ex-date Pay date 5yr amount
Duke Energy 4.25% quarterly 11/12/2014 12/16/2014 2.25% $ 0.75

Dominion Resources 3.37% quarterly 11/25/2014 11/28/2014 6.50% $ 0.58
Southern Co 4.81% quarterly 10/30/2014 12/6/2014 3.75% $ 0.52
American Electric 3.75% quarterly 11/6/2014 12/10/2014 4.36% $ 0.50
PG&E Corp 3.97% quarterly 11/8/2014 10/15/2014 1.98% $ 0.45
Xcel Energy Inc 3.85% quarterly 11/12/2014 12/16/2014 3.85% $ (0.06)
NextEra Energy Inc 3.05% quarterly 11/25/2014 11/28/2014 3.05% $ 0.05
Sempra Energy 2.49% quarterly 10/30/2014 12/6/2014 2.49% $ (0.04)
Public Service Enterprise 3.86% quarterly 11/6/2014 12/10/2014 3.86% $ 0.02
Source: FRB, SEC, November 2014.

a positive growth rate. An investor could stack up the stocks

in table 2.7 and use the dividend proceeds either to reinvest
in a higher paying dividend stock or for cash flow to make
other payments.
The stock ladder would be focused on the different dates
that involve dividend payments. The declaration date is the
date on which a company announces the specific dividend
payment along with the holder of record date (aka record
date) and the payment date. For example, in Table 2.7 Duke
announces that a dividend payment of 75 cents per share
will be payable, December 16, 2014 (the payment date)
to all shareholders of record at the close of business on
November 2, 2014 (holder of record date). The ex-dividend
date (typically two trading days before the holder of record
date for US securities) is the day on which a company begins
trading without the dividend. In order to have a claim on
a dividend, shares must be purchased no later than the last
business day before the ex-dividend date. A company trad-
ing ex-dividend will have the upcoming dividend subtracted
from the share price at the start of the trading day. Many
times, the price of a stock will increase in anticipation of
the upcoming dividend as the ex-dividend date approaches,
yet may fall back by the amount of the dividend on the
ex-dividend date. An investor in a stock ladder in the tra-
ditional sense of fixed income would be interested in cap-
turing a stable dividend that could be reinvested or used as
cash flow. Although the strict ladder definition of stacking
bond maturities to diversify duration risk does not apply
to stocks, the coupon (dividend) stacking does. Investors
would seek a sector with stable dividend payout ratios to
express a ladder strategy. The dividend ladder could also
be combined with a bond ladder. For example, an inves-
tor could purchase several utility stocks and the bonds
issued by those companies. There is considerable credit risk

involved in that combination. A perhaps better way to con-
struct a portfolio of a dividend and coupon ladder would
be to diversify between stable dividend-paying stocks, low-
duration high coupon-paying Treasury bonds, and short
maturity municipal bonds with stable ratings.
Multicurrency
A currency is a two-sided relationship. It is a ratio that

expresses a home currency in a unit of foreign currency.
In global fixed-income portfolios, the currency is a return
enhancement on top of holding a bond denominated
in a foreign currency. The coupon earned on a German
bond plus the gain from the Euro currency presents (all
else being equal) the total return. A similar idea of earning
dividend and currency gains exists for stocks. A German
company that pays regular dividend would provide the
international equity investor a dividend plus (potential)
currency return and stock price gains (or losses). As men-
tioned earlier, stocks of multinational companies can be
issued in different currencies. An investor can take an
opportunity to purchase a stock of a US multinational cur-
rency that is also denominated in Euro. In other words,
there is a “cross-currency” aspect to internationally listed
shares. A way to benefit from the currency return (called
the “carry component of currency”) is by using forward
contracts or cross-currency basis swaps. These instruments
are not always available for individual investors. There are,
however, many funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and
closed-end funds that offer an explicit strategy that aims at
capturing the carry return from currencies. There are also
brokerage houses that offer their clients accounts that can
invest in foreign currency.
For the present analysis, the stocks of several large mul-

tinational companies are taken as an example to demon-
strate how international fixed income can be applied to
determine equity valuation. There are many companies
listed on the S&P 500, NASDAQ, and Dow Jones that oper-
ate like a multinational. They do so because their products
have a worldwide audience and demand. There are others
that argue multinationals are driven by “tax inversion.”
They have entangled internationally located branches that
allow these companies to drive down their weighted average
corporate tax rate in order to maximize earnings per share.
Multinationals also exist because of cross-border opportuni-
ties, mergers and acquisitions, and demand from investors,
who seek currency return per share. About 40 percent of the
S&P 500 Index has companies that are listed as multination-
als. This explains why the US stock market as a whole may
no longer solely represent US GDP. The S&P 500, Dow Jones,
and NASDAQ have continued to outgrow the US economy
since 2007. Their combined earnings power is decoupled
from US GDP. As the global economy healed following the
financial crisis, these three indices have relentlessly resumed
their upward momentum despite intermittent slowdowns
in the US and European economies. As part of these indices,
the group of multinationals used in the analysis are Ford,
General Electric (GE), ExxonMobil, IBM, McDonald’s, and
Amazon.
Ford is a $129 billion revenue company, with 51 percent
of its profits from overseas. Foreign automakers sell a lot of
cars in the United States, but US carmakers are global, too.
Ford, like General Motors, has a strong presence in Canada
and Europe, while General Motors (GM), through a joint
venture, is one of the biggest carmakers in China—where its
profits sometimes exceed those earned in the United States.
Ford, meanwhile, has emerged as the strongest domestic

automaker, which helped overseas sales. GE has $149 billion
in revenue, 54 percent from overseas. GE prides itself on
its international footprint, although a few industrial firms,
such as Caterpillar and 3M, earn an even larger portion of
their revenue overseas. GE has sizable operations in Europe,
China, Russia, and India, along with a significant presence
in Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the developing
world. Overseas operations include infrastructure develop-
ment and investment activities led by GE’s financial arm.
IBM has a total of $100 billion in revenue, of which 64 per-
cent is gained internationally. Like GE, IBM is another old-
line firm that has grown roots throughout the globe and
profited handsomely from globalization. IBM piggybacks
on the global growth of its many corporate clients, while
also pursuing new initiatives such as a big wireless-phone
network in Africa. IBM aims to draw nearly 30 percent of
its revenue from emerging markets by 2015. ExxonMobil
trumps $342 billion in revenue, and 45 percent comes
from overseas sales. Like other big oil companies, Exxon
goes where the oil is and sells to customers throughout the
globe. Exxon derives slightly more revenue from overseas
operations than rivals like Chevron or ConocoPhillips.
With $24 billion in revenue, McDonald’s depends mostly
on foreign markets; 66 percent of its revenues come from
overseas. McDonald’s earns the majority of its revenue from
Europe and Asia. McDonald’s experience taught it that it
cannot necessarily sell the same burgers and fries in foreign
markets, which is why its global operations focus on mak-
ing sure foreign outlets fit into the local culture. At about
400 stores in China, McDonald’s even delivers its products.
Last, Amazon has $34 billion in revenue, and 45 percent of
that is from overseas (online) activities. A lot of dot-com
businesses take their time expanding overseas, since growth

in the digital sector here in the United States is usually brisk
enough to keep them busy. But Amazon has been around
long enough to have set up robust operations in Canada,
several European countries, Japan, and even China.
Ford, General Electric, ExxonMobil, IBM, McDonald’s,
and Amazon shares have dual listings. Most of them are
listed in Europe, Asia, and Canada. Therefore, buying any
of these stocks provides opportunity directly or indirectly
to benefit from currency returns. The reason is because
companies hedge themselves against the currency risk
from their international operations. The total revenue
in dollars therefore consists of different foreign currency
streams. In a way, the return of these stocks listed on a
respective US stock exchange embeds foreign currency
return from overseas branches. A fundamental analyst
would strip out the different parts of revenue generated
in each foreign location and express them as earnings per
local listed share. A partial picture that emerges is that in
some parts of the world, the foreign EPS can be higher
than the domestic EPS, albeit they all sum up into the
company’s total earnings. However, for investors there is
an interesting opportunity. The stock listed on a foreign
exchange may trade at a premium to the stock listed on
the domestic exchange. That premium largely consists out
of currency gain. Table 2.8 on page 81 shows for each stock
the share price in both domestic and foreign countries.
There is an implied currency return that is calculated for
each stock. An investor could use this measure to compare
multinationals.
The “implied exchange rate” is the ratio of the domestic
share price to the foreign share price. The excess currency
return is the implied exchange rate divided by the actual
Table 2.8 Domestic and foreign stock price and the implied exchange rate
US stock EUR stock Implied vs. actual

Company price price exchange rate exchange rate
Ford 14.59 11.605 1.2572 0.5%

IBM 188.67 148.77 1.2682 1.4%
GE 25.4 20.1 1.2637 1.0%
McDonald’s 94.86 75.76 1.2521 0.1%
ExxonMobil 93.92 75.15 1.2498 –0.1%
Amazon 322.74 259.73 1.2426 –0.7%
Source: FRB, SEC. October 2014. The US stock price is the shares listed in the United States
and the EUR stock price is the shares listed in Europe. Their ratio expresses the implied
exchange rate. EUR exchange rate early October was 1.2510. The implied/actual exchange
rate is the excess currency return premium/discount implied by the foreign share price. In
case of, for example GE, this is 188.67/148.77 = 1.2682. Then 1.2682/1.2510 = 1% currency
premium.
exchange rate. It may not come as a surprise that IBM and

GE have the highest share of their revenue coming from
foreign markets (64 percent and 54 percent respectively)
from the shares listed in Table 2.8.
Another way of looking at currency returns, is to analyze
shares hedged in a foreign currency. For example the shares
in Table 2.8 that are denominated in Euro, are hedged back
to US dollars. This hedging is a method often used in glo-
bal fixed income. The yield of, for example, a German bond
denominated in Euro would be expressed in a yield denomi-
nated in dollars. This is a function of the interest-rate dif-
ferential between Germany and the United States that is
expressed by the foreign exchange (FX) swap agreement. The
other component is called a “currency basis swap.” An FX
swap agreement is a contract in which one party borrows
one currency from, and simultaneously lends another to, the
second party. Each party uses the repayment obligation to
its counterparty as collateral, and the amount of repayment
is fixed at the FX forward rate as of the start of the contract.
a. Start b. Maturity
A A
X X.S X X.F
(EUR) (USD) (EUR) (USD)
B B
S: FX spot rate F: FX forward rate
Figure 2.2 FX swap agreement.

Source: Bank of International Settlements www.bis.org.
Thus, FX swaps can be viewed as FX “risk-free” collateral-

ized borrowing/lending. Figure 2.2 illustrates the fund flows
involved in a Euro/US dollar swap as an example. At the start
of the contract, A borrows X·S USD from, and lends X EUR
to, B, where S is the FX spot rate. When the contract expires,
A returns X·F USD to B and B returns X EUR to A, where F is
the FX forward rate as of the start.
FX swaps have been employed to hedge foreign curren-
cies, both for financial institutions and their customers,
including exporters and importers, as well as institutional
investors who wish to hedge their positions. They are also
frequently used for speculative trading, typically by com-
bining two offsetting positions with different original
maturities. FX swaps are most liquid at terms shorter than
one year, but transactions with longer maturities have been
increasing in recent years.
A cross-currency basis swap agreement is a contract
in which one party borrows one currency from another
party and simultaneously lends the same value, at current
spot rates, of a second currency to that party. The parties
involved in basis swaps are generally financial institutions,
either acting on their own or as agents for nonfinancial
corporations. Figure 2.3 on page 83 illustrates the flow of
a. Start b. During the term c. Maturity
A A A
X X.S EUR USD EUR USD X X.S

(EUR) (USD) 3M Libor 3M Libor 3M Libor 3M Libor (EUR) (USD)
+α +α
B B B
S: FX spot rate
Figure 2.3 Cross-currency basis swap.

Source: Bank of International Settlements, www.bis.org.
funds involved in a Euro/US dollar swap. At the start of the

contract, A borrows X·S USD from B, and lends X EUR to, B.
During the contract term, A receives EUR 3M Libor + α from
B, and pays USD 3M Libor to B every three months. The
term α represents the price of the basis swap, agreed upon
by the counterparties at the start of the contract. When the
contract expires, A returns X·S USD to B, and B returns X
EUR to A. The term S is the spot exchange rate, which is
the same FX spot rate at the start of the contract. Although
the structure of cross-currency basis swaps differs from FX
swaps, the former basically serve the same economic pur-
pose as the latter, except for the exchange of floating rates
during the contract term. Cross-currency basis swaps have
been employed to fund foreign currency investments, both
by financial institutions and their customers, including
multinational corporations engaged in foreign direct invest-
ment. They have also been used as a tool for converting
liabilities, particularly by issuers of bonds denominated in
foreign currencies. Mirroring the tenor of the transactions
they are meant to fund, most cross-currency basis swaps are
long term, generally ranging between one year and thirty
years maturity.
Table 2.9 Hedged dividend yield
US div EU Div Interest Basis EU div yield

yield yield dif. swap hedge to US
Ford 3.44 3.21 –1.1 –0.16 4.47

IBM 2.33 2.20 –1.3 –0.16 3.66
GE 3.49 3.39 –1.3 –0.16 4.85
Mc Donald’s 3.72 3.62 –0.7 –0.16 4.48
Exxon-Mobile 2.92 2.76 –1 –0.16 3.92
Source: SEC, FRB, October 2014. Dividend yields are in gross terms. Interest-rate difference
is defined as the difference between the yield on a five-year maturity USD- and Euro-
denominated corporate bond for each of the respective companies. The Euro dollar basis
swap also has a five-year maturity. Of note is that Amazon has not paid a dividend. The
EUR dividend yield hedged to USD, for example, GE is calculated as 3.39% – (–1.3% + –0.16)
= 4.85%.
To take the example of the stocks shown in Table 2.9,

their hedged dividend yields to dollars is somewhat of an
odd concept. A dividend yield is not the same as a coupon
because it is less stable and not fixed. Expressing dividend
yield in foreign currency terms would provide a different
indication of what the currency premium is really worth.
For an equity investor to precisely follow the fixed-income
strategy of FX hedged yields, one would have to look at the
dividend yield in foreign stock market versus the domestic
stock market (which may not always be so clear). The inves-
tor should also incorporate the interest-rate difference of
debt issued in foreign markets and that of debt issued in the
local market. Unlike with bonds, the hedged dividend yield
has perpetual duration. The FX forward contract is bound
by a maximum maturity, that is, typically no longer than
ten years. Despite the caveats, a comparison of hedged divi-
dend yields may provide some insight into a stock’s attrac-
tiveness. In Table 2.9, the six stocks are listed again in terms
of their dividend yield and hedged dividend yield.
FX forwards and basis swaps are not always observable in
the financial media. The best way to analyze the interest-rate
differential is by comparing where each company funds

its debt in different currencies. In the case of GE, its
five-year maturity corporate bond, the GE 2.3% 1/2019
bond denominated in US dollars, yields 1.91 percent. The
GE Euro-denominated corporate bond, GE 6% 1/2019,
yields 0.62 percent. The interest difference of 1.3 percent
between the bonds reflects an approximate interest diffe-
rence between US and Europe. In October 2014, the diffe-
rence between 5-year US and Euro government bond yields
was also around 1.4 percent. Thus, calculating a hedged
dividend yield on stocks does not necessarily require an
understanding of the complexity of FX forwards and basis
swaps. Table 2.9 presents a comparison in which dividend
yields in Euros are expressed in terms of the US dollar.
GE stands out in terms of its Euro dividend hedged to
dollar at 4.85 percent. This is not surprising because the
company has the highest share of its revenues earned off-
shore. As shown in Table 2.9, GE seems to have value in
terms of currency premium reflected in its hedged divi-
dend yield as well as stock price difference between its
domestic and foreign listed shares. The analysis suggests
that when analyzing multinational companies, taking a
fixed-income approach may provide additional insight
into relative valuation. The foreign currency premium is
a relative-value measure, as compared to a fundamental
measure like price per earnings (PE), earnings per share
(EPS), price to book (PB) and so forth.
Bond Switches and Pairs Trading
A common technique in fixed income is switching between

bonds. Net of transaction fees, a bond switch, may enhance
the yield of the bond investment. The yield gets enhanced
by, for example, switching from a short maturity and lower
yielding bond, to a longer maturity and higher yielding

bond. The switch may produce a higher price return in a
falling rate environment. That is because when switching
from short to longer maturity, the duration of the bond
investment extends. A longer duration in a falling inter-
est rate environment allows for higher price increases than
in the case of a short maturity bond. When interest rates
rise, a “coupon switch” may be preferred to cushion against
price loss. The reason for that is a higher coupon somewhat
reduces the duration of a bond and hence to a degree can
limit bond price decline when rates go up. Fixed-income
investors often ride the yield curve by switching from short-
to longer maturity bonds when the curve is upward slop-
ing. When there is curve inversion (yields on short maturity
bonds are higher than long maturity bonds), it may be ben-
eficial to switch from long- to short-maturity bonds if infla-
tion is stable or falling, and there is no default risk. Arbitrage
traders may switch bonds with similar coupons and nearby
maturities to capture tiny price or yield differences. Bond
switching also entails a change in credit risk exposure. When
an investor exchanges bonds with different credit ratings,
a higher return may be achieved by improvement in the
credit rating or alternatively a higher yield may be obtained
by taking more risk in lower-rated securities. Returns in fixed
income are therefore often derived from switching bonds.
These frequent adjustments are part of an overall bond pick-
ing strategy. In stocks, switching of shares between differ-
ent companies is not all too different from switching bonds.
In equities, there is a strategy called “pairs trading.” That
strategy is selling one stock and buying another to capture
or pay a predefined price spread. Execution of this type of
trade when dealing with many small executions may help
reduce slippage in transaction costs.
This trading strategy is used when an investor wishes to add

alpha to a portfolio without changing credit exposure. This
usually occurs when a company has two outstanding stocks
with different voting rights. The trading strategy can also be
applied in merger situations, or when two stocks are highly
correlated because the companies operate in the same indus-
try. The “pair trade” is a market-neutral trading strategy ena-
bling traders to profit from virtually any market conditions:
uptrend, downtrend, or sideways movement. This strategy is
categorized as a statistical arbitrage or convergence trading
strategy. The strategy monitors performance of two histori-
cally correlated securities. When the correlation between the
two securities temporarily weakens, that is, one stock moves
up while the other moves down, the pairs trade would be to
short the outperforming stock and to go long the underper-
forming stock, betting that the “spread” between the two
will eventually converge. The divergence within a pair can
be caused by temporary supply/demand changes, large buy/
sell orders for one security, the reaction to important news
about one of the companies, and so on.
To be successful in pairs strategies, the investor needs to
be able to size positioning, time markets, and make quick
decisions. In stocks pairs trading, like in bond switches, the
profitable opportunities are scarce. A stock pair or bond
pair that seems misaligned in price difference is likely to be
arbitraged quickly. In stocks there are pairs like Coca Cola
and Pepsi, Facebook and Twitter, Ford and GM, JPMorgan
Chase and Bank of America, United Airlines and American
Airlines, and so forth. The price spread between these stocks
shows a discount or premium that is a rating difference and
company structure difference. The price spreads are related
to the difference in CDS, OAS, and bond price spreads. For
example, there is a relationship between Coca Cola and
Bond and Stock price difference 20.00
10.00
0.00
–10.00
–20.00
–30.00
–40.00
–50.00
–60.00
4/11/2008 4/11/2009 4/11/2010 4/11/2011 4/11/2012 4/11/2013 4/11/2014
Coke vs. Pepsi Bond price spread

Coke vs. Pepsi stock price spread
Figure 2.4 Coke vs. Pepsi stock and bond price spread.
Source: SEC, NYFRB, weekly data 2008–2014.
Pepsi stock price spread and bond price differential, as

shown in Figure 2.4.
At first glance, the figure shows that the Coke bonds are
higher in price than the Pepsi bonds. By the same token,
the Coke stock price is lower than the Pepsi stock price.
Does that mean Coke bonds are relatively “cheap” to Pepsi
bonds and that Coke stock price is relatively “rich” to Pepsi
stock? Pepsi and Coke have similar activities, but a different
capital structure. For instance, Coke relies more on short-
term debt than Pepsi does by approximately a difference
of 15 percent to 20 percent, according to its latest earn-
ings filings. In other words, Coke has a higher short-term
debt “rollover risk” that may be reflected in its stock price
because such risk may increase the probability of bank-
ruptcy. However, Coke’s long-term debt has a favorable rat-
ing (A-), and Coke’s senior unsecured CDS spread is lower
(25 basis points) than that of Pepsi (37 basis points). It is
known that Coke and Pepsi have been in a “cola war” since
the 1980s. Notably, Coke and Pepsi have very few differ-
ences in multiples. PE, Price to Book, and EV/EBDITA are
fairly close, and their total stock price returns since the lows
of March 2009 are also in proximity (92% vs. 99%). There
is a capital structure opportunity by switching from Coke
bonds to Pepsi bonds, while moving from Pepsi stock to
Coke stock.
When we think of pairs trading or bond switching, the
term “arbitrage” comes to mind. Arbitrage exists when there
is a profit opportunity between two securities as a result of
a price discrepancy. For arbitrage to hold, the two securities
can trade in the same market or separate markets. The con-
dition for arbitrage is that the profit is “risk-free.” Such prof-
its tend to be very temporary in nature because in efficient
markets those opportunities get quickly arbitraged away.
There are many examples of arbitrage. A stock trading on
one exchange with its price of out of sync to its correspond-
ing futures contract on another exchange, an arbitrageur
would sell short the expensive security (futures contract)
and buy the stock. The profit is the difference between stock
price and the futures price. For that profit to not exist (no
arbitrage) there are three conditions that should be met:
1. The security has to trade at the same price on all markets.

2. Two securities that have identical features such as cash
flow, dividend or coupon/maturity, have to trade at the
same price.
3. A futures contract price is equal to the cash security price
discounted by the risk free rate. In other words, the for-
ward price of a stock is the same as the futures price of
that stock.
In bond switching, there is often a case of arbitrage.

Specifically, in government bonds where two securities
close in maturity and coupon could trade at a different

price. This is also known as relative-value arbitrage. This
form of arbitrage relies on a strong correlation between two
related or unrelated securities. It is primarily used during
sideways markets as a way to make profit of tiny price dif-
ferentials. In stocks, correlation is more important than in
bonds. Highly correlated stock prices based on history may
present more perfect pairs than in bonds. That is because
bonds have maturity and duration differences. A correla-
tion between bonds is often associated with credit risk.
When a correlation turns negative, that may imply a bond
from a certain issuer has a higher risk of a credit downgrade
or an increased level of default risk. The fine line is liquid-
ity. Arbitrage success relies greatly on minimizing transac-
tion costs, speed of execution, and access to liquidity. An
arbitrage may on paper look attractive, but in reality can be
deceiving if liquidity is poor and ability to execute is dimin-
ished. An arbitrage is to find pairs of stocks that correlate
positively, but where bonds may correlate negatively. The
bonds are at the upper end of the “capital structure.” That
means they are senior to equity, which is at the lower end
of the capital structure. There is an arbitrage when the stock
versus bond correlation deviates.
For example, if JP Morgan and Bank of America stock have
a positive correlation of 0.9, a stock investor could arbitrage
the price difference if there is a divergence from where his-
torically both stocks have traded relative to one another. A
bond investor would arbitrage the yield spread or option-
adjusted spread differential because of minor coupon and
maturity. When approached from a cross-over point of view,
the arbitrage becomes a function of correlation difference
between stocks and bonds. When that correlation difference
has deviated from history, there is an opportunity to switch
from stocks to bonds. This would also be the case because a

negative correlation in bonds implies a change in risk per-
ception that may not necessarily be implied by the stock
correlation. In the example of JP Morgan (JPM) and Bank
of America (BofA), the JPM stock price correlation using
weekly data was 0.85 versus BofA. The JPM bond correla-
tion was 0.1 to BofA bonds. That may suggest that, because
JPM and BofA are fairly similar in activity and scope, JPM
bonds could be relatively attractive to BofA bonds, while
the stocks may say the opposite. The “arbitrage” would be
to sell JPM stock versus BofA and buy JPM bonds versus
BofA. The gain or loss would be expressed by the difference
in prices where the investor has a price convergence target.
A different way of looking at this trade is to assess the valu-
ation of the capital structure. If an investor sells JPM stock
for BofA and does the opposite with bonds, then what an
investor really is arbitraging is the dividend and coupon
differences. That is a more fundamental arbitrage by judg-
ing the components of the capital structure being under- or
overvalued based on the expectation of coupon and divi-
dend payments.
3
Equity Strategy for the Bond Investor
I
n the analysis of stocks, traditional multiples like enter-
prise to earnings before interest and taxes (EV/EBITDA),
PE, PB, and price to sales (P/S) on an absolute basis and
a relative basis play a pivotal role. An equity relative value
analysis compares stocks that trade at a deep discount to
book value or, for example, at a high premium to earnings.
Moreover, a convincing signal, whether a stock is a buy or
a sell, is when the stock trades at discount or premium in
many of the mentioned financial ratios. Before such a relative
value analysis can be done, the investor has to do bottom-up
research. A stock investor should first look at forward earn-
ings to test sensitivities based on the operating and financial
leverage in order to identify the risk and reward. This is one
of the most important concepts for valuation—to have confi-
dence in one or more scenarios within a range of reasonable
multiples. It is, however, impossible to look at the multiple on
forward earnings without understanding the assumptions of
those earnings estimations. To get the assumptions right is
an important part of the valuation process. For more cyclical
businesses, it can make sense to normalize the earnings over
a longer term. A more accurate measure would be to esti-
mate at what point of the cycle the business is operating. An
early-cycle business might not get the benefits of multiple
95
expansions relative to the market’s PE expansion. Industry

dynamics that could translate to companies’ future plans
and longer-term earnings power can be discounted back.
Combined, they determine the sum of fair value today. The
discounted cash flow model is often used in these instances
as a sanity check on assumptions such as long-term mar-
gins, sales, and expected embedded interest rates.
The most important tool for valuation in the short term
(three to six months) is trying to understand the earnings
model and where current EPS/revenue estimates or other
key value driving estimates are for a particular company
or stock. A sufficient effort in research and modeling is
required to come up with a variant view to the consensus
research. The research output is likely to drive the stock in
a much more consistent and attributable fashion because
earnings expectations in and of themselves are used in
consensus models for valuation. The revisions of higher or
lower value will ultimately drive the stock with a greater
probability than compared to any other part of the proc-
ess of stock valuation. In other words, analysts can have
a view of which valuation metric is right or wrong, and
whether it is a high or low PE ratio. When there is no strong
market expectation for these valuation metrics, company
earnings estimates that are widely followed are a very clear
benchmark for determining intrinsic value. In theory, a
stock’s intrinsic value is an estimate of what the stock is
really worth as opposed to the value traded in the market.
If the intrinsic value is more than the current share price,
the stock is worth more, and that would support a buy
recommendation.
Intrinsic value is determined by a company’s sum of its dis-
counted cash flows. The sum of cash flows measures what a
company is worth in terms of its future profits. These future
profits must be discounted to account for the time value of
Equity Strategy for the Bond Investor 97
money. The time value of money is the force by which the

one dollar received in one year’s time is worth less than a
dollar earned today. The case for intrinsic value to equal
a company’s future profits is directly related to the value
proposition of the business to the stakeholders. A business
represents profits, which is generally measured by the dif-
ference between revenues and costs. The profit generated
by a business is the basis of intrinsic value of a company.
Table 3.1 shows a simplistic version of the intrinsic value
of a hypothetical company. Finance textbooks often use
such examples, but in reality stocks are not traded based on
these models. Intrinsic valuation is an estimate of fair value
under a set of assumptions. Those assumptions may help
shape the view on the level of a stock price.
The model in Table 3.1 uses a prior-year cash flow. This
the total profits that the shareholders could take from the
Table 3.1 Intrinsic value model
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Prior year cash flow $ 100.00 $ 115.00 $ 132.00 $ 152.00 $ 175.00

Growth Rate 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Cash Flow $ 115.00 $ 132.25 $ 151.80 $ 174.80 $ 201.25
Discount factor 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.74 0.68
Discount value per year $ 106.00 $ 113.00 $ 121.00 $ 129.00 $ 137.00
Total sum of cash flows 606
Residual value
Cash flow in five years 201
Growth rate 5%
Cash flow in six years $ 211.20
Capitalization rate 3%
Value at year 5 7039
Discount rate at year 5 0.68
PV of residual $ 4,791.00
Intrinsic value of company $ 5,397.00
Source: Author, hypothetical example.

company in the previous year. The assumed growth rate is the

rate at which the owner’s earnings are expected to grow for
the next five years. The cash flow is the amount that share-
holders would get if all the company’s profits were distrib-
uted to them. By discounting the cash flow with a discount
rate, the computed number brings the future cash flows
back to the starting year. That is the year in which the dis-
counted future cash flow determines the company’s present
value (PV). The capitalization rate is the discount rate (the
denominator). The discount rate can be derived from financ-
ing rates obtained in the marketplace. Table 3.1 shows what
the company is theoretically worth and what the fair value
of the stock should be.
In markets, stocks are not treated as discounted cash flows
but rather as trading opportunities. In the “greater fool
theory,” the distinction between profit and present vale
plays an important role. Since the profit on a trade is not
determined by a company’s value, it is about speculating
whether a person can sell the (overvalued) stock to another
investor (the fool). However, a trader would say that inves-
tors who rely solely on fundamentals, would ignore impor-
tant trends in the market. There is always a greater fool who
buys a stock for its fundamental or intrinsic value. There is
a case for managers to abide by intrinsic valuation because
there are several variants.
An intrinsic valuation model based on a single-stage earn-
ings discount model could value the S&P 500 Index based
on consensus EPS estimates. Another method is to use the
dividend discount model (DDM) or a discounted cash flow
(DCF) model with the direct input of EPS. In a dividend
growth or free cash flow discount model, future cash flows
can be discounted directly. However, earnings growth can-
not be discounted directly because earnings growth fails
to account for what portion of prior period earnings were

retained. Thus, an EPS discount model must separate EPS
growth into two parts: 1) growth from reinvestment at
returns equal to the cost of equity and 2) growth from returns
in excess of the cost of equity or economic profit growth.
An EPS discount model calculates intrinsic value by taking
the present value of growth in economic profits (not ordi-
nary profits) and adds this to the capitalized value of current
normalized EPS. Once economic profit growth stops, equity
value is simply EPS capitalized at the real cost of equity. This
is because EPS growth only adds to steady-state value when
EPS growth is greater than the retention ratio times the real
cost of equity. To calculate the fair value of the PE multiple
on a normalized EPS, one takes the reciprocal of a long-term
stock return adjusted for inflation. If the sum of the long-
term EPS growth rate and dividend yield is equal to the real
cost of equity, then a company operates in a “steady state.”.
The steady state is the “ideal world” where the market value
of the stock trades close to intrinsic value.
In a steady state context, to determine how much a busi-
ness is worth, three questions must be answered: 1) What
are the normalized and accounting quality adjusted earn-
ings? 2) What is a fair rate at which to capitalize such nor-
malized earnings? and 3) Can the business replicate itself
and increase its economic profits? Stock analysts often look
at the normalized EPS for short-term stock performance. In
reality investors should look at the actual EPS through the
full business cycle to judge long-term stock performance.
The most widely used metric for stock valuation is the PE
ratio. The PE ratio is driven by normalized EPS and intrin-
sic value, and any uncertainty by analysts’ estimates sur-
rounding these numbers. To avoid that noise creeping into
investors’ judgment, valuing normalized EPS and economic
profits requires a cost-of-equity and cost-of-debt estimate.
The cost of equity is the long-term “risk-free” interest

rate plus an equity risk premium. The cost of debt is the
weighted average interest rate at which corporate debt can
be issued. Together they form the weighted average cost of
capital (WACC), a yardstick for any stock analyst to deter-
mine whether a company generates enough free cash flow
in excess of the weighted average cost of capital or whether
it destroys its profit capacity. The WACC can be a useful
measure to estimate in real time the relative valuation of the
debt and equity portion of a company’s market value. When
modeling intrinsic value, there can also a WACC implied.
The difference between the actual WACC and the WACC
implied from intrinsic value provides a measure of “fair
value” of the capital structure in its entirety. Breaking down
the intrinsic model as a broad measure for the “fair value” of
a stock, lists a number of items a stock picker should look at
when analyzing the shares of a particular company:
● Share price should be no more than two-thirds of its

intrinsic value.
● Companies should have PE ratios at the lowest 10 per-
cent of all equity securities in their peer group.
● Stock price should be no more than tangible book value.
● Debt-to-equity ratio is preferably below 100.
● Current assets should be two times current liabilities.
● Dividend yield should be at least two-thirds of the long-
term government bond yield.
● Earnings growth should be at least 7 percent per annum
compounded over the last ten years (Ibbotson research).
The same list could be created for a company’s debt based

off the intrinsic model. The corporate bonds outstanding
should not represent more than 50 percent of the market
capitalization of the company. Corporate debt maturities
should be well spread out in time. If a company has a too

botched “maturity wall” of debt coming due in one to three
years time, there is high roll-over risk. A company that has
sufficient access to capital markets to get competitive fund-
ing for ten years is a healthy sign. An appropriate use of lev-
erage through debt issuance that has an average maturity of
ten to twenty years will benefit the stability of earnings and
thereby create long-run value for the stock holder.
Growth and Value
The list above is not a precise framework for stock valua-

tion. Value investors seek stocks with normalized earnings
greater than market expectations. Growth investors seek
stocks with economic profit growth. The first question a
growth investor should ask is whether the company, based
on annual revenue, has been growing in the past. Below in
Table 3.2 are rough guidelines for the rate of EPS growth
an investor should look for in companies of differing sizes,
which would indicate their growth investing potential.
For example, an established large cap company will not
be able to grow as quickly as a younger small-cap tech com-
pany. Also, when evaluating analyst consensus estimates,
Table 3.2 Approximate growth rates for companies
Company market cap Minimum historical growth rate
More than 4 billion 5%–8%

Between 400MM and 4bn 7%–11%
Less than 400MM 12%–20%
Source: S&P, Ibbotson, Investopedia. A second criterion for stock selection is a

projected five-year growth rate of at least 10%–12%, although 15% or more is ideal.
These projections are made by analysts, the company, or other credible sources.
The big problem with forward estimates is that they are estimates. When a growth
investor sees an ideal growth projection, he or she, before trusting this projection,
must evaluate its credibility. This requires knowledge of the typical growth rates for
different sizes of companies.
an investor should learn about the company’s industry,

specifically, what its prospects are and what stage of growth
it is at. A third guideline is pretax profit margins. There are
many examples of companies with high growth in sales but
moderate growth in earnings. High annual revenue growth
is good, but if EPS has not increased proportionately, it is
likely due to a decrease in profit margin. By comparing a
company’s present profit margins to its past margins and
its competition’s profit margins, a growth investor is able
to gauge fairly accurately whether or not management is
controlling costs and revenues and maintaining margins. A
good rule of thumb is that if company exceeds its previous
five-year average of pretax profit margins as well as those of
its industry, the company may be a good growth candidate.
Efficiency can be quantified by using ROE. Efficient use
of assets should be reflected in a stable or increasing ROE.
The analysis of this metric should be relative: a company’s
present ROE is best compared to the five-year average ROE
of the company and the industry. If a stock cannot realisti-
cally double in five years, it is probably not a growth stock.
So the rate growth investors are seeking is high—perhaps
15 percent per annum—which yields in a potential dou-
bling in price in five years.
Capital Structure
A company’s capital structure—essentially, its blend of

equity and debt financing—is a significant factor in deter-
mining the value of a business. The relative levels of equity
and debt affect risk and cash flow and, therefore, the
amount an investor would be willing to pay for the compa-
ny’s shares. A question that often arises is whether the valu-
ator should use the company’s actual capital structure or its
anticipated future capital structure. A valuator might also
use a prospective buyer’s capital structure or the company’s

optimal capital structure. Determining which method is
best depends on several factors, including the type of stake-
holder’s interest being valued and the valuation’s purpose
itself. Capital structure matters because it influences the
cost of capital. Generally, when valuators use income-based
valuation methods—such as discounted cash flow—they
convert projected cash flows or other economic benefits
to present value by applying a present value discount rate.
That discount rate, which generally reflects the return that
a hypothetical investor would require, is derived from the
cost of capital, which is commonly based on the weighted
average cost of capital (WACC). WACC is a company’s aver-
age cost of equity and debt, weighted according to the rela-
tive proportion of each in the company’s capital structure.
Many business owners strive to be debt free, but a reason-
able amount of debt can provide some financial benefits.
Debt is often cheaper than equity, and interest payments
are tax deductible. So, as the level of debt increases, returns
to equity owners also increase—enhancing the company’s
value. If risk were not a factor, then the more debt a busi-
ness had, the greater its value would be. But at a certain level
of debt, the risks associated with higher leverage begin to
outweigh the financial advantages. When debt reaches this
point, investors may demand higher returns as compensa-
tion for taking on greater risk, which has a negative impact
on business value. Therefore, the optimal capital structure
comprises a sufficient level of debt to maximize inves-
tor returns without incurring excessive risk. Identifying
the optimal structure is a combination of art and science.
Valuators may therefore:
1. Use industry averages,

2. Examine capital structures of guideline companies,
3. Refer to financial institutions’ debt-to-equity lending cri-

teria,
4. Apply financial models to estimate a subject company’s
optimal structure.
Whichever method is used, valuators exercise professional

judgment to arrive at a capital structure that makes sense
for the subject company, with a level of debt that the com-
pany’s cash flow can support. If the interest being valued
is a controlling interest, it is often appropriate to use the
company’s optimal capital structure. A controlling owner
generally has the ability to change the company’s capital
structure and gravitates toward a structure that will yield
the most profitable results. If the interest being valued is a
minority or noncontrolling interest, however, it is custom-
ary to use the company’s actual capital structure, because
the interest owner lacks that ability.
To estimate fair market value, analysts use a company’s
actual or optimal capital structure. A company’s capital
structure fluctuates over time as the value of its equity secu-
rities changes and the company pays down debt. It may be
appropriate to use management’s target capital structure if
the actual structure deviated off course or if management
plans to alter the company’s capital structure. A changing
mix of debt and equity can have a big impact on a value
estimate of the optimal capital structure.
There are several methods to determine the “optimal”
capital structure of a particular company. By researching
statistics from sources such as Ibbotson, rating agencies like
Standard & Poor’s, or investment bank research, the opera-
tional assumption is companies in related industries are at
an optimal capital structure. The industry statistics on the
cost of capital may provide the comfort of a benchmark,
but it would be too easy to assume these are applicable to
the specific company in question. There is also an issue con-

cerning what time horizon the cost of capital statistics have
been computed that may conflict with the time horizon of
the valuation of a company. There are therefore different
ways to estimate the optimal capital structure.
An investor can analyze the average or median capital
structure of companies operating in the same sector. The
similarity in operational activity, companies in the same
sector can provide a guideline. The caveat is that market
price fluctuations and random issuance of debt, may cause
a deviation between the median and target capital struc-
ture. In a larger set of guideline companies, the median
capital structure can become a more solid average, and bet-
ter reflects the optimal capital structure. Another drawback
of the optimal capital structure is companies that operate
near optimal, may be incentivized to issue more corporate
debt. That could increase the risk of the capital structure
overall, and so an appropriate risk premium is added to the
rate of return on debt and equity, to compensate the stake-
holders for the additional risk. When incorporating risk
premium, the more complex version of the optimal capi-
tal structure is one that has a “cost of capital curve.” This
curve is not the same as the yield curve, but rather the cost
of capital curve illustrates a company’s weighted average
cost of capital by simulating different combinations of debt
and equity funding. In his book, The Dark Side of Valuation,
Aswath Damodaran of New York University’s Stern School
of Business discusses the capital cost curve in more detail.
The cost of capital has two components, namely debt
and equity. The cost of debt is mainly determined by mar-
ket interest rates, default probabilities and tax deductibility.
The cost of debt is less straightforward than what is com-
monly assumed. The debt service ratio is a relevant measure
to assess a company’s appropriate level of debt relative to

its free cash flow and credit rating. Based on the debt serv-
ice coverage, a synthetic rating can be determined in order
to apply an average default spread for each part of debt of
the capital structure. The default spread can be derived from
market-observed spreads, since the (synthetic) ratings are
generally applied to large publicly traded companies. The
cost of equity can also be implied from the capital cost
curve. The cost of equity is generally driven by the com-
pany’s stock beta and debt-to-equity ratio. When applied to
the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), the levered beta are
used to estimate the cost of equity at different levels of debt.
Once the simulation of the capital structure is completed,
the WACC for each debt level is calculated. The optimal
capital structure would be the structure in which the WACC
is the lowest. A more consistently lower WACC would keep
the value of the firm at higher levels when the expected
cash flows are discounted at the lower WACC.
Putting Theory into Practice
The relative value between stocks and bonds can be approached

by two sets of models. The capital structure model is based
on the original ideas of Modigliani and Miller. Their ground-
breaking work was published in 1963 in the American Economic
Review under the title “Corporate income taxes and the cost
of capital: a correction.” The other model is to assess the
value of convertible bonds and convertible capital notes.
The analysis in the following sections focuses on valuing the
lower end of the capital structure, the part where debt and
equity are closely related. In general, there is a relationship
between equity value and corporate debt value. An approach
to show that is the case, is to regress the S&P 500 Index and
the Investment Grade CDX Index (IG CDX series). Figure 3.1
show how there is a decent relationship between the S&P and
CDX. When the S&P 500 declines in value, the IG CDX wid-
ens in risk premium and vice versa. The inverse relationship
says that the value of debt and equity in the capital structure
can be close in times of financial stress. When default expecta-
tions rise, a company’s capital structure “flattens.” That means
its senior unsecured debt is priced like equity. At other times
when equity prices rise, senior debt can trade at a very tight
risk premiums. That is caused by very low default probability
as well as the ample access to capital markets. Figure 3.1 shows
that the capital structure of an index exhibits a correlation
between the cost of debt and the cost of equity. This analysis
can be taken to the company level.
A comparison of capital structures like, for example, IBM
and Apple, can show why there can be significant differ-
ences in risk premiums of debt and equity between com-
panies, as well as valuation because of different levels of
300
250
IG CDX Spread (bps)
200
150
R2 = 0.364
100
50
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
S&P 500 Index
Figure 3.1 IG CDX an S&P 500 Index.

Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB, weekly data, 2003–2014.
debt. Each company is valued based upon the expecta-

tion of future profits, the amount of debt financing that
is used and an assessment of the overall macroeconomic
environment. The capital structure model is a calculation
that addresses those three elements. Tables 3.3 through 3.6
show the cases of IBM versus Apple. A conclusion from
the model output for both companies is that Apple stock
price would have been 6 percent higher than the market
price (at the time of writing in 2014) if the company had
a higher debt-to-capital ratio and a lower WACC. For IBM,
the stock price was undervalued relative to the optimal
capital structure because it had a too high debt-to-capital
ratio. In real time, the capital structure of Apple and IBM
may be trading closer because markets assign equal default
probabilities to the companies because of each strength of
their balance sheets. To determine whether that is the case,
a more practical application of the capital structure model
is needed.
The capital structure model by New York University Stern
School of Business is such a practical version for address-
ing the issues of the “optimal” capital structure. Tables 3.3
through 3.6 show how, with inputs from financial state-
ments, the optimal capital structure can be practically esti-
mated. The important question is how the optimal capital
Table 3.3 IBM capital structure
IBM Current IBM Optimal
Debt to Capital 0.13 0.1

Cost of capital 7.42% 7.34%
Enterprise value $ 199,208.80 $ 201,925.47
Value per share 182.05 184.77
* Value as of September 2014.

structure has been determined, and which component

(debt or equity) is under- or overvalued (or appropriately
valued). The analysis from Table 3.3 indicates the equity
component of IBM is somewhat “undervalued” relative to
the optimal capital structure. By adjusting the WACC and
the debt-to-capital/debt-to-equity ratio, the “fair value”
of the debt can be derived. A capital structure model allows
the investor to compare the current equity and debt valu-
ation to what the model says is “optimal.” Of course, what
is optimal may seem like theory. In reality, markets do price
in options and credit default swaps what the intrinsic value
(optimal value) is versus the current value. The inputs in
Table 3.4 calculate what the value of the company’s shares
are based on the overall cost of capital.
Table 3.4 IBM input
IBM Capital structure model Inputs
EBITDA $ 6,081
Depreciation & Amortization $ 3,327
Capital Spending $ 3,806
Interest debt expense 29
Marginal Tax Rate 15.5%
Bond Rating A1/A+
Pretax cost of debt 3.63%
Number of shares outstanding (min) 997
Market price/share $ 182.05
IBM beta 0.9
Book value of debt $ 30,120.00
Assumed “risk-free” rate 2%
CAPM risk premium 6%
Country default probability 0.30%
Source: Ashwath Damodaran, New York University Stern School of

Business. Numbers as reported by GAAP FY 2013. Model found at http://
pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ under optimal capital structure.
For IBM, the term structure of its debt—the average

maturities of its issued bonds—is up to 30 years. IBM’s CDS
curve has maturities out to ten years. With its average debt
maturity at six years, there is a point at which the value of
IBM’s bonds and its stock cross over. The capital structure
of IBM shows the idea. The difference between the current
and the optimal capital structure is shown in Table 3.3. In
the table, the capital structure difference can be seen from
the difference between the enterprise values as well as the
weighted average costs of capital. For IBM, the difference
in WACC under the current and optimal structure is eight
basis points (namely, 7.42 percent to 7.34 percent). By
multiplying the eight basis points times the average matu-
rity of the debt (six years), the premium in unit of risk for
the optimal capital structure is worth 48 basis points (or
0.48 percent ). The value of IBM’s five-year CDS was around
42 basis points at the time of writing (fall 2014). The CDS
premium being lower than the optimal structure premium
may suggest IBM’s debt was trading at a slightly too tight
risk premium. Another way of looking at this analysis is to
multiply the eight basis points by the average duration of
IBM’s corporate bonds, which was about 5.7 years of dura-
tion. In price percentage points, this is about 4.5 percent
“overvaluation” (5.7 years * 8 basis points) of IBM’s debt.
What Table 3.3 shows, in contrast, is that IBM’s stock was
about 1.5 percent (182.05 vs. 184.77 optimal) “underval-
ued.” The analysis of the capital structure shows that, by
valuing both debt and equity at the optimal level, the fair
valuation of debt and equity in the current capital struc-
ture can be determined.
When analyzing Apple stock, it appears from Table 3.5
on page 111 that it is a different story. By early 2015, Apple
stock was trading at around $118/share. In February 2015,
Table 3.5 Apple capital structure
Current Optimal
Debt to Capital 4% 35%

Cost of capital 6% 7%
Enterprise value (mlns) $ 731,452.78 $ 659,443.09
Value per share $ 118.00 $ 101.90
Value as of February 2015.
Apple issued a new series of notes with maturities from

5 years to 30 years. The average yield on the bonds was
around 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent across the different matu-
rities. As a result, Apple’s cost of capital was very much
lower (6 percent) than what the optimal model may sug-
gest. More importantly, Apple was not using leverage more
efficiently. Rather, the company was sitting on a large cash
balance (reportedly $160 billion) that was used to buy back
its shares to return the cash to the shareholders by a higher
stock price. The capital structure looks to be imbalanced,
with the stock “overvalued” relative to Apple bonds. The
capital structure output provides a conclusion what should
is “optimal” in a perfect world. In practice, it would be quite
unlikely that we would see a sharp fall in Apple stock price
without other factors like profitability and earnings playing
an important role.
The examples of IBM and Apple show how a model can
provide a careful estimate of the relative valuation of stocks
and bonds within a company’s market capitalization.
Critical are the assumptions of the capital structure model.
When a company has sufficient cash, it can use leverage
by issuing debt, which can optimize the capital structure.
The model should be seen as one of the checks in an inves-
tor’s assessment of the equity and debt risk of a particular
company.
Table 3.6 Apple Inputs
Apple Capital structure model Inputs (in mlns)
EBITDA $ 55,757
Depreciation & Amortization $ 5,800
Capital Spending $ 7,700
Interest debt expense $ 20.00
Marginal Tax Rate (%) 26.0%
Bond Rating A2/A
Pretax cost of debt 2.50%
Number of shares oustanding 5987
Market price/share $ 97.20
Apple beta to S&P 0.83
Book value of debt $ 31,040.00
Assumed “risk-free” rate 2%
CAPM risk premium 7%
Country default probability 0.30%
Source: Ashwath Damodaran, New York University Stern School of

Business. Numbers as reported by GAAP FY 2013/Bloomberg data.
Model found at http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ under optimal
capital structure.
The Magic of Alibaba
Another example of the capital structure analysis is

Alibaba. The Alibaba Group is the largest e-commerce
platform in the world, as measured by gross merchandise
volume (GMV), which was 253 billion USD in 2013. This
is 1.2 times larger than Amazon, 2.3 times larger than
eBay, and 11 times larger than JD.com. Its Tmall (business-
to-consumer) and Taobao (consumer-to-consumer) plat-
forms had a combined 80 percent market share in China’s
e-commerce sector in 2013. Based in the most populated
country in the world—China—Alibaba has immense scale,
including 1 billion in product and services listing, 8.5 mil-
lion annual active sellers, and 307 million annual active
buyers. During its largest promotional event on Singles
Day (November 11) 2014, a record $9.3 billion of GMV

was settled through Alipay. This is Alibaba’s escrow pay-
ment system, similar to the IPO, in which the stock was
launched at 68 dollars/share and soared to 93 dollars/share.
In November 2014 the company came to market with an
8 billion-dollar corporate bond issue. The corporate bond
issue was part of the financing of the IPO. Table 3.7 shows
what the new corporate bond issue looked like.
In terms of credit fundamentals, Alibaba’s agency model is
one in which it only provides the platform, with no inven-
tory risk. Most of its revenue comes from performance-based
marketing services and display advertisement. Margins are
high, with its large-scale and asset-lite nature—operating
margin was 42 percent for Alibaba compared to 18 percent
for eBay, 27 percent for Google, and an operating loss for
Amazon. Alibaba generates significant free cash flow given
the agency model. Alibaba is not exposed to any sourcing
or inventory risks, and is in partnership with 14 logistics
companies for its logistics network. The Company has a net
Table 3.7 Comparison valuation of Alibaba’s corporate bonds
Tranche 3yr Fixed/FRN 5yr Fixed/FRN 7yr Fixed
Expected Size ca. US$1.5bn ca. US$2.5bn ca. US$1bn

Initial Price Talk T3+ 80bps T5 + 110bps T7+ 135bps
Expected Pricing Level T3 + 67.5bps T5 + 95bps T7 + 120bps
LOAS 46bps 80bps 111bps
YTM 1.64% 2.68% 3.25%
Spread Duration 2.96yr 4.73yr 6.28yr
China CDS 41/44 83/85 110/118
Orderbooks 3yr Fix: $4bn 5yr Fix: $7bn 7yr Fix: $7.25bn
3yr FRN: $1.3bn 5yr FRN: $1.5bn
Source: SEC.
** The 3yr and 5yr FRN were priced at the Libor-equivalent levels of their respective fixed
tranches.
cash position of 9.7 billion dollars post its IPO, a pro forma
total leverage of 1.71 times, and net leverage of 2.03 times.
The Company is committed to keeping its net cash position
and is observant of a net leverage ratio of 1.5 times, which
is appropriate for its A+ rating. Against the projection of
free cash flow expansion and net debt to EBITDA remain-
ing negative in 2017, the newly issued corporate bonds had
attractive value versus Alibaba’s stock.
Crossover investing would compare the value of the
new issued bonds to comparable issuers. In Table 3.8, the
Alibaba bonds are compared to other issuers. At first glance,
the Alibaba issue is “cheaper” on an OAS spread basis ver-
sus issuers like Cisco (CSCO), which has a similar rating.
The Alibaba securities have longer duration and are there-
fore at a higher yield and wider OAS spread. How about
Alibaba’s bond valuation versus the stock valuation? The
capital structure model would say that because of Alibaba’s
low leverage and surge in stock price, the Alibaba bonds
would have some value. That should also be a function of
Alibaba’s low cost of capital.
A different comparison than the capital structure model is
to look at Alibaba’s earnings yield implied by the stock versus
the yield on Alibaba’s bonds. Table 3.9 on page 115 shows
Table 3.8 Alibaba bond comparison
OAS spread Spread

Bond Rating Yield (%) (bps) duration (yr)
Alibaba 5yr A1/A+/A+ 2.58% 80 4.73

Cisco 5yr A1/AA–/NR 2.03% 45 4.14
eBay 5yr A2/A/A– 2.25% 55 4.46
GLW 5yr A3/A–/A– 2.27% 66 4.2
Bidu 5yr A3/NR/A 2.78% 113 4.31
Source: SEC, FRB.

Table 3.9 Earnings yield versus bond yield
Alibaba
Current Hist Avg
NTM P/E 40.6x 36.9x

Earnings Yield 2.46% 2.71%
Alibaba New 5y 2.68% 2.68%
Source: SEC.
that comparison. The 20 basis points difference between the

earnings yield and the bond yield says that the risk premium
for Alibaba’s stock was very low. The yield on five-year US
Treasury bond were at around 1.65 percent at the time of
issuance of Alibaba’s corporate bonds. Alibaba’s equity risk
premium was worth about 80 basis points, or 0.8 percent.
This is calculated by taking the difference between Alibaba’s
stock earnings yield minus the yield on five year Treasury
bond. The equity risk premium for Alibaba was low com-
pared to the S&P 500 Index equity risk premium that was
around 4 percent (when using the S&P 500 earnings yield
minus the Treasury yield). This risk premium comparison
also suggested that Alibaba bonds had value relative to
Alibaba’s stock around the time of the IPO. In general, a
basic comparison like the one in Table 3.9 can be done for
any stock to identify value relative to debt.
Convertible Bonds
A convertible bond is a security that the investor can con-

vert into common stock by way of a conversion ratio. A con-
vertible bond is probably the best example of the cross-over
strategy. It is a hybrid security that has both bond and stock
features, and therefore trades with higher volatility than a
bond. The reason for volatility is the conversion option,
which is why the convertible bond has a lower coupon
than regular bonds. The unique feature is the upside with

limited downside. An investor in a convertible bond has
the opportunity to convert into shares should the stock rise
or continue to collect the regular coupon payments and
principle return at maturity. Specialized strategies such as
merger or convertible arbitrage directly relate to the con-
version option that is a combination of a long position in
the convertible bond with a short position in the under-
lying stock. Convertible bond models are quite complex.
There are several assumptions that go along with valuing a
convertible bond. There are basic models available online
where the conversion option value can be computed.
The value of conversion is what makes convertible bonds
unique to other bonds. In the following subsections, there
are two examples discussed—Twitter and Dynegy. In each
case there is convertible bond valuation put into practice.
The case of Twitter
When Twitter (TWTR) became IPO, the company took its

global online platform for public self-expression to a new
level. As of the three months ended on June 30, 2014,
Twitter had 271 million monthly active users, spanning
nearly every country. The most-followed Twitter users are
Katy Perry and Justin Bieber, with the president of the
United States coming in a distant third. In the summer of
2014, TWTR came to market with a 1.3 billion-dollar con-
vertible debt deal. The deal consisted out of two tranches:
a five-year and seven-year maturity, plus a “green shoe”
(15%) in case of more investor demand (a green shoe is an
option to issue more bonds). The proceeds would be used
for general corporate purposes. At the time, the price talk
for each $650 million tranche was 0.25 percent yield for
the five-year and 1.00 percent for the seven-year bond. The
Table 3.10 Twitter convertible bond valuation
5-year bond 7-year bond
Volatility (%) Model OAS OAS Volatility (%) Model OAS OAS
30 69 57 30 69 57
35 158 141 35 158 141
40 252 235 40 252 235
45 349 310 45 349 310
Source: Yahoo Finance, SEC. Modeled spread is calculated by inputting the different spreads
as strikes in Table 3.10 under the different volatility assumptions.
bonds were modeled on a theoretical sum-of-parts valua-

tion (capital structure model, as discussed earlier) and using
assumptions for longer-dated equity implied volatility (see
associated Table 3.10). At a closing price for the stock of
$52.91 in the fall of 2014, the conversion price would have
been $78.04. Notwithstanding the (theoretical) ”cheap-
ness” described above, at best, the convertible bond was
at fair value in 2014, given the company’s elevated valua-
tion metrics—like an EV/EBIDTA of 31.3x and a price/sales
ratio of 9.7x. While the company may have been in the
early stages of monetizing its platform, the uncertainty sur-
rounding how much revenue the company could extract
from its user base remained significant.
The Case of Dynegy
Dynegy (DYN) is an independent utility that acquired Duke

Energy’s PJM merchant fleet for $2.8 billion. This was 6.7x
estimated 2015 EBITDA. The acquisition of Energy Capital
Partner’s PJM (Mid-Atlantic) and New England merchant
fleet was worth about $3.45 billion and 6.2x estimated 2015
EBITDA. The transaction was expected to close by the end
of 1Q15. Dynegy’s pro forma gross leverage increased from
4.6x (as of 2Q 2014) to 5.3x (estimated for 2015). The higher
leverage and increased debt-to-enterprise value were more

than offset by the benefit of increased scale and diversity.
Also, Dynegy generated a greater percentage of cash flow
from capacity payments (25% of 2015 gross margin versus
11% for Dynegy standalone). As a result, the volatility of
the business was meaningfully reduced. Dynegy’s “legacy
coal” (as opposed to the new clean coal technologies) was
scheduled to retire in June 2017, and comprised approxi-
mately 6 percent of the pro forma energy generation capac-
ity. To fund the takeover of PJM, three senior debt tranches
were issued for a total of $5 billion. The balance of $1.1
billion was funded by DYN equity and convertible bond
offerings.
To facilitate the acquisition, a $5.3 billion Dynegy Bridge
loan was issued. This was a key financing commitment for
Dynegy’s acquisition of two power plant portfolios. The
bridge loan was expected to be taken out within a month
through new bond issuance. As part of the transaction
Dynegy raised $1 billion–$1.5 billion of equity and issued
new convertible bonds to replace the bridge loan. In terms
of specifics regarding the convertible bonds, Dynegy pro-
vided the following details to investors:
1. All-in cap rate for seven-year noncallable after three

years security of 8 percent. This set the “strike” for the
convertible option at 534 basis points OAS. Part of the
deal was the “strike” steps up to 592 basis points OAS
by February 2015. When compared to existing Dynegy
2023 maturity bonds, those were trading at an OAS of
362 basis points at the time.
2. The bridge loan was likely to expire within one month
for a commitment fee of 75 basis points. The assumed
implied volatility was 116 percent.
The valuation of this convertible deal at different levels of

the OAS spread and volatility produces a conversion value.
Because Dynegy’s offering came during a time in October
of 2014 when market volatility suddenly rose sharply, the
conversion value ranged from $1.76 to as high as $36. That,
compared to Dynegy’s stock price in October of 2014 at
around the $28–$32 range, indicated the convertible bond
deal had some value. The convertible bond market is a good
indication of how markets are pricing the capital structure
of a Dynegy.
In the fall of 2014, Dynegy issued ten-year bonds at a
7.5 percent yield for $1.25 billion of notes in total at a coupon
of 7.625 percent. The biggest portion of Dynegy’s offering
was $2.1 billion of five-year notes that yielded 6.75 percent.
The company also offered $1.75 billion of 7.375 percent,
eight-year securities. The bond proceeds were also part of the
financing for the $6.25 billion acquisition of coal and gas-
fired generation assets from Duke Energy. Possibly because of
the convertible option, the coupons of the new issue Dynegy
bonds were 1.5 percent higher than the outstanding Dynegy
bonds. The convertible bond deal range valuation indicated
that the actual bonds were relatively undervalued to Dynegy’s
stock. This is specifically the case when volatility experiences
a sharp rise. In general, when equity volatility goes up, con-
vertible bonds can see a decline in market value.
In terms of general investment opportunities in convert-
ible bonds, there are several funds available. One of the
more popular ones is the SPDR ® Barclays Convertible
Securities ETF. This ETF is benchmarked off the Barclays
US Convertible Bond Index, which is designed to repre-
sent the market of US convertible securities, such as con-
vertible bonds. The ETF tends to closely track the S&P 500
Index albeit with some lag on a total return basis, shown
by Figure 3.2 on page 120.
Total Return, normalized scal Apr 2009 = 1 3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
4/16/2009 4/16/2010 4/16/2011 4/16/2012 4/16/2013 4/16/2014
SPDR Barclays Convertible ETF S&P 500 Index
Figure 3.2 S&P 500 vs. SPDR Convertible Bond ETF Total Return is after fees.
Source: FRB, March 2009–December 2014.
The convertible bond market is small, with just $450 bil-

lion total outstanding, and is not always accessible to the
general public. It is market in which an investor, by using
a volatility assumption of a broader index like S&P 500 or
the Volatility Index on the Chicago Board of Trade, can cal-
culate the cross-over value between stocks and bonds. The
convertibility factor became an important feature for bank
debt in the wake of recapitalization after the financial cri-
sis. “CoCos” are the new innovation of crossover between
stocks and bonds. In the sections that follow, each of the
fixed income sectors that have much in common with
equity will be discussed.
Equity-Like Debt: Contingent Convertible Capital

Instruments (“CoCos”) and Subordinated Debt
In the capital structure of a company, subordinated debt

is junior to senior creditors. In case of a bankruptcy or
liquidation, subordinated debt gets wiped out along with

the equity holders. The status of subordinated debt is there-
fore called “junior debt.” The reason why debt is referred to
as “subordinate” is because the debt holders have subordi-
nated claims on a company relative to the senior debt hold-
ers, the liquidator, and government tax agencies. That means
subordinated debt holders will only be paid after all senior
debt holders have been paid. A liquidation or bankruptcy
entails likely haircuts on principal of the debt outstanding,
in general, after all senior holders are paid, the subordinated
bond holders get back very little. Investing in subordinated
debt is risky and has equity characteristics in terms of price
volatility and voting rights. Subordinated debt has a low
rating and is traded at higher yield than investment-grade
debt. Subordinated bonds can be issued alongside a public
initial offer of a stock. A trade-off to subordinated debt is
a direct equity capital injection, but sub debt can also be
used as part of the capital injection. This form of debt injec-
tion happens in the financial sector. Banks in particular are
frequent issuers of subordinated debt whereby that part of
the capital structure is risk sensitive because of the junior
status to other debt holders. The purpose of sub debt can
be because of “market discipline” reasons, enticed by bank
regulators to disincentive moral hazard. An investment
portfolio strategy focused on subordinated bonds might be
used as a substitute for a bank stock portfolio. The reason is
that capital securities have historically provided better risk-
adjusted returns than financial stocks. This is based on the
history of the Barclays Capital Securities Index versus the
S&P 500 Financial Index.
As discussed in chapter 1, part of the evolution of subor-
dinated debt are “CoCos.” They are loss-absorbing hybrid
securities issued by banks. They present debt obligations that
either convert into equity or allow principal to be written

down, often at a predefined capital trigger. Once converted
or written-down, CoCos are fully absorbing capital, without
triggering the bank’s default. A trigger may be discretion-
ary at the point of non viability (“PoNV”), or well defined
upon the issuance of the bond. The point of non viability is
regarded as the time just before an event of default. CoCos
can absorb losses either through conversion into equity or
through the instrument principal write-down. The trigger
can be either “mechanical” or discretionary, with the latter
being dependent on the local regulator’s judgment. With
reference to mechanical triggers, a CoCo can have one or
more that are contractually set in the bond terms and con-
ditions, and are usually at a specific Common Equity Tier 1
(CET1) ratio. The loss absorption mechanism is triggered on
the breach of that solvency ratio.
Depending on the level of the trigger, CoCos are classified
in two different groups:
● High-trigger CoCos (7%–8%) or “going-concern” capi-

tal. These instruments recapitalize the banks well before
the entity reaches the PoNV. Through conversion/write-
down they help restore confidence and stabilize the bank’s
capitalization at a specific moment in time when a bank
suffers from a low-frequency but high-loss event such as
a large trading loss. The bank would still be considered to
be solvent even without the conversion/write-down, but its
capital level would be deemed as modest.
● Low-trigger (around 5%) or “gone concern” capital.
Without the conversion/write-down of low-trigger CoCos,
the entity would be deemed as insolvent, with the only
available alternatives being bankruptcy or recapitaliza-
tion through state intervention.
The trigger is crucial for the evaluation of the bond as it

determines the probability of conversion. That is, needless
to say, ceteris paribus, the higher the trigger, the higher the
probability of conversion. The loss absorption mechanism of
some CoCos can be activated at the PoNV. The PoNV trigger
is based on the supervisors’ judgment of the issuing bank’s
solvency prospects. That is, the regulator can impose losses
on bondholders if it believes that such action is necessary in
order to prevent the issuing bank from becoming insolvent.
While the discretion of the PoNV trigger gives authorities
great flexibility in managing a crisis situation, it also cre-
ates uncertainty for bondholders regarding the perform-
ance of their investments. The loss absorption mechanism
is another key characteristic. The type of loss absorption
mechanism is crucial as it determines the final losses to be
assumed in case of conversion.
For this reason, it is key to understand the differences
between and the implications of both mechanisms for
investors. The principal write-down can be either full or
partial. Most of the write-down CoCos have full principal
write-down features. However, there are some exceptions. In
addition, the principal write-down might be permanent or
temporary. In this sense, some CoCos include a write-down/
write-up mechanism at the full discretion of the issuer, pro
rata with the issuer’s other write-down instruments, allow-
ing the investor to recover part of his investment. The con-
version into equity has a conversion price that can be based
on either 1) preset share price or 2) the market price of the
share prior to the trigger being activated. The latter usu-
ally includes a floor price for the share, in order to limit
the shareholders’ dilution. Therefore, in that case the price
of conversion will be the higher of the market price and
the floor price of the share. CoCos can absorb losses either
Main Design Features of CoCos
PoNV Trigger Loss Absorption mechanism
High/Low Principal write down Conversion into equity
Permanent/Temporary
Figure 3.3 CoCo’s design diagram.

Source: Author.
through conversion into equity or through the instrument

principal write-down. The trigger can be either “mechani-
cal” or discretionary, with the latter being dependent on
the local regulator’s judgment. With reference to mechani-
cal triggers, a CoCo can have one or more, which are con-
tractually set in the bond terms and conditions, and are
usually at a specific CET1 ratio. Figure 3.3 shows the loss
absorption mechanism of CoCos.
CoCo debt was issued as a larger effort by the (global)
Financial Stability Board (FSB). In November of 2014, the
FSB recommended that the largest global banks hold total
loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) of 16 percent to 20 percent of
risk-weighted assets (RWAs). TLAC is expressed as a percent-
age of RWAs and as a percentage of total leverage exposure.
In November 2014, it was recommended that global banks
have their capital buffer, including the portion coming from
the Basel III requirements, at about 20 percent to 30 percent
of total capital from the year 2019 onward. CoCos as well
as other subordinated debt (Tier 2 or “T2”) will be playing a
greater role in banks’ capital buffers. Therefore, for investors
it is relevant to have a grip on what the capital structure of
banks will look like going forward. Figure 3.4 on page 125
shows the Basel II and Basel III structure. It is noteworthy
that equity will play a larger role in banks’ capital.
Senior
$2.6tr
Senior Tier 2
$643bn
New Style Tier 1
Tier 2 CoCo $37bn instruments (AT1) to
New Style Tier 1 absorb losses on a
Coupon is like a regular senior bond $71bn going concern basis,
with lower seniority
Lower Tier 2 either through a write
Perpetual callable coupon which can down or conversion
be deferred but is cumulative Upper Tier 2 into equity
Equity
Old Style Tier 1
Perpetual callable coupon which can
be deferred but is not cumulative
Equity
Basel II Legacy Capital Structuure Basel III/CRD IV
Figure 3.4 Bank Capital Structure in Basel II vs. Basel III.

Source: Basel II, III agreements.
The other significant change is the “New Style Tier 1” debt,

known as “AT1.” This portion of the capital structure has an
equity conversion feature. This feature was implemented to
further protect taxpayers in potential future bank bailouts
if a government equity injection were required. The AT1
instruments are to absorb losses on a going concern basis,
either through a write-down or conversion into equity. This
conversion feature has changed the characteristics of the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 bonds from the Basel II era.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 financial debt have an equity feature. In
that regard, spreads on bank debt often trade with a high
beta to equity. Their duration behaves at times like an equity
beta. There are several indices developed by Markit, a lead-
ing provider of financial information. The company has
created CDX indices for sovereign, corporate, and munici-
pal, as well as financial bonds such as CoCos and AT1s. In
Figure 3.5, the Iboxx AT1 Euro and Dollar index is plot-
ted against the S&P 500 financials and Eurostoxx financials
index. Obviously, there is a strong relationship.
550 340
USD Index EUR Index
530
330
Iboxx AT1 USD Index (bps)
Iboxx AT1 EUR index (bps)
510
490
320
470
450 310
430
300
410
390
290
370
350 280
S&P 500/Eurostoxx Index
Figure 3.5 Iboxx USD and EUR CoCos/AT1 index vs. S&P 500/Eurostoxx
index.
Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB. 2014–2015 daily data.
A regression model has drawbacks because the input

variables can have a subjective bias. However, the fact that
this model example shows subordinated bonds (or CoCos)
are closely related to equities is an important considera-
tion when investing in bank stocks. For investors, too, this
means that a long-term, strategic allocation to the global
financial sector could be considered primarily in subordi-
nated and contingent convertible bonds. This may act as an
alternative strategy to traditional high-yield bonds or equi-
ties while enhancing overall portfolio diversification.
Equity-like Debt: Bank Loans, CLOs and ELNs
Bank loans are securities that have a floating rate. The loans
are a credit risk, and when interest rates rise, the coupon
on the loans rises as well. In a falling rate environment, the
coupon on the loans goes down. The maturities of the loans
are generally shorter than the maturities of corporate bonds.
Banks loans have a callable feature and include amortiza-
tion and required payments from the cash flows generated
in excess. As a result, the average life of bank loans is less
than three years. The loans are secured by the company’s
assets and have a senior position in the capital structure.
That is, during a liquidation or bankruptcy, bank loan hold-
ers, like the senior debt holders, get the principal protection
before the subordinated bond and equity holders.
Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) are securities
backed by a pool of loans or bank debt. The CLO allows the
investor to receive scheduled payments from the underly-
ing loans, but the investor also carries the risk in the event
the borrowers default. CLOs are sold in tranches that reflect
different levels of seniority in the capital structure. CLOs
use a high level of leverage, which is on average ten times
more assets relative to equity. A CLO operates like a small
company in which the managers have access to private

pools of capital, generally originating from the bank or
insurance sector. Alternatives to CLOs are credit opportu-
nity funds or direct access to loans by individuals or corpo-
rations to diversify credit risk. During 2013 and 2014, funds
that actively managed bank loans saw their assets grow by
140 billion dollars, which represents about 20 percent of
the outstanding loans. Bank loan funds have become pop-
ular with the retail audience. To more easily access bank
loans, the ETF market may provide opportunity.
According to ETF Database, there are four bank-loan
ETFs—all new funds. The biggest one, Power Shares Senior
Loan Portfolio, which tracks the S&P/LSTA US Leveraged
Loan 100 Index, has more than $6.3 billion in assets, and
is only two years old. More than 60 percent of the port-
folio is invested in bank loans with credit ratings of B or
lower, although its annual dividend yield is 4.46 percent. In
Figure 3.6 it is shown that the broad loan index (JP Morgan
Liquid Loan Index) is a mirror image of the S&P 500 Index.
When distress is high, loans tend to trade like stocks, with
yields at record highs, while the stock index saw a plunge
2500 25
2000 20
1500 15
Index
1000 10
500 5
0 0
29-Dec-06 29-Dec-07 29-Dec-08 29-Dec-09 29-Dec-10 29-Dec-11 29-Dec-12 29-Dec-13 29-Dec-14
S&P 500 JP Morgan Liquid Loan Index Yield
Figure 3.6 Bank Loan Index and the S&P 500 Index.
Source: JP Morgan, FRB. December 2006–2014 Other Equity like Bonds: Equity Linked Notes.
during the depth of the crisis from September 2008 through

March 2009. Loans, despite their floating rate note features,
have risks such as concerns about borrowers’ ability to repay
their loans.
An equity-linked note (ELN) is structured like a bond, but
not like the traditional stand fixed-income security. In an
ELN, the final principal payout is linked to the perform-
ance of the underlying equity. This can be a single stock or
an equity index. ELNs are designed as structured products
whereby there is a built-in clause to have principal protec-
tion that will return 100 percent of the original investment
at maturity. The ELN, however, is different from a standard
fixed-coupon bond because the coupon of an ELN is deter-
mined by the appreciation of the underlying equity. The
ELN is generally structured as a call option on the under-
lying stock index and a zero-coupon bond. This structure
allows for principal protection from the zero coupon bond,
and the discount price of that bond to be used to purchase
the call option. ELNs do not come without risks like the
possibility of default. These three examples (loans, CLOs,
and ELNs) are hybrid forms of bonds that can trade like
stocks, specifically in times of higher volatility.
Equity and Debt: Going Green
Climate change has climbed to the top of the agenda at

almost every gathering of major global leaders, such as the
Group or Seven (G7) or Group of Twenty (G20). In recent
meetings, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World
Bank, and the World Economic Forum in Davos, climate
experts studies have been presented that show there is a
need of 700 billion dollars per year to invest in clean and
renewable energy, as well as better transportation and
limitation to deforestry. The International Energy Agency
recommended in its annual report that at least 1 trillion

dollars of annual investment is needed to generate a lower
carbon world economy. In response to access capital for
such massive investments, the United Nations published in
2006 the “Principles for Responsible Investment” (PRI). This
report prompted a vast growing base of investors to address
environmental, social and governance issues in their guide-
lines. By 2014, about 1,087 asset owners and investment
managers signed up for the principles, representing approx-
imately 45 trillion dollars in assets under management. In
addition, about 30 stock exchanges have implemented the
requirement to have listed companies disclose their envi-
ronmental, social and governance practices. The awareness
and urgency that something more serious has to be done
about the climate has created a vibrant market for green
or climate-focused bond and stock investments. The green
market is likely to continue to grow as climate change raises
the urgency for renewable energy and low carbon industries.
Although the green bond market remains in its infancy, the
universe in green stocks has expanded more rapidly over the
past ten years. Investors who are tempted by green invest-
ing need to use caution when selecting green funds. Some
of the eco-friendly sectors may experience high volatility,
as illustrated by bankruptcy of multiple ethanol and bio-
fuel producers, as well as struggles among small solar power
companies, amid the sharp fall in oil prices. It is also impor-
tant to recognize that investing in companies that have a
green focus may not necessarily benefit the environment
directly. Green investing has “a less direct impact” on the
environment than personally polluting less and recycling.
Green investing is a subset of socially responsible investing,
in which fund managers and other investors typically use
a set of ESG criteria to filter through stocks of companies.
These criteria usually relate to environmental, social and

corporate-governance issues.
A wide range of fund strategies with the narrowest funds
and ETFs are dedicated to specific sectors, such as solar
power or water treatment. Others hold a mix of such
stocks, and because they are a little more broadly diversi-
fied, their performance tends to be less volatile over time.
Less common are funds that consider green factors in their
stock selection but also include a broad enough range of
stocks to serve as a core holding in an investment portfolio.
Most green mutual funds and ETFs are on the smaller side,
with all but a few having less than $300 million in assets.
A couple of the narrow sector ETFs are among the largest
portfolios. There are ETFs that give investors exposure to
areas including ethanol, solar and wind power, and energy
efficiency. There are others that invest in companies that
generally derive 50 percent or more of their revenue from
water-related businesses, including water utilities, water
treatment companies, and firms that are involved in the
infrastructure and distribution of water. Other, more long-
standing investment vehicles participate in various areas of
alternative energy, including wind, solar, and hydropower,
as well as in companies focused on energy efficiency and
pollution reduction. Like traditional socially responsible
funds, they tend to steer clear of certain sectors, including
nuclear power, coal, and oil, and incorporate screens for
other social issues. Other mutual funds focus on compa-
nies that provide solutions to environmental concerns and
those that have environmentally sustainable operations.
Examples of companies these funds hold include energy-
efficient manufacturer SKF AB in Sweden, Internet giant
Google Inc., pharmaceutical company Novartis AG, Toyota,
and Honda.
4
Options
N
oise is often associated with a rise in volatility.
There are two kinds of volatility: the volatility of
price and the volatility of value. Fischer Black, an
American economist, argued this in his 1986 paper titled
“Noise.” Markets become imperfect when noise is in con-
trol. Without traders reacting to noise, however, trading in
assets diminishes and liquidity deteriorates. Some “noise”
is therefore needed—albeit not desired. Noise and infor-
mation are not the same thing, however. When short-term
volatility is high and used as input, longer maturity (embed-
ded) options in municipal, corporate, and mortgage bonds
tend to be “systematically” overpriced. This maturity mis-
match between volatility and value sees over time a conver-
gence, as Black says, because the percentage change in price
should eventually fall below the percentage change in value.
Specialized traders and fund managers have devoted consid-
erable time and effort to developing derivative models that
are calibrated to the market, usually in view of pricing what
the “fair” value of volatility should be considering that the
world experiences every day a lot of noise. In terms of vola-
tility, a question that should be asked is, what should the
implied volatility be if an investor only has information of
historical volatility? Classical historical volatility estimation
135
provides one number defined as the annualized standard

deviation of log-returns:
252 ⎛ N ⎛ ln ( )⎞ ⎞2
∑⎜ ln ( )
2
σ hist = −⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟ ,
N − 1 ⎜⎝ i =1 ⎝ N ⎠ ⎠
where Si is the spot value of the ith day and ln (Sn/S0) the
log returns. An important application of the formula is the
arbitrage between implied and historical volatility. Implied
volatility is the volatility parameter that needs to be input
into the Black-Scholes formula to match the option market
price.
Historical volatility measures the fluctuations of the under-
lying price. When these two volatility values are out of line,
then dynamic replication through delta hedging captures
some of the difference. Common practice is to compare
the at-the-money implied volatility of some maturity with
the historical volatility to assess the viability of the arbi-
trage. Usually, the latter is higher than the former, and the
associated strategy is to sell the at-the-money (ATM) option
and to hedge it with a delta computed with the implied or
the historical volatility. The classical estimate of historical
volatility is not representative of the ATM volatility, for at
least two reasons. The first one is that it is not linked to a
given strike on an option in particular; rather, it is linked
to a bundle of strikes over a wide range. The second one
is that the standard volatility estimate subtracts the real-
ized drift in volatility, which is not known in advance. This
means that historical volatility tends to underestimate the
real volatility, which shrinks the usually observed implied
to historical volatility ration and puts the volatility arbi-
trage in question. Indeed, the implied to realized volatil-
ity ratio depends on the strike, and it is tempting to run
Options 137
the arbitrage by selling an option of high-implied volatility

to attempt to capture a higher implied/historical volatility
spread. However, the final profit and loss does not purely
depend on the realized volatility, but weights it with the
gamma of the option, which is highest around the at the
money strike. It is thus important to be able to condition
the estimate of the historical volatility on levels that will be
reached to properly assess the profitability of the volatility
arbitrage strike by strike.
For instance, equity markets tend to exhibit negative
skews, which is a concise way of expressing that low
strikes (puts) are more expensive than high strikes (calls) in
terms of implied volatilities. Strategies based on the stand-
ard estimates favor the sale of puts, which are then delta
hedged. In a nutshell, this strategy captures the value of
the option through its implied volatility and has a cost
that is aligned on the historical volatility. The delta hedge
is linear in the price at each instant and accompanies up to
the value of the option. The hedge ratio (the delta) is com-
puted so as to render the combined position indifferent
to an increase or a decrease of the underlying price. Once
the delta is hedged, one is left with a second-order term,
which is directly linked to the realized (historical) volatil-
ity and which is multiplied by the convexity (the gamma)
of the option. The gamma depends highly on the option
value change that is caused by a change in the delta. The
arbitrage between implied and historical volatility consists
in capturing the (implied) volatility as contained in the
option price and by delta hedging it. The delta hedge has a
cost that relies on the historical volatility. It can be seen as
swapping daily implied volatility (by collecting time value
premium) against the realized return that is driven by the
gamma of the option.
The final profit and loss (P&L) hence depends on the quad-
ratic average of the returns weighted by the gamma, which
is in essence what the break-even volatilities capture. Option
volatilities are generally computed in the Black-Scholes
model, which is based on log normal returns. Volatility has
met broad acceptance by the trading community, which
comfortably manipulates concepts such as the surface of
implied volatilities. On some markets, traders have strong
opinions on how volatilities should differ across strikes and
maturities. On other markets, they are less sure or do not
have a good idea because there is too much noise caused
by significant headline news. In all cases, it is important to
have a method that provides a guideline of what the volatil-
ity surface should look like.
One of the challenges when thinking about volatility is
how to think about the implied volatility of different strikes.
This is known as “skew.” Especially for short-dated equity
options, such skew is to compensate sellers of downside puts
or sellers of upside calls. An investor would want to under-
stand the level of implied volatility where the option strat-
egy breaks even, defined as “breakeven volatility.” The idea
behind breakeven volatility is that, using only the history of
the underlying asset, the “realized skew” can be calculated.
When an investor chooses a time period when the stock
market fell sharply, the “realized skew” will be quite steep
(a large difference between put and call values across differ-
ent strikes) and implied volatility will be high. Looking over
a longer time period and averaging, one can get a sense of
realized skew over time.
The concept of breakeven volatility is fairly straight-
forward. For a given strike and maturity of the option,
breakeven volatility is the volatility that should have been
used to calculate the value of an option that generates a zero
profit. The S&P 500 Index options are a good example of
Options 139
breakeven volatility. If one looks at the breakeven volatility

skew by strike (index level) in Table 4.1, the volatility dif-
ferences between the 1700 index strike and the 2500 index
strike are called “skew.” In general, skews tend to be higher
in the “high volatility period” because the market was fall-
ing quickly and delivering high volatility around the low
index strikes. This volatility difference is the “implied skew”
between low-strike and high-strike options (expressed by
column “last” in Table 4.1). The implied skew can be higher
than the realized skew (expressed by column “average” in
Table 4.1) during high volatility times. Notably, Table 4.1
shows that the difference between the implied and the real-
ized skew for 3-month expiry options is negative (-0.5) the
18-month expiry (+1.2) If an investor has a longer term pos-
itive view on the S&P 500, she would choose to (tactically)
sell 18-month expiry puts. If an investor has a bearish view,
she could choose to sell 3-month expiry calls. There are
many different combinations that are possible based on the
data in Table 4.1 and the view of the direction of the S&P
Table 4.1 S&P 500 break-even volatility (2009–2014)
Break Even Volatility Data 3M expiry 18M expiry 24M expiry
Index strike (calls & puts) Avg Last Avg Last Avg Last
1,700.00 11.91 14.33 12.27 12.16 12.28 11.76

1,800.00 11.79 13.96 12.14 11.93 12.17 11.73
1,900.00 11.74 15.07 12.03 11.7 12.07 11.71
2,000.00 12.01 13.83 11.91 11.44 11.99 11.7
2,100.00 11.31 10.68 11.8 11.18 11.88 11.66
2,200.00 9.54 7.8 11.7 11.1 11.76 11.65
2,300.00 8.96 10.33 11.6 11.58 11.62 11.55
2,400.00 9.09 11.16 11.5 11.38 11.46 11.44
2,500.00 8.98 11.92 11.4 10.12 11.31 11.28
Source: Yahoo Finance data 2009–2014. 3mth implied skew is 14.33–11.92 = 2.41 while 3m
realized skew is 11.91–8.98 = 2.91. The difference (2.41 – 2.91) is negative, indicative that
selling short dated put options is less attractive.
500 Index. This example can be applied to every stock index

that has listed options. The realized versus the implied skew
is a quick way of assessing whether stock index volatility
is cheap or expensive and what is favorable to sell (calls or
puts) for what expiry ( one to three months or longer).
To put the analysis of Table 4.1 into further perspective,
the S&P 500 Index is often associated with a “trailing index
put.” Especially since 2009, when the Federal Reserve began
quantitative easing, S&P 500 companies embarked on share
buybacks, and equity index funds gained popularity, the
S&P 500 has been in a steady trend upward. Along the way,
equity and bond volatility continued to fall, with occasional
volatility spikes as a result of smaller, rolling crises such as
Europe’s debt crisis, the US debt ceiling, Middle East violence,
and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Despite uncertainty that in
the past was a catalyst for significant equity underperform-
ance, a covered put strategy on the S&P 500 Index has been
highly profitable. That is because, ironically, uncertainty
was continuously addressed by monetary policy that drove
borrowing costs down so that companies could cheaply
finance their share buybacks and pay high dividends to the
stockholders. At the same time, uncertainty drove (retail)
investors to passive instead of active equity strategies, which
is why the equity index funds have seen significant inflows
since 2009.
Figure 4.1 on page 141 shows the cumulative return of
a rolling long position in the S&P 500 Index futures com-
bined with selling a 3- and 18-month 25-delta (2.5%) out
of the money put against the normalized trend of the S&P
500 Index. When taking into account the previous analy-
sis on skew and break-even volatility, selling puts by using
the skew analysis may further enhance the return. By posi-
tioning in equity index futures and selling options on those
Options 141
futures, there is a leverage component on the underlying

futures position. If the short put position gets exercised, the
investor would be adding to the existing long futures posi-
tion. Options and futures require margin, but the position
in them is backed by a low amount of capital against signifi-
cant price return upside potential (or downside potential). A
covered put or call position with the position in the underly-
ing index futures in the same direction has more downside
than such a strategy when the position in the underlying is
in the opposite direction.
There are option strategies that can be applied when the
stock benchmark index posts small gains. For example, the
Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE’s) S&P 500 2%
out-of-the-money (OTM ) Buy Write Index (BXY), which
tracks the performance of monthly 2 percent OTM call sales
on the S&P 500, has historically outperformed in periods of
low S&P 500 returns. In periods of high returns for the S&P
500, such as during 2009 and 2014, the call writing strategy
Total Return, Normalized Scale, Mar 2009 =1
2.5
1.5
S&P 500 Put writing Index

0.5
S&P 500 Index
0
3/18/2009 3/18/2010 3/18/2011 3/18/2012 3/18/2013 3/18/2014
Figure 4.1 SPX Index and put write strategy on the index, cumulative
return.
Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB. daily 3/19/2009–12/31/2014. Total Return index, normal-
ized scale, 3/19/2009 = 1.
lagged the S&P index. When S&P 500 returns have been
between 0 percent and 5 percent, investors implementing
the BXY overwriting strategy would have outperformed the
index by an average of 264 basis points (2.64 percentage
points). The cost of the BXY strategy has been rolling 0.07
percent monthly. Systematically overwriting a stock port-
folio by selling equity index options can generate reasonable
return to reduce portfolio risk. During periods of low real-
ized volatility, investors may prefer to increase yield by sell-
ing calls that close to being in the money. Income-oriented
investors concerned about a Federal Reserve rate hike risk to
stocks that have high-dividend yields, may find call writing
an appealing alternative “strategy” compared to a buy-and-
hold stock. Traders, especially covered call writers, would in
this case more favor the “forward roll.”
The forward roll strategy helps avoid or defer exercise, cre-
ates additional income, and helps keep ownership of stock
that is on an uptrend. But there are also risks involved with
such a strategy. Rolling forward call options prolongs the
exposure to options and can thereby tie up capital. When
options are rolled, an investor buys calls to close the origi-
nal short call position and replaces the old calls with a sell
to open, later-expiring new short call position. This means,
however, exposure to exercise risk and margin calls for an
extended period of time. An investor can question whether
rolling calls (or puts) makes sense.
Rolling calls to the same or a higher strike can end up in
a loss. By intending to avoid exercise, positions are rolled to
a lower strike. The lower strike means a lower capital gain
when the call is exercised because it is based on the assump-
tion of a decline in the underlying value in order for the
call to work. This may mean a profit in the call may be off-
set by a smaller capital gain (or a loss) in the underlying
Options 143
upon the time the option is exercised. It makes more sense

at times to take a small loss or even to accept an earlier exer-
cise. Given how close the outcomes are in many option
rolling instances, and also thinking about the risk coming
from extra time exposed to a short position in the option,
an investor might be better off buying to close at a loss and
waiting out a better covered call situation.
There are some unintended tax consequences with roll-
ing covered call or put option strategies. There are tax rules
involved that cover “unqualified” covered calls. There is an
alternative by opening a qualified position. When the stock
price moves up, an investor should be rolling forward to the
same strike and a later expiration date. This option rolling is
treated as two separate transactions, and the new option posi-
tion that has a later expiration date that ends up deep in the
money, could be classified as “unqualified.” Investors consid-
ering this strategy should discuss with their tax professional.
Structural Theta
Options can be a source of income to a portfolio. By buying

or selling options, the risk metrics of the portfolio can be
dynamically managed. The option positions are sometimes
referred to as “synthetic duration” in fixed income portfolio
management. A bond portfolio’s duration can be syntheti-
cally managed by selling options on Treasury note futures.
The options are trade on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
and the Chicago Board of Trade. When the options are close
to being at the money, they can impact the duration of the
portfolio. There are different ways of applying options to a
bond portfolio. The strategies fall under the numerator of
“structural theta.” This strategy is specifically about consist-
ently selling options under the premise that implied vola-
tility is always mean reverting. There are times, however,
when volatility rises quickly because there is headline news

(“noise”) or the options market experience a positioning
unwind. The combination of noise and positioning present
an opportunity to sell options. That is because when vol-
atility suddenly rises, it causes the option premium to be
excessive. An investor could collect this premium by selling
options. The excess premium would be well above the pre-
mium that constitutes a “fair” level of the options that are
priced with volatility that contains less noise. For those rea-
sons, there is a “rich-cheap” analysis for options when the
premiums deviate substantially from the underlying value
of the asset. A way of potentially enhancing the return of a
portfolio is by selling options with a time to expiration of
one to three months. The options would be sold against the
position in an underlying bond or bond futures contract.
For example, Treasury note futures traded on the Chicago
Board of Trade have listed options that are actively quoted.
Those options are calls and puts on the ten-year Treasury
note future for different strikes and different maturities.
Depending on the view of the near-term direction in interest
rates, an investor would sell calls or puts against her long posi-
tion in the Treasury note future. The premium collected from
the options can increase the yield on the underlying Treasury
future presuming that volatility (and thereby futures price
movement) remains range bound and stable. The option pre-
mium of the option would then be collected in addition to
earning the coupon plus principal and price return. Option
selling in an environment in which volatility mean reverts is
called a “yield enhancement strategy.” Another consideration
in selling options is to manage the duration of the portfolio.
For simplicity, let us assume the portfolio would only consist
of a ten-year Treasury future. The portfolio duration would
be about eight years. When selling a call option on the ten-
year Treasury future that has an expiration in one month’s
Options 145
time, with a strike that is 2.5 percent (called 25-delta) out of

the money, the investor accepts that interest rates may rise
(selling a call is the same as buying a put). When the price
of the Treasury future falls, the collected premium from the
call option would cushion the capital loss. At the same time,
however, the strike of the call provides an entry point to sell
the ten-year Treasury future in order to adjust the duration of
the portfolio down as interest rates rise further. Options are
therefore a synthetic way of adjusting portfolio risk without
changing portfolio composition. In case of a written put, the
portfolio manager expects rates to fall and wants to use the
option exercise to increase the portfolio’s duration. An equity
portfolio manager could do the same by buying calls on sta-
ble dividend paying stocks and using the exercise to increase
the equity duration.
There is a relationship between bonds, stocks, and options.
The put-call parity explains that linearly. The relationship
between the common stock and the firm can be expressed in
terms of options. Stocks can be viewed as a call option on the
firm, whereas the cash flow to the stockholders is a function
of the cash flow to the firm. The stockholders receive noth-
ing if the firm’s cash flows are below the firm’s value. In that
case, all of the cash flows go to the bondholders. However,
the stockholders earn a dollar for every dollar that the firm
receives above its (long-term) value. The payoff looks exactly
like a call option, with the underlying asset the firm itself. For
the bondholders it is the opposite. The cash flow schedule
shows they would get the entire cash flow of the firm if the
firm generated less cash than its value. Bondholders are enti-
tled only to interest and principal described by two claims as
they own the firm and have written a call against the firm
with an exercise price of the firm’s value.
The stockholders’ position, however, can be expressed
by three claims. They own the firm, they owe interest and
principal to the bondholders, and because of the possibility

of debt default, the stockholders have a put on the firm. This
put can be viewed from the bondholders’ perspective by writ-
ing a call option to the stockholders. With a theoretical “risk-
less default-free” corporate bond, the bondholders are owed
principal and interest. The risk of a bond can be expressed in
terms of a riskless bond and a put. That is, the value of a risk-
ier bond = value of a “risk-free” bond minus the put option
on the firm. In other words, the value of the risky bond is the
value of the default-free bond less the value of the stockhold-
ers’ option to sell the company for its current market value.
With the positions of the stockholders and the bondholders
viewed either in terms of calls or in terms of puts, the two
viewpoints can be expressed as the put-call parity. This parity
is generally known as the price of underlying + the price of a
put = the price of a call + present value of exercise price. This
could be rewritten when expressed as options of shareholders
and bondholders:
Value of call on the firm = Value of the firm

+ Value of put on the firm
– Value of risk free bond.
This equation could be applied to a corporation that issued

debt and stock. In broad terms, an investor could compare
the S&P 500 Index with the Investment Grade Credit Default
Swap Index (IG CDX Index). This index is a standardized
bilateral over-the-counter derivative contract. The contract
transfers the risk of the loss of the face value of a reference
basket of debt issuers over a specified period. The CDX spread
is determined by two parties: the CDX protection seller who
buys “insurance” against credit risk, and the CDX protection
buyer who sells insurance to capture credit risk. The basic
CDX contract is a “pure” credit risk transfer mechanism,
Options 147
isolating credit risk from interest rate risk, foreign exchange

rate risk, and security-specific risk. CDX indices have over
the past five years seen an increased correlation with the S&P
500 Index.
A high correlation between the IG CDX and the S&P 500
says that there is a high correlation in volatility. In other
words, if the S&P 500 Index were to experience higher vol-
atility, this should translate into volatility in the IG CDX
spread. Unfortunately, an active options market on corpo-
rate bonds does not exist. What does exist is an options mar-
ket on the CDS market for investment grade, which is the IG
CDX options market. IG CDX option contracts express the
right to buy or sell protection on a CDS index, at a particular
strike, on a specific future date. The over-the-counter (OTC)
contracts trade across a range of strikes and have maturities
up to 12 months. CDX and the S&P 500 Index have a close
relationship. That is measured by, for example, the correla-
tion in terms of price and volatility. To use the implied vola-
tility of the CDX and the S&P 500, there is a correlation that
indicates when investment-grade credit bonds trade more
like stocks and when the bonds do not. This relationship
between stocks and bonds is the result of “implied correla-
tion.” There are changes in the relative premium between
index options and single-stock options. A single stock’s vola-
tility level is driven by factors that are different from what
drives the volatility of an index (which is a basket of stocks).
The implied volatility of a single-stock option simply reflects
the market’s expectation of the future volatility of that
stock’s price returns. Similarly, the implied volatility of an
index option reflects the market’s expectation of the future
volatility of that index’s price returns.
However, index volatility is driven by a combination of
two factors: the individual volatilities of index components
and the correlation of index component price returns.

Intuitively, one would expect that the implied volatility of
an index option would rise with a corresponding change in
the implied volatilities of options on the index components.
Yet, there are times when index option implied volatility
moves and there is no corresponding shift in implied volatil-
ities of options on those components. This outcome is due to
the market’s changing views on correlation. The relationship
between the implied volatilities of options on an index and
the implied volatilities of a weighted portfolio of options on
the components of that index, therefore, becomes a measure
of the market’s expectation of the future correlation of the
index components—the “implied” correlation of the index.
When measuring implied correlations of the CDX Index and
Treasury note future versus the S&P 500 and the VIX index—
CBOE volatility index—Figure 4.2 on page 149 shows there
is a reasonable fit between the correlations of each index.
The graph says that in periods of high implied correlation
between Treasuries and the S&P 500 Index, the implied cor-
relation for the CDX index falls. That suggests the market
is trading with more interest rate sensitivity than credit
risk sensitivity. This happened during periods when the US
economy picked up in growth in late 2010 and the middle
of 2013 and that coincided with a potential change of Fed
policy toward tightening. This heightened expectations of a
change in interest rates, and as a result, the S&P 500 Index
traded with greater sensitivity to the prospect of higher rates.
In a situation in which the US economy were to weaken, it
is possible the implied correlation between the S&P 500 and
CDX Index would be high. In that case, the S&P 500 Index
would be trading with more sensitivity to the widening in
credit spreads that are the result of a pick up in default expec-
tations as the economy worsens.
Options 149
In other periods, like during the US debt ceiling crisis in

2011, the CDX Index implied correlation to the S&P 500
Index rose, while the Treasury rate implied correlation to the
S&P 500 Index fell. Figure 4.2 shows the historical relation-
ship of implied correlations of the CDX Index and Treasury
note future to the S&P 500 Index. The 2011 debt ceiling cri-
sis is an example of a situation in which stock market per-
formance is mainly driven by credit risk. The result was that,
during the US debt ceiling crisis and subsequent downgrade
of the United States by the S&P rating agency, the S&P 500
Index dropped 15 percent, while credit spreads widened. In
another episode—the taper tantrum from May to August
2013—credit and interest rate correlations went up together.
That is an unusual phenomenon where the market does not
differentiate between credit and interest rate risk. During the
taper period, Treasury bonds became riskier because of per-
ceptions that the Fed’s favorable influence on prices would
wane. As a result, other assets reacted negatively because of
1.04 0.4
Implied correlation Treasury vs. S&P 500
Implied Correlation CDX vs. S&P 500
1.02 0.35
1 0.3
0.98
0.25
0.96
0.2
0.94
0.15
0.92
0.1
0.9
0.88 0.05
0.86 0
11/23/2009 11/23/2010 11/23/2011 11/23/2012 11/23/2013 11/23/2014
Implied correlation CDX Implied correlation Treasury note future
Figure 4.2 Implied correlations equity versus Bonds.

Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB, daily data 2009–2014. Implied correlation CDX = (CDX
vol²-VIX²-S&P500 Index vol²)/(2*VIX*S&P500 vol). Implied correlation Treasury Note
= (TY vol²-VIX²-S&P500 Index vol²)/(2*VIX*S&P500 vol).
a higher than perceived “risk-free rate.” Credit risk premi-

ums had to adjust and that created higher volatility in credit
bonds. For cross-over investing, this means that the change
in implied correlations can be a sign when bond and stock
valuations are closely related and when they are not.
There is a simple strategy an investor can follow without
using options on both bonds and stocks. This could be a com-
bination of buying and rolling seven-year Treasuries and by
selling 2.5 percent out of the money (25-delta) puts on the
S&P 500 Index. This strategy is a long bond and a long stock
portfolio. The main macro theme of this portfolio is central
bank policies that use asset prices (stocks and bonds) to stage
a sustainable economic recovery. An investor may in that
environment benefit from both sides of the “central bank
trade” consistently. The central bank buys bonds to lower
interest rates, so the position in the seven-year Treasury bonds
should see continuous price appreciation. If the central bank
is relatively successful, the stock market will perform over
time. The payoff profile of this strategy looks like the finance
theory previously discussed. The strategy of holding a seven
year Treasury bond and selling puts on the S&P 500 Index is
equal to the value of a call on the stock index plus the value
of a “risk-free” bond. Rolling a seven-year Treasury would
be a one-year horizon to capture the carry and roll-down
return under the assumption that short-term interest rates
would remain relatively the same. Rolling puts would also be
for a one-year horizon to match the bond investment leg of
the portfolio. Figure 4.3 on page 151 shows the cumulative
return of a long seven-year Treasury and selling out of the
money S&P Index puts and calls portfolio.
This strategy is not without risks, obviously. A seven-year
Treasury bond carries a reasonable amount of duration,
and selling out of the money puts on the S&P 500 would
incrementally increase equity index exposure. That said,
Options 151
160
Cumulative Return in bps, normalized Put/call S&P 500
140
120 7yr Treasury carry/roll
scale, 1/1/2010 = 100
100
80
60
40
20
0
–20
–40
1/1/2010 11/1/2010 9/1/2011 7/1/2012 5/1/2013 3/1/2014
Figure 4.3 Bond-Stock portfolio in options.

Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB, 2010–2014, monthly data. Carry return is expressed in
unit of duration and volatility.
this strategy can be expanded by adding corporate bonds or

municipal bonds to the mix while selling a (covered) equity
index put. And because the era of global central banking in
such unconventional territory, a long equity and long gov-
ernment bond portfolio has been advantageous. This port-
folio may ultimately change when monetary policy moves
in the direction toward a tightening cycle. Then an investor
should consider doing just do the opposite: sell 2.5 percent
out of the money calls on the S&P Index and roll a short
position in Eurodollar futures with a two-year maturity (as a
proxy for seven-year Treasuries).
Currency Options
While there is not always a clear-cut way of combining

equity and bond options, such can be replicated by cur-
rency options. Currency options are generally accessible
to individual investors. A type of option available to retail
forex traders for currency option trading is the single pay-
ment options trading (SPOT) option. SPOT options have a
higher premium cost compared to traditional options, but

they are easier to set and execute. A currency trader buys
a SPOT option by inputting a desired scenario, and a pre-
mium is quoted. If the buyer purchases this option, then the
SPOT will automatically pay out should the scenario occur.
Essentially, the option is automatically converted to cash.
Currency options are straightforward to implement when
trading straddles, strangles, spreads, or butterflies. When
currency options first came on the scene, they were traded
over the counter (OTC)—where institutions and broker/
dealers trade with each other over the phone to hedge their
foreign currency exposure. With institutions dealing with
transactions in the billions, this makes sense, especially
since, unlike stocks/futures/options, there is no central trad-
ing location for foreign exchange. However, many retail
online brokerage firms as well as larger institutions provide
electronic access to forex liquidity pools that also include
the trading of currency options online. Many of the options
traded via these firms are still considered OTC as the trader
(customer) transacts directly with the broker, rather than
matching the order with another trader.
In this case, the broker becomes the counterparty to the
currency option and hence has to wear the risk. This also
means that currency options can be catered to the individ-
ual trader. Without a standardized set of rules dictated by
an exchange, a trader can choose the strike/expiry and, in
rare cases, the expiration style of the contract that is traded
with the broker. Not all electronic trading destinations for
currency options are OTC. There are firms that provide
liquidity pools for institutions to transact with one another,
often called dark pools. For example, HotSpot, FXAllm and
CurrenX are all liquidity destinations for the forex mar-
ket. In addition to forex liquidity pools and OTC with bro-
kers, currency options are also traded on exchanges. For
Options 153
example, the PHLX (NASDAQ) and the Chicago Mercantile

Exchange both offer currency options on currency futures.
These products will also be accessible by most retail online
FX option brokers. FX options are generally European, and
hence can use a standard Black-Scholes model. Like an
equity option, currency options can be priced using a stand-
ard Black-Scholes option model with a dividend yield. With
a currency option, the dividend yield represents the foreign
currency’s continually compounded “risk-free” interest rate.
When pricing foreign currency options, the interest rates of
both countries need to be considered and entered into an
option pricing model—unlike other types of options, such
as equity options, futures options that only take one input
for interest rates to derive a theoretical price. This interest
rate differential between two currencies can be considered
as the “cost of carry” for the particular currency spot. Like in
bonds, there are equity linked products such as the Equity
Linked Foreign Exchange Option (ELF-X). These options
are a combination of a currency option and an equity for-
ward contract. When the exchange rate level works in the
investor’s favor under the option contract, the total pay-
out from the option is dependent upon the performance of
the equities index underlying the forward/futures contract.
Otherwise, the investor does not receive a payout.
For example, if an investor holds an ELF-X call option on
the dollar relative to the Euro, and the Euro currency depre-
ciates relative to the dollar, the investor would not receive
a payout. However, if the dollar depreciates relative to the
Euro, the investor would receive the amount saved from the
use of the spot exchange rate in the option contract and
the foreign-equity portfolio value, less the premium paid for
the call option. An investor can replicate a bond and equity
position in a portfolio through a currency option. The bond
is a cash flow of a discounted coupon and a stock is a dis-

counted cash flow of dividend. Together, a bond and stock
can be viewed as a swap. The swap represents earning a
fixed coupon or stable dividend that is financed with funds
borrowed in money markets to purchase the bond or stock.
In other words, the investor swaps short-term money mar-
ket funding for a fixed interest rate (coupon) or dividend.
Currencies can also be seen in terms of a swap. The foreign
exchange (FX) swap is a simultaneous purchase and sale of
identical amounts of one currency for another with two dif-
ferent value dates (spot to forward). Currency options are an
option on an FX swap with similar economics.
Why then is an FX swap or an option on an FX swap a
replicate of a portfolio of options on bonds and stocks?
Consider that a foreign exchange transaction involves two
parties that exchange interest rates in a foreign and a home
country. In that context, consider the option on a multina-
tional stock that pays a stable dividend and issues corporate
debt in a foreign currency. For example, a United States-
based investor purchases a call option on a multinational
stock that does, for example, most of its business in Europe.
The investor also buys the corporate bond denominated in
Euro, and subsequently sells a call on the Euro versus the
dollar. The entire transaction is a swap facilitated by the FX
option. The investor would again use this equation:
Value of call on the firm = Value of the firm

+ Value of put on the firm
– Value of risk free bond,
The value of the firm can be rewritten as value of call –

value of put + value of “risk-free” bond. The FX option may
play as an “equalizer” between the value of the call stock in
local currency and the value of the bond denominated in
Options 155
foreign currency. Like the cross-currency basis swap (chap-

ter 2), the FX option swaps the coupon of the foreign-
denominated corporate bond into the domestic currency.
In transactional summary, using IBM as an example, here is
how such an option strategy would look (using December
2014 values):
● buy 1,000 contracts of the IBM 165 price (25-delta) strike

one-year expiry call at 11.5 dollars premium
● sell one-year expiry Euro put/buy USD call 25-delta strike
at 1.35 percent premium
● buy IBM five-year Euro-denominated corporate bond at
1.35 percent yield/1.625 percent coupon
The annual cash flow is earning coupon of 1.65 percent

plus 1.35 percent collected from the currency option pre-
mium equals the premium paid on the IBM call. The inves-
tors choose here to be long the IBM capital structure (that is
being long both the stock and bond). The bond and stock
exposure is hedged for the currency risk for a period of one
year. The FX option functions to equalize the one-year fixed
return on the IBM stock and bond (all else being equal).
Although there are uncertainties or unexpected events dur-
ing the year, the strategy of using options may provide inves-
tors with the flexibility to invest in bonds and stocks of the
same company. The majority of options strategies are based
on a balancing act between transaction cost, volatility and
time value. Most traders want the most time possible so that
profits have a chance to develop. They also want to pay the
smallest premium possible. As a result, most long strate-
gies require two to three months expiration date at a mini-
mum. An investor can use a variety of spreads to minimize
risk and cost, while exposing the position to take advantage
when stock prices move in the direction that is expected. An
advantage of options is that they are low-cost and flexible

instruments. A disadvantage of options is added complexity
to the portfolio in terms of unexpected changes in delta or
gamma. Without taking actual exposure in the underlying
stock or bond, options can replicate such underlying position
synthetically. A synthetic long stock position is to by open-
ing a long call position and a short put with the same strike
and expiration date. Rather than being long the actual stock,
the synthetic option position duplicates the movement in
the underlying stock. The difference is that options cost very
little or can be structured as a “no cost,” that is when the
premium of the short option position pays for the premium
of the long option. The same synthetic short position in the
underlying stock can be replicated by opening a short call
and buying a long put that have the same strike and expi-
ration. A position in synthetic short and long options can
change in value almost the same as the stock or bond. There
are few pros and cons when establishing a synthetic long or
short position in a bond or a stock:
1. A synthetic position is a pure replicate of a position in

the underlying asset. The risk is the same, but the cost
of a synthetic position by using options is very low or
even zero. In practicality the option expires, and some
synthetic positions can lose more than the principle
invested.
2. The short call and long put combination (and vice versa)
can nearly entirely hedge the actual long of a short posi-
tion in the underlying stock. This is specifically the case
when the stock market has a clear direction upward (bull
market) or downward (bear market). When the market
turns south, the long put position increases in value for
each point lost in the underlying stock. The maximum
loss is the premium paid for the put option. At the same
Options 157
time, a short option position can provide the same return

potential as the underlying asset. The difference is that
option positions can be closed or covered or rolled for-
ward to a new expiration date. The underlying asset does
not provide all the flexibility that options do. It should
be noted that “naked” short options do require 100 per-
cent margin upfront. Risks associated with naked options
is unlimited downside because of lack of hedge with the
underlying instrument.
Options are very flexible instruments, and they express

positions that can be the same as the underlying asset. In
a stock and bond portfolio, options play an important role
in managing duration and downside risk, while options
can add income through premium to the coupon and divi-
dend. Options have “Greeks,” such as delta, gamma, theta,
vega, and rho. When buying or selling options, an investor
has to bear in mind that these variables are the key driv-
ers of an option portfolio. Although options are a contract
that is a right or obligation with regard to the underlying
asset, option Greeks are complex when the underlying’s
price or other variables (like interest or dividend) change.
The past few chapters provided investors with analysis of
how to think about the cross-over idea between stocks and
bonds. The final chapter goes into applying the concepts in
portfolios.
5
The Portfolio Construction
A
diversified portfolio can be a cash flow stream of
income, liquidity and capital. A portfolio is an
assembly of securities that should optimally be at
the lowest unit of volatility and risk. Portfolio management
is mainly concerned with a balancing act to achieve the
highest return relative to risk. On the other hand, portfo-
lio management is also concerned with investors objectives
and risk tolerance. The next sections focus on methods of
securities selection within portfolio construction. In other
words, how can fixed income and equity analysis be com-
bined to benefit the asset allocation mix?
Optimal Mix of Stocks and Bonds
Historically, a 60/40 weighted mix of stocks, bonds, and

cash produced on average nominal returns of 8.5 percent,
with inflation of around 3.5 percent, as seen in Table 5.1 on
page 162. The data in the table shows that during different
periods, a portfolio with a 60 percent weight in stocks and
a 40 percent weight in bonds generally outperformed cash.
According to Standard and Poor’s research, over the past
15 years, a 60/40 portfolio as presented by the S&P 500 Total
Return Index and the Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index had
a near 0.98 correlation to the S&P 500 Index. That means a
161
Table 5.1 Historical returns of 60/40 equity/bond portfolio
Annualized Nominal Returns
Period Equity Bonds Cash 60/40 Inflation
1871–2010 8.90% 5.0% 3.70% 7.60% 2.10%

1931–1940 1.80% 4.60% 0.40% 3.90% –1.30%
1941–1950 12.80% 2% 0.60% 8.60% 5.90%
1961–2010 9.70% 7.40% 5.40% 9.00% 4.10%
1971–1980 8.40% 4.00% 6.90% 6.90% 8.00%
1981–1990 13.90% 14.40% 8.80% 14.30% 4.50%
1991–2000 17.60% 9.40% 4.80% 14.40% 2.70%
2001–2010 1.20% 6.70% 2.20% 3.80% 2.30%
Average 9.29% 6.69% 4.10% 8.56% 3.54%
Source: Research Affiliates.
portfolio of bonds and stocks would be almost solely deter-

mined by the change in the value of the S&P 500 Index.
A 60/40 weighted portfolio may be the “benchmark” for
an equity/bond mix. There are, however, many variants to
“60/40,” such as long/short and unconstrained strategies.
Over the past five years, equities and bonds have been key
return drivers for investor portfolios by delivering single-
digit annualized returns. Briefly after the 2008 crisis, the
initial conditions for such a rally were optimal. Earnings
multiples were low, asset valuations collapsed, real yields
were high, and global central banks embarked on a mul-
tiyear easing cycle. In the present environment, equity
multiples (PE ratios) have expanded significantly, interest
rates are at record lows, and central bank policy has become
“divergent.” That means some central banks may continue
to ease that could be supportive of asset prices, while oth-
ers may tighten that could be negative. Investors started to
question whether a long streak of positive equity and bond
returns could continue in the future. Because both asset
classes benefitted from post crisis conditions, investors
The Portfolio Construction 163
questioned the appropriate weighting of bonds and stocks

in their portfolios.
Long/Short and Other Strategies
As a result of changes in perceptions about monetary

policy, a range of strategies was exploited such as “long/
short,” market neutral, traditional long/short, and lever-
aged long/short. A market-neutral strategy seeks to mini-
mize exposure to the market by balancing long and short
exposures. These approaches typically have betas close to
zero and seek to deliver modestly positive gains regardless
of the market environment. Traditional long/short equity
comes in a variety of flavors, and while these are typically
long biased, they often offer more flexibility with respect
to market exposure. Compared to market neutral and lever-
aged long/short, traditional long/short seeks more balance
between capital appreciation and preservation. Leveraged
long/short, which includes strategies commonly known as
130/30, are most similar to long only equity strategy in that
they are fully exposed to the market (when the beta of the
portfolio equals the beta of the market). Leveraged long/
short strategies seek to outperform the market through stock
selection in their long and short portfolios. Given these dif-
ferent objectives, there are clear differences in performance
during the extreme markets of 2008, when the S&P 500
declined 37 percent, and in 2013, when the market rose
32 percent shown, in Figure 5.1 on page 164.
Adding a comparison of long-term returns and volatility,
there are a few conclusions to draw. First, market-neutral
strategies tend to better deliver on protecting downside
risk mitigation and have generally lower volatility. These
strategies may fulfill an important role in an overall port-
folio, but they can also serve to diversify away from solely
Annulized Nominal return (%) 40%

30% 2008 2013
20%
10%
0%
–10%
–20%
–30%
–40%
–50%
Market Neutral Long/short Leveraged Long/short
Figure 5.1 Different equity strategies.

Source: Research Affiliates, 2008 and 2013 calendar year.
equity exposure. Therefore, they may be unsuitable for

investors who only look to invest in stocks. Second, lever-
aged long/short and 130/30 strategies have at times deliv-
ered attractive returns. As a group, however, these strategies
have underperformed the broader market and generally
have higher volatility. A long only equity portfolio with
an allocation to cash and fixed income may be a better
strategy altogether. A long/short strategy has produced the
highest risk-adjusted returns of the three strategy types,
with equity-like returns and significantly less volatility
than equities. This category has generally delivered on the
objective of participating in equity market return oppor-
tunities while mitigating downside risk.
In the universe of funds, open-ended funds like mutual
funds have several advantages to investors. These advantages
are liquidity, transparency on what the mutual fund holds,
and a fee charged that is fixed. Mutual funds fall under the
1940 Act. This Act applies to companies or entities that trade
and invest securities or offer those securities to the public.
Mutual funds invest in stocks, bonds, and commodities, but
also currencies. As the evolution of the mutual fund com-

plex continued, new versions of the original mutual funds
were introduced such as “long/short” mutual fund. These
funds offer a limited form of leverage by segregating assets.
That means that options and futures positions in the fund
have to be covered by liquid assets in the fund. The rule
caps the leverage at 200 percent of gross notional exposure
by the fund. The “limited leverage” does provide flexibility
to the investor who seeks equity exposure but with lower
volatility than investing in a single stock or in a private fund
that may tie up capital in illiquid securities.
Risks and Variance
An investor can use long/short mutual funds in her port-

folio in several ways. A long/short mutual fund serves as a
complement to a long-only equity fund. They can be a liq-
uid alternative to single stock positions, and offer in general
diversification by investing in a broader portfolio of securi-
ties than a typical investor can achieve. Lastly, long/short
mutual funds may mitigate overall volatility in a portfolio,
thereby further enhancing the benefit of diversification. A
crucial lesson of the past ten years is that volatility is the
nemesis of wealth accumulation. Since 2009, when the era
of quantitative easing began, investors have accrued large
gains during an extended (and unusual) period of equity
and bond market outperformance. The outperformance,
however, has obscured the negative impact of volatility on
compound returns. The following equation expresses the
relationship between wealth accumulation and volatility:
Compound Returns ≈ √AvgRet2 – Var(Ret)

AvgRet = average monthly return to the portfolio
Var(Ret) = variance (or volatility) of monthly returns.
This formula has two important implications:
● If two portfolios have the same average returns, the lower

volatility portfolio accumulates more wealth.
● The higher the variance, the more compound returns
will lag average returns.
The formula states that investors do not realize the aver-

age return of a particular investment over time, but the
compounded result of that stream of returns. The average
returns and compound returns each have a level of vola-
tility. In finance, the absolute difference between average
and compound returns produces volatility. When time
progresses and the level of volatility moderates, the com-
pound return improves in risk-adjusted terms versus the
average returns that have higher volatility. The volatility
of the asset obviously matters, and a careful selection proc-
ess, that is, picking, is critical. An example of allowing large
volatility to enter portfolios was in 2007, when there was a
“mad rush” into stocks due to a large volume of leveraged
buyouts (LBO) and mergers and acquisitions. At some point,
media commentators argued that the entire S&P 500 Index
could face the prospect of an LBO. The amount of lever-
age that entered the financial system, in combination with
a peak in imprudent mortgage lending, led to a financial
meltdown in 2008. The result was a significant downward
adjustment of US equities in portfolios by diversifying into
emerging markets and commodities. Figure 5.2 on page 167
shows that from January 2009 through September 2014, all
of those decisions would have resulted in lower risk-adjusted
performance compared to an investment that remained in
a diversified US large-cap stock allocation (Russel 1000).
The preceding analysis shows that under different equity/
bond weights, diversification can be achieved by running
Annualized Standard Annualized

Return Deviation sharp ratio
Russel 1000 Index 17.55 15.28 1.13
70%-20%-10% US/non-US/EM 15.8 16.03 0.99
70%-30% US/non-US 15.47 15.94 0.98
80%-20% US/Commodities 14.15 15.07 0.95
MSCI Emerging Index 13.22 21.67 0.68
MSCI EAFI Index 10.47 18.76 0.62
Ishares S&P GSCI Commodity-Index 1.67 18.69 0.18
Figure 5.2 Large-cap equity and diversifying strategies

Source: Research Affiliates, monthly data, 2009–2014.
active or passive strategies. Appropriately weighting a port-

folio means active portfolio management because the port-
folio weights need to be dynamically adjusted. Nowadays
passive strategies have become increasingly popular in
equity and fixed income. A passive strategy can also be
dynamically weighted, or there can be a combination of
passive and active strategies that is dynamically weighted.
It is important to note that portfolios today have a “prob-
lem”, which is home market bias. Think of this as putting all
your eggs in one basket: with home-market bias, US inves-
tors risk severely limit their income potential because of a
large investment opportunity set outside the United States.
Constructing a bond and equity portfolio with a home
market bias shifts the focus from being diversified across
sectors and overweighting securities in a narrowly defined
group. This increases concentration risk in the portfolio
and the potential for loss if one sector falls in value. A cross-
over strategy may help diversify concentration risk, with a
caveat that such a strategy has several micro elements. That
means that cross-over opportunities between stocks and
bonds may not necessarily always perfectly diversify risk.
That said, a cross-over strategy between stocks and bonds

can enhance returns with a limited amount of additional
volatility. In the following sections, two portfolio strategies
are discussed. The first one is a dividend strategy whereby
“equity and bond carry” is central. The second strategy is
a passive equity index portfolio combined with an active
corporate and Treasury bond strategy. It is important to note
that the author has no position in the companies at the time of
writing this book. The analysis is not intended and should not be
viewed as investment advice to sell or purchase shares or securi-
ties of the specific companies discussed.
Dividend, Coupon and Carry
When companies have high earnings growth, and they

pay dividends, investors have been led to believe that they
must ask for either dividends or growth, but cannot expect
both. That actually means shareholders do not routinely
demand a healthy dividend payout from all their compa-
nies. US equity sectors most commonly targeted by inves-
tors for dividend income are telecoms, utilities, Real Estate
Investment Trust (REITs), and Master Limited Partnership
(MLPs). These companies also issue senior unsecured and
subordinated debt. An investor who wants growth and
dividend would also like the companies’ bonds to perform.
After all, if the default risk on corporate debt goes up, the
equity risk is likely to go up too and that would jeopardize
earnings and dividend payout. If companies have a stable
dividend payout over a long period of time, that should
also result in stable returns on their corporate debt. There
are different cases to look at to confirm or challenge this.
Starting with AT&T, it has steadily paid dividend since the
late 1980s. The company has also issued debt since the 2000s
that is generally five years in maturity or longer, and mostly
Total Return Index, normalized scale

1.90
Dividend return Bond return
1.70
1.50
1.30
1.10
0.90
0.70
0.50
12/1/2002 10/1/2004 8/1/2006 6/1/2008 4/1/2010 2/1/2012 12/1/2013
Figure 5.3 AT&T dividend versus bond return.

Source: Yahoo Finance, FRBNY. Monthly data, 2002–2014. Bond return = price return
indexed to 12/1/2002 = 1.
has fixed coupons. When one invests in regular dividend-

paying stocks, adding exposure in corporate debt means
the portfolio reflects the entire capital structure. The AT&T
example, shown in Figure 5.3, shows the history of its divi-
dend total return and the corporate bond total return. The
bond used is the AT&T 6.5 percent coupon maturing on
March 15, 2029. The example of AT&T’s earning a dividend
of 2 percent and a coupon of 6.5 percent is not necessarily
a stable return. Figure 5.3 shows that although the return
from dividend was consistent throughout time, the return
on the AT&T bond had more volatility.
There is another way of comparing the bond and dividend
by looking at “carry.” The earlier discussion in chapter 2
on equity carry expressed carry return as a unit of equity
duration. When compared to the carry return on bonds,
the important assumption is the funding rate. A company,
unlike a bank, cannot borrow at the Federal Reserve window.
If a company could, then its short-term funding rate would
be close to the Federal Funds Rate. In some cases when a
company has a high rating (A or better), commercial paper
Total Return Index, normalized 2005 = 1 1.8
1.3
0.8
0.3
–0.2
–0.7
3/1/2005 7/1/2006 11/1/2007 3/1/2009 7/1/2010 11/1/2011 3/1/2013 7/1/2014
Carry return (right hand scale) Bond price return
Stock return
Figure 5.4 Total return indices for AT&T carry, bond, and stock.
Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB. Monthly data, 2005–2015. Carry return = (Dividend yield –
yield of AT&T bond maturing in July 2015)/equity duration + (coupon of T 2029– yield
of AT&T bond of July 2015)/bond duration. Equity duration = 1/dividend yield.
(typically three months’ maturity up to one year) is issued

at a small spread to the Fed Funds rate. In most cases, how-
ever, investors have to look at short maturity issued debt
for an indication of a company’s short term funding rate.
AT&T in this case has issued short-term bonds dating back
as far as 1993. For example AT&T 7 percent coupon matur-
ing in July 2015 could be a historical proxy for short-term
funding. By using the yield of that bond, historically the
equity carry and bond carry per unit of risk can be calcu-
lated. When plotting in Figure 5.4 the carry as a total return
index and comparing that series with the total return of the
2029 bond and AT&T’s common stock, there is a relation-
ship to note.
The return on AT&T stock and bond started to track
closely when the carry return turned positive by 2012. This
may be the result of falling short- and long-term interest
rates. It can also be caused by the stability of the dividend,

which helps improve perceptions of the company and
thereby the market rewards AT&T with lower borrowing
cost. The lower borrowing cost could improve the carry
return and thereby provide stability of the stock and bond
total return. The AT&T example shows there is a case for
looking at the carry return of a company’s stock and bond,
and comparing that with the actual returns. It is impor-
tant to note that the dividend payout and the rating on
the debt remain stable. This carry-and-return framework
can also be applied in a broader portfolio opportunity set.
For the simulation, a selection is taken of regularly paying
dividend stocks that have a dividend yield of 2 percent or
higher and those companies issue frequently bonds. The
results are shown in Table 5.2 on page 172. The companies
listed are a REITs, banks, telecoms, consumer discretion,
and utility stocks. The Table 5.2 includes the equity and
bond carry per unit of duration risk. Stocks and bonds with
high and low carry are selected to identify whether carry
matters in determining the high and low individual stock
performers.
The total return analysis for the group of companies is
shown with the results in Figure 5.5 on page 173. The aver-
age Sharpe ratio is 0.4 for banks to about 1.1 for utilities.
The utility sector is the best performer, and that may be the
result of the highest carry per unit of risk, which seems also
the most stable in terms of volatility. Banks have lagged the
most, in part as they generally offered little additional carry
return versus the other sectors. What Figure 5.5 shows is
that the correlation between the return indices is high. In
other words, the indices have a high beta to the broad mar-
ket that makes it somewhat questionable what diversifica-
tion benefits there are to be gained.
Table 5.2 Stock and bond selection
Bond
Equity carry/
Dvd Debt Stock carry/dur dur
Company Coupon Yld maturity duration (bps) (bps)
ENBRIDGE ENERGY 6.1 5.5 11.9 18.3 10.8 21.9

AT&T INC 4.3 5.4 13.3 18.4 10.5 5.9
VERIZON COMMUNIC 4.8 4.5 14.9 22.4 4.4 8.8
SOUTHERN CO 4.2 4.0 15.4 24.9 2.0 4.6
CHEVRON CORP 2.5 3.9 7.1 25.9 1.4 –13.6
GENERAL ELECTRIC 4.2 3.7 9.0 27.1 0.7 8.1
DUKE ENERGY CORP 4.9 3.6 12.9 28.0 0.2 10.6
DOW CHEMICAL CO 5.4 3.2 12.2 30.9 –0.9 15.9
PG&E CORP 5.1 3.1 16.4 31.9 –1.2 9.6
PFIZER INC 5.0 3.1 9.6 32.2 –1.2 16.1
DOMINION RES/VA 4.5 3.0 16.0 33.2 –1.5 6.1
EXXON MOBIL CORP 3.6 2.9 8.5 34.6 –1.8 0.7
JPMORGAN CHASE 4.1 2.8 7.5 35.4 –1.9 7.9
IBM 3.2 2.8 6.7 35.7 –2.0 –4.1
COCA-COLA CO/THE 2.8 2.8 6.1 36.1 –2.0 –10.6
PROCTER & GAMBLE 3.8 2.7 8.7 36.4 –2.1 3.4
WEYERHAEUSER CO 7.1 2.7 11.5 37.4 –2.2 31.5
GENERAL MOTORS C 4.2 2.7 9.7 37.5 –2.2 6.8
CAMPBELL SOUP CO 4.1 2.6 9.5 37.7 –2.3 5.8
INVESCO LTD 4.0 2.6 13.7 37.9 –2.3 3.8
WELLS FARGO & CO 3.8 2.6 9.0 38.7 –2.4 3.4
PEPSICO INC 3.7 2.5 8.1 39.8 –2.5 2.6
INTEL CORP 2.9 2.5 13.8 40.0 –2.5 –4.3
TARGET CORP 5.0 2.4 11.8 40.9 –2.6 12.3
DEERE & CO 2.8 2.4 5.0 41.0 –2.6 –14.7
SEMPRA ENERGY 4.9 2.3 13.3 43.6 –2.8 10.7
US BANCORP 2.6 2.3 5.4 43.6 –2.8 –16.4
CATERPILLAR INC 3.4 2.3 7.4 44.2 –2.8 –0.7
TEXAS INSTRUMENT 2.2 2.2 3.1 44.8 –2.8 –44.2
ESSEX PROPERTY 4.2 2.2 7.0 44.9 –2.8 9.8
NORFOLK SOUTHERN 5.5 2.1 23.8 47.8 –2.9 8.5
EDISON INTL 4.5 2.1 17.2 48.7 –3.0 6.0
Source: SEC, FRB. Equity carry/unit of duration = Dividend yield – average funding rate/
(1/dividend yield). Carry is quarterly annualized.
Cumulative Total return, 2004=1 200

Total Portfolio Reit Banks
150
Utility Telecom
100
50
–50
–100
12/1/2004 6/1/2006 12/1/2007 6/1/2009 12/1/2010 6/1/2012 12/1/2013
Figure 5.5 Total return indices.

Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB, monthly data December 2004–December 2014, normal-
ized scale. Total return indices of stock prices of the different sectors shown in table 5.6.
Series are normalized since 12/1/2004 with equal weights for stocks in each sector.
Carry Portfolios
To address diversification, the analysis is extended by select-

ing stocks with only positive carry and only negative carry.
It should be noted that stocks that have a positive carry are
companies that also issue bonds. Those bonds can have a
yield that is below or above the dividend yield of the stock.
The positive or negative stock carry measures the difference
between the dividend and the average short-term funding
rate of companies. In the sample case, positive carry stocks
are Enbridge, Verizon, GE, Duke, and Southern Corp. The
negative carry stocks are Texas Instruments, Deere, Target,
Intel, and Coke. The total return analysis in Figure 5.6 on
page 174 “disregards” fundamental stock analysis, earnings
assessment, and traditional valuation. The stock carry per
unit of equity risk is the only dominant factor. What stands
out in Figure 5.6 is that an equally weighted portfolio of posi-
tive and negative carry stocks can outperform the broader
index. Fundamental equity valuation may have resulted in
different portfolio weights and constituents. There may be a
Cumulative Return, Normalized Scale 190
170
150
12/31/2004 = 100
130
110
90
70
50
30
12/1/2004 6/1/2006 12/1/2007 6/1/2009 12/1/2010 6/1/2012 12/1/2013
Positive Carry Portfolio SPX Index Negative Carry Portfolio
Figure 5.6 Total return indices.

Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB. Monthly data 12/2004–12/2014. The positive carry stocks
are Enbridge, Verizon, GE, Duke, and Southern Corp. The negative carry stocks are
Texas Instruments, Deere, Target, Intel and Coke. The weights are 20% per stock.
level of “coincidence.” The selected stocks happened to out-

perform the broader index during a time in which the S&P
500 Index beat active managed equity funds. “Carry return”
may have been superior because this was an era in which the
yield curve was upward sloping, interest rates continued to
fall, and interest rate volatility was generally low. Stocks that
have stable dividend yields and experience a steady decline
in their capital markets funding rate because of a falling rate
environment, may have proved to be proper diversifica-
tion in a stock portfolio. There is obviously no guarantee a
stock carry portfolio may result in high returns in the future.
Investors should look closely at a company’s capital structure
and fundamentals like free cash flow and PE ratios. When cal-
culating the average cost of funding and identifying high and
low to negative carry stocks, that criterion could be a comple-
ment to the fundamental analysis of earnings and free cash
flow. Often companies that have a high free cash flow are
well capitalized and pay regular high dividend. If they have a
weighted average funding rate that remains stable, the carry

return (per unit of equity duration) is likely high.
“Passive” Equity, Active Bonds
Since 2009, the popularity of passive index funds and

exchange trade funds has grown exponentially. At the same
time, the inflow into active bond funds has been equally
impressive. After the financial crisis of 2008, investors may
have been seeking the best guaranteed “stability” and avoid-
ing financial engineering and creativity. This makes perfectly
sense in an environment of deleveraging in which debt is
paid down by saving a greater proportion of income. While
income is stagnant and uncertain, and credit less available,
the additional income had to come from investing in securi-
ties. With the excessive losses and volatility in mind from the
September 2008 to March 2009 episode, investors sought out
stable income sources to supplement their stagnant wages.
This may explain why passive equity and fixed-income funds
remained in favor despite lower yields and higher equity
prices. The conservative strategy could be as simple as invest-
ing 50 percent of your cash by buying a seven-year maturity
Treasury bond and investing 50 percent in the S&P 500 Index
ETF. As discussed in chapter 4, such a Treasury-Equity Index
strategy is by holding a seven-year Treasury that would gen-
erate a return from carry and roll down (rolling down the
curve). The S&P put/call strategy of buying calls and selling
puts would generate “theta,” accumulative premiums col-
lected from options. Together this strategy is again shown in
Figure 5.7 on page 176.
This bond-stock strategy may offer a stable stream of cash
flow, provided the yield curve slope does not change all too
much and volatility remains low. Many income strategies
emphasize stable income because that is what everyone
desires. Unfortunately, investing in stocks and bonds is not
Cumulative Return in bps, normalized 160

140 Put/call writing on S&P 500
120 7yr Treasury carry/roll return
100
scale, 1/1/10 = 100
80
60
40
20
0
–20
–40
1/1/10
5/1/10
9/1/10
1/1/11
5/1/11
9/1/11
1/1/12
5/1/12
9/1/12
1/1/13
5/1/13
9/1/13
1/1/14
5/1/14
9/1/14
Figure 5.7 Carry and roll strategy.
Source: Yahoo Finance, FRB. Daily data, 2010–2014. Carry is 3mths annualized. The
carry return is expressed per unit of duration or volatility (in case of S&P options).
always stable. It requires regular rebalancing to improve the

overall return, with investors bearing in mind that higher
turnover can increase transaction cost. Investors may
choose a passive strategy to avoid those costs. Although a
passive strategy is a replication of an index, the index con-
sists of individual securities and companies. In an indirect
way, investors are subjected to security selection in a passive
strategy because they choose a particular index over other
indices that have different constituents. A “passive” investor
may not realize such is the case and should therefore con-
sider actively managed index strategies. Security selection,
therefore, also plays an important role in passive strategies.
Picking the Right Securities
In an active strategy, the right security “picks” are critical.

Investors often use an active strategy to complement their
passive strategy. An active strategy versus an index is also
about market weights of the portfolio versus the index. There
is currently a new generation of indices that has moved

some from traditional market capitalization-based indices
to alternative strategies, known as “smart beta.” The smart
beta strategy does not use conventional market weights but
rather alternative weights like volatility or dividend. A smart
beta strategy is designed as a “passive” strategy by following
an index, but adjusts portfolio weights when inefficiencies
appear in the marketplace. Successfully applying smart beta
strategies can generate similar returns like those in real estate
or infrastructure. In any passive or active strategy, however,
smart beta is equally subjected to the art of securities selec-
tion. In this example, a passive equity strategy and an active
bond strategy are combined. It is imperative, however, to
apply the bond and stock picking methods together. First,
a portfolio of high-quality bonds that consists of corporate
bonds, financials bonds, and intermediate to long Treasuries,
and longer maturity Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
is selected. The stock selection consists out high-quality US
stocks that have positive carry and have longer maturity cor-
porate bonds outstanding. To note is that purchasing long
maturity credit bonds presents several challenges. First, the
holding period is much longer than that for intermediate or
shorter maturity bonds. Second, transaction costs as a per-
centage of annual carry can be meaningfully higher. Finally,
liquidity decreases over time as on-the-run 30-year corporate
bonds become off-the-run bonds as corporations issue new
30-year bonds. Given these unique challenges, passive invest-
ing in long credit does come with higher risks.
Portfolio Construction Approach
When selecting individual stocks and bonds, the process has

to be combined with a rigorous top-down macroeconomic-
analysis. The macro analysis is to help support views on bond
duration and credit sectors. The selection of credit sectors is
conducted by thorough bottom-up credit research to iden-

tify companies with sound fundamentals. Selection criteria
are companies and sectors with potential for strong secular
and cyclical earnings growth, aggressive pricing power, have
high barriers to entry and, most importantly, expectations
for deleveraging on a forward-looking basis. Some of the
sectors that look attractive based on these criteria include
utilities, health care, building materials, midstream energy,
pipelines, airlines, retail, and cable. The question is, why
pick these companies and those specific bonds?
A summary from chapter 2 on the basic principles of bond
picking is by looking at these selection criteria:
1) Yield curve: bonds with the highest carry and roll down
are the “sweet spot” on the curve.
2) Basis: bonds trade with a negative “basis” or to CDS.
3) Financing: bonds can trade special on repo to lend the secu-
rity at a very favorable, low, or even negative financing rate.
4) A “spline curve”: the difference between the actual and
spline curve identifies “rich” or “cheap” bonds.
5) Butterfly spread: this indicates whether short and long
maturity bonds trade at a lower or higher yield histori-
cally relative to an intermediate maturity bond.
6) On the run: the spread between on-the-run and off-the-
run bonds measures liquidity premium.
7) Inventory: positions are either proprietary positions or
leftover positions from a recent new issue that may offer
attractive pricing versus the secondary market.
A Treasury and Treasury Inflation-Protected

Securities (Tips) Portfolio
The valuation methods for Treasury and Tips can be quite

sophisticated. For example, deriving Treasury bond valuation
from the “spline curve,” which is a theoretical yield curve by
bootstrapping zero coupon bonds over a timeframe of 30 years.

An easier, more straightforward approach is to analyze the
Treasury and Tips yield curve today and compare that with
their forward curve, which shows expectations of nominal and
real interest rates in the future. The difference between today’s
Treasury and Tips yield curve and the curve five years from
today is called “expected inflation.” In Figure 5.8, the Treasury
and Tips yield curve and expected inflation are shown. If the
forward curve of both Tips and Treasury were to be material-
ized, the returns on all maturities would be negative.
Inflation, however, is expected to remain below the Fed’s
2 percent target for the next decade. If that is correct, longer
maturity Treasury bonds may have some “value.” The reason
is that the expected return after adjusting for inflation is mod-
erately positive at around 2 percent to 3 percent (expected
inflation plus the real Tips yield five years forward). Some
other investors would take an opposing view and would
argue that, based on a benign outlook for inflation far into
future, short-term interest rates should stay low. If that is
2.5
1.5
Yield (%)
0.5
–0.5
–1
1yr 2yr 3yr 4yr 5yr 6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr 20yr 30yr
Treasury spot curve Treasury curve 5-years forward Tips spot curve
Tips curve 5-years forward Inflation expected 5-years from today
Figure 5.8 Treasury, Tips, and inflation.

Source: Treasury Direct, FRB. Data as of January 2015.
the case, the yield curve may stay upward sloping and that
makes intermediate (five- to ten-year maturity) Treasuries
and Tips more attractive for investors to buy and hold. One
“obvious” reason is that the carry return from intermediate
Treasuries is higher because the slope of the yield is the steep-
est around the five- to ten-year point. Based on the forward
curve projection on expected inflation, the expected return
in real terms (i.e., adjusted for inflation) on intermediate
Treasuries is lower. There is a trade-off to holding Treasury
bonds in terms of whether a higher return today or a higher
expected return in the future is more important. The portfo-
lio analysis presented here chooses the expected long-term
returns because of the future prospects of advanced demo-
graphics and excess savings, demand for longer maturity
Treasury bonds may remain relatively high.
Corporate Bond Portfolio
The second part of the bond portfolio consists of corporate

bonds. The corporate bond universe has about 7.5 trillion
USD debt outstanding, according to the Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA, www.sifma.org).
There are many bonds to choose from, and for the analysis,
the focus is on longer maturity corporate bonds from some
of the sectors such as Retail, Utilities, Railroads, Financials,
and Healthcare. These sectors are a “fair” representation of
the S&P 500 Index. By sector, a large company is chosen. In
utilities, there is American Electric Power (AEP) Company.
The company specializes in delivering electricity, and has
over five million customers in 11 states across the Midwest
and Southwest of the United States. The other bonds selected
are from Amazon (retail), Verizon (TMT), Union Pacific
(Railroads), and Amgen (Healthcare). A selection of financial
metrics of these companies are shown in Table 5.3 on page 181.
Table 5.3 Credit metrics for Utilities
American Union
(FY 2015) Electric Verizon Amazon Pacific Amgen JP Morgan
Free Cash flow ($, mln) 479 16,647 1,770 2,858 7,037 28,620
Liquidity ($, mln) 2,835 13,756 8,883 3,286 29,526 1,300
Net Debt ot EV 1.5x 2.2x 0.2x 0.3x 1.2x 1.1x
EBITDA/Interest 6x 9.7x 37.9x 19.9x 9.5x 9.5x
Long maturity Corporate Bond 6.625% 4.15% 4.90% 1/ 4.85% 6/ 5.5% 11/ 4.85% 2/
11/2037 3/2024 2044 2044 2041 2044
Rating Baa1/BBB Baa1/BBB+ Baa1/AA– A3/A Baa1/A A3/A
CDS basis/liquidity (bid/ask) –33bps/ –25bps/ –35bps/ –37bps/ –33bps/ –50bps/
3–6bps 3–6bps 3–7bps 3–7bps 3–6bps 3–5bps
Source: SEC, Company earnings statements as of Q4 2014. EBITDA = Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation.
AEP is leveraged, but is highly diversified in operations that

are expected to deliver 85 percent to consolidated earnings
and free cash flow. Their outstanding debt consists mostly
of long maturity corporate bonds. Amazon (retail), Verizon
(TMT), Union Pacific (Railroads), and Amgen (Healthcare) are
companies that have low leverage.
The Equity Portfolio
The other part of the securities selection are the stocks of

the companies, shown above in Table 5.3. Unlike the analy-
sis for bonds, stock picking has a different set metrics to
determine valuation:
1) Share price should be no more than two-thirds of its

intrinsic value.
2) Look at companies with PE ratios at the lowest 10 percent
of all equity securities in their peer group.
3) Stock price should be no more than tangible book value.
4) Debt-to-equity ratio is preferably below 100.
5) Current assets should be two times current liabilities.
6) Dividend yield should be at least two-thirds of the long-
term government bond yield.
7) Earnings growth should be at least 7 percent per annum
compounded over the last ten years.
Based on some of these metrics, Table 5.4 on page 183 sum-

marizes the equity valuation for each of the companies.
The PE and PB multiples (except for Amazon) are low, with
dividend yields clustered around 2.5 percent to 4 percent.
The Ladder
The bond- and stock-picking criteria that resulted in the

securities selection have a few additional points. The bonds
were picked for their liquidity profile. Corporate bonds
Table 5.4 Equity summary
American
(FY 2015) Electric Verizon Amazon Union Pacific Amgen JP Morgan
P/E 18 13 101 20 16 9
Price to Book 2 15 14 5 5 1
Price to Free cash flow 81 14 85 34.50 15.90 310.00
EV/Sales 2.9x 2.3x 1.85x 4.7x 5.6x
Dividend yield 3.20% 4.70% 0% 1.63% 2.60% 2.91%
Return on invested capital 6% 32% 3% 18.90% 9.30% 3.50%
Cost of equity 4.40% 5% 9% 9.20% 7.50% 2.60%
10-year annualized equity return 33% 30% 25% 34% –11% 2%
Current share price 62.8 45.7 354 117.21 152.7 54.3
Divided ex-date/div. amount (cts) 5/8/2015/50cts 4/8/2015/0.55cts 2/27/15/0.5cts 5/12/15/0.65 4/3/15/0.40
Source: SEC, Company earnings statements as of Q4 2014. Share price level as of January 2015. EV = enterprise value, P/E = Price to Earnings.
trade on electronic platforms, but those tend to be acces-

sible to institutions (Market Access, for example). The yield
curve in corporate bonds can be upward sloping, but it is
more appropriate to look at the “credit spread curve.” This
is the maturity term structure of OAS spreads. Normally, the
OAS spread curve is relatively flat because capital markets
demand risk premium for a company based upon long-term
rating and short-term liquidity profile. During recent years,
because short-term interest rates have been near zero, the
credit spread curves have become steeper, whereby longer
maturity corporate bonds offer greater risk premium. The
corporate bonds in this specific example are “on-the-run”
bonds. On-the-run bonds are either tapped by increasing
the issue size or are issued with a fair amount outstand-
ing (larger than $1 billion notional). The transaction cost
of switching the bonds to other bonds would be relatively
manageable. The relative valuation is relevant, but some-
times it can be the “value of the day” measure. Therefore,
the bonds were selected on the basis of companies’ long-
term growth prospects. The distribution of coupons and
maturities was also taken into account. Based on maturi-
ties starting in March 2024 and ending in June 2044, the
cash flow schedule is monthly payments of coupons that
are at an average of 5.1 percent. Stacked upon the coupons
are the quarterly dividend payments with an average of 50
cents per share (except for Amazon, which does not declare
dividend). It is noteworthy that, unlike in fixed income in
which a ladder is stable because of fixed coupons, stocks
ladder can only work when there is stability of dividend
payouts. The selected companies have a good history of sta-
ble dividend payouts and no bond defaults. To visualize the
ladder, think about a reinvested same amount every year
in the same bonds but each time at a different maturity.
3500
3000
2500
Ladder Income in $
2000
1500
1000
500
0
–500
–1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Years
Bond ladder annual income Stock ladder annual income
Figure 5.9 Bond and stock ladder.

Source: Author. The ladder measures an investment in six bonds and six stocks for
$1,000 each that get consistently reinvested over the life of the security.
For stocks, this could the same strategy, provided the divi-
dend yield remains roughly the same. Under these assump-
tions Figure 5.9 shows the bond and stock ladder, assuming
a 5.1 percent coupon, a 3.5 percent dividend yield, and a
25–30-year maturity.
All Portfolios Combined
Bringing the stock and bond selection together, the focus

moves to the portfolio’s total return. The portfolio consists
out of two Treasury bonds, six corporate bonds, and six
stocks of the same companies (for a total of 14 securities).
This is the active part of the portfolio, as compared to the
S&P 500 Index, which represents the “passive strategy.” The
combined strategy is then enhanced by looking at chang-
ing the constituents of the portfolio with competitor peer
companies that may be trading cheaper with their stocks or
bonds relative to the current selected group of companies
(Amazon, JP Morgan, Verizon, American Electric, Union
Pacific, Amgen). The portfolio has the bonds and stocks

at 50/50 percent and 60/40 percent weights. The period
of historical performance used is ten years (from 2005 to
2015). The return of the individual securities is measured as
the monthly percentage change in price, that is, the price
return that includes reinvestment of dividend or coupon
interest. The S&P 500 is also measured on its monthly price
return, including dividend reinvestment. In this example,
the cumulative return of the 50/50 weighted (50 percent
in individual stocks and 50 percent in bonds) portfolio is
79 percent with a standard deviation of 27 percent. The
60/40 weighted portfolio has a cumulative 89 percent
return with a standard deviation of 30 percent. The S&P
500 cumulative return since December 2005 was 66 per-
cent, with a standard deviation of 24 percent. The results
compared show that the individual portfolios have a high
correlation to the S&P Index. The information ratios are
also quite high. The information ratio is a ratio of portfolio
returns above the returns of the S&P Index to the volatility
of the difference between the portfolio and the S&P 500
Index returns. For the 50/50 weighted portfolio, the infor-
mation ratio is 0.7, while that for the 60/40 portfolio it is
0.9. The results are shown in Figure 5.10 on page 187.
Portfolio Rebalancing
The next step is to adjust the portfolio for different bonds

and stocks. The cumulative return in Figure 5.10 measures
a price return from December 2005 until January 2015. The
return assumes the portfolios are “static.” That is, the amount
invested remains in the same bonds and stocks, and does
not change. In reality, stock and bond picking is actively
managed. The portfolio at some point would see changes
because of new opportunities. The timing of the change
100
80 Portfolio 50/50 weight
Cumulative Return (%)
Portfolio 60/40 weight

60
SPX Index
40
20
0
–20
–40
–60
12/1/2005 10/1/2007 8/1/2009 6/1/2011 4/1/2013 1/31/2015
Figure 5.10 Cumulative return of portfolios.

Source: FRB. Cumulative = monthly cumulative price return 12/31/2005–1/31/2015.
in portfolio constituents is important. If an investor takes

a “relative value” approach, the timing is ad hoc. Relative
value between securities generally happens when sudden
market changes or dislocations appear. Relative value can
also appear because of larger trends in the market place, in
which certain sectors or segments see a significant change
in relative performance. In the frameworks discussed previ-
ously, the assumption is to use methods of picking bonds
and stocks that can be applied when relative opportunities
are present. The timing should in general be driven by mac-
roeconomic developments. That is, an investor should look
less at the intraday relative value, and instead spot trends
that show that a larger relative value has opened up over
the previous three months to a year. Relative value is also
about comparison. An investor can compare the six bonds
and stocks listed to peer companies and look at spreads,
multiples, ratios, and yield differences.
Relative Value and Switches
In this example, the first step is to look within the sectors for
a trend in relative value. In bonds, the most straightforward
approach to switch positions is to look at a historical spread

difference. If the maturity of the bonds (the switch candi-
dates) is relatively close but there is a yield/coupon difference,
there may be a switch opportunity. This switch opportunity
can also be a cross-over relative value like switching the
stock for a bond. The relationship between the bond price
and the stock price difference is a relevant measure in that
regard. If the bonds of a peer company appear to have value,
the capital structure analysis may provide give an indication
of whether the stock has value. The carry return comparison
can also be included by comparing the sum of the bond and
stock carry versus other companies. The investor should
additionally look at the marketplace newly issued bonds.
Corporations issue bonds every day, and a new issue may
come at a discount to an existing issue. There is also a beta
between bonds and stocks. The stock beta is the tendency of
a security’s returns to respond to swings in the stock market.
The bond beta represents how the bond’s returns relate to
the returns of the financial market in general. The beta anal-
ysis applied to both the bond and stock versus the S&P 500
Index may also provide a measure of return relative value.
The portfolio rebalance maintains the same weights and
bond/equity exposure. The changes in some of the credit
names will be based on a peer to peer basis, to remain the
same weights in a particular sector. The Tips and Treasury
bonds are switched to seven-year maturity to add a carry
return from the yield curve slope. The macro reason is that,
although some tightening by the Fed can expected in the
future, the yield curve may stay upward sloping. The two
reasons for a positively sloped yield curve are that short-
term interest rates stay well below pre-2008 crisis levels and
that inflation may gradually rise to 2 percent in the next
few years. Together, they should be somewhat reflected in
long maturity bonds’ term premium as compensation for

moderately higher short-term interest rates and inflation.
The term premium at the margin should provide investors
a carry and roll down return.
In the stocks and bonds shown in Tables 5.4 and in
Table 5.5 on page 190, there are some switch ideas to
explore. A common practice to identify relative value is to
switch bonds and stocks that trade within the same sec-
tor. Some companies, however, have a cross-over in terms
of activities. Such is the case, for example, with Apple and
Amazon. Amazon services customers through low prices,
prompt delivery, and an ever-expanding array of serv-
ices and products that can be ordered online. What sets
Amazon apart from competitors is that it has a large free
cash flow and access to abundant cash from capital mar-
kets. Apple is flushed with cash and had reportedly close
to $177 billion of cash as of Q4 2014. Their activities on a
stand-alone basis are not the same, but through Amazon,
Apple’s prime products are sold, and Amazon and both
compete in the television business. Another “tweak” to
the portfolio is to switch Verizon into AT&T. Verizon may
be a longer term play on overall credit improvement as
the company had a plan to sell off assets to pay off its
long-term debt. AT&T, in contrast, has a large number
of network assets as a result of secular demand for wire-
less communications. Lastly, another switch may be from
Amgen into Johnson & Johnson. Amgen has a lower
credit quality (BBB+ rated) than Johnson & Johnson
(AA-). Amgen has a strong operating profile and diversi-
fied product portfolio, whereas Johnson & Johnson has
a defensive, noncyclical business and limited leverage.
Table 5.5 shows the six companies, compared in terms
of credit metrics. From a fundamental and credit point
Table 5.5 Credit comparison
(FY 2015) AT&T Verizon Amazon Apple Amgen Johnson & Johnson
P/E 14 13 101 19 16 18
Free Cash flow ($, mln) 1,319 16,647 1,770 30,505 7,037 14,295
Liquidity ($, mln) 13,603 13,756 8,883 177,955 29,526 35,495
Net Debt ot EV 3x 2.2x 0.2x 0.1x 1.2x –0.6x
EBITDA/Interest 11.3x 9.7x 37.9x 137.2x 9.5x 50.6x
Rating A3/A– Baa1/BBB+ Baa1/AA– Aa1/AA+ Baa1/A A3/A
Beta (bond\stock) 0.95\0.65 0.57\0.75 1.13\0.99 1.07\0.77 0.59\1.01 1.23\0.878
Carry (bps) (bond\stock) 5.9/10.5 8.8\4.4 17\0 18\0 12\0 21\7.5
OAS Spread (bps) (bond) 195 225 205 116 189 115
Source: SEC data, FY 2015.

of view, the switches are more or less “up in quality” in

terms of credit rating, free cash flow, and leverage profile
(net debt to enterprise value for example).
Choice of Stocks and Bonds
The second decision concerns whether to switch the stock

or switch the bonds between these companies. The capital
structure model may help answer that, for example, in the
case of Apple (as discussed in chapter 3), the low leverage
makes its stock “overvalued” relative to what is the opti-
mal capital structure. That means the Apple bonds may be
somewhat “undervalued,” as compared to Amazon, where
the capital structure is somewhat better balanced and the
bonds may look to have less value. In a securities picking
framework, there has to be an additional “checklist,” which
consists of criteria to say there is relative value to justify a
switch of securities in a portfolio. In summary, the follow-
ing is a list of criteria an investor should look at when iden-
tifying suitable candidates for changing the portfolio:
1) The yield, price, or spread difference gained from the

securities switch has to be reasonable to generate a
higher excess return.
2) The yield, price, or spread difference should show a histori-
cal divergence from a long-term average. In addition, the
switch should provide positive carry.
3) The transaction costs of the switch should be relatively
low, and the liquidity profile of the portfolio should not be
materially affected.
4) The switch should be a credit or liquidity quality improve-
ment that offers appropriate diversification.
5) The change of individual securities should not alter the
duration, convexity and volatility risk of the portfolio
unless there is a specific purpose to do so.
6) Switching securities has to take into account the correla-

tion with the broader market. That is, the newly selected
securities should not have more correlation with the
market index than previous securities.
An investor can create charts to compare securities.

Another way is to establish a matrix that answers the six
points on the checklist shown in Table 5.6 on page 193,
in which at the lower end beta, carry, and OAS spread are
included in the equity and debt metrics.
In this comparison, the example switch would be AT&T
stock for Verizon stock based on lower beta, lower price to
book, and modestly better equity valuation. The Verizon
bond, however, would remain in the portfolio. For Apple,
the stock relative to Amazon may look more appealing on
a beta and a PE multiple basis considering the larger dif-
ference in OAS spread (partly because of rating) between
the respective bonds. Last, Amgen relative to Johnson &
Johnson seems fair in terms of stock multiples, but JNJ has
significant amount of cash flow that covers the debt (includ-
ing a much better bond rating). The switch in this case is
between Amgen and JNJ bonds. When an investor makes
these changes to the portfolio, the portfolio weights are
kept the same. Figure 5.11 on page 194 shows the cumula-
tive performance of a 50/50 weighted and a 60/40 weighted
portfolio versus the S&P 500 Index. Although the cumula-
tive returns on both portfolios are lower than the portfolios
shown previously before the switches were made, the infor-
mation ratios improved to 0.95. That likely has to do with
the improved quality of credit that results in a lower port-
folio standard deviation (18 percent compared to 27 per-
cent before the rebalance). The bond and equity duration
remains about the same (25 years), but the portfolio carry
improves from 17bps/unit of risk to about 25bps/ unit of
Table 5.6 Relative value metrics
Johnson &
(FY 2015) AT&T Verizon Amazon Apple Amgen Johnson
P/E 14 13 101 19 16 18
Free Cash flow ($, mln) 1,319 16,647 1,770 30,505 7,037 14,295
Liquidity ($, mln) 13,603 13,756 8,883 177,955 29,526 35,495
Net Debt ot EV 3x 2.2x 0.2x 0.1x 1.2x –0.6x
EBITDA/Interest 11.3x 9.7x 37.9x 137.2x 9.5x 50.6x
Rating A3/A– Baa1/BBB+ Baa1/AA– Aa1/AA+ Baa1/A A3/A
Beta (bond\stock) 0.95\0.65 0.57\0.75 1.13\0.99 1.07\0.77 0.59\1.01 1.23\0.878
Carry (bps) (bond\stock) 5.9/10.5 8.8\4.4 17\0 18\0 12\0 21\7.5
OAS Spread (bps) (bond) 195 225 205 116 189 115
Spread vol.\stock vol. (bps\%) 20\25% 22\27% 19\24% 27\35% 18\22% 19\20%
Transaction cost (bps) 3bps\2cts 4bps\4cts 3bps\2cts 2.5bps\3cts 5bps\4cts 3bps\3cts
Source: SEC, January 2015 valuation for beta/carry and OAS. OAS spread of the 30-year bond of the specific company. Beta is calculated on
linear regression with ten-year history. Carry = bond carry/unit of bond duration & equity carry/unit of equity duration. Transaction costs
for stocks and bonds are derived from TRACE. Volatility is OAS spread volatility annualized in bps, and stock option realized volatility 3mths
annualized.
80
Portfolio 50/50 weight (new)
60
Cumulative Return (%)
Portfolio 60/40 weight (new)

40 SPX Index
20
–20
–40
–60
12/1/2005 10/1/2007 8/1/2009 6/1/2011 4/1/2013 1/31/2015
Figure 5.11 Cumulative return of the rebalanced portfolios.

Source: FRB. Cumulative = monthly cumulative price return 12/31/2005–1/31/2015.
Amazon stock switched for Apple stock, Verizon stock switched for AT&T, and Amgen
bond switched for JNJ.
risk. The total return of both portfolios tracks closer the

S&P 500 Index total return. The “up in quality” has made
the active portfolio more defensive and it resembles more
closely the index. At times of higher volatility, that may be
desired.
Conclusion: When and When Not to Pick
Whether an investor is active or passive, stock and bond

picking plays a material role in portfolio construction and
asset allocation. The slightest tweaks to a portfolio can make
a significant difference, as the examples in Figures 5.10
and 5.11 have demonstrated. A passive investor may say
that stock/bond picking does not apply to her portfolio.
However, a passive portfolio means selecting an index.
When a portfolio is invested in an index, it is also invested
the constituents of that index. Every year (or in many cases
every month), the index rebalances for new securities that
replace for older ones that have matured or dropped out of
the index because of a downgrade or bankruptcy. A passive
investor should therefore be as much concerned with secu-

rities selection as an active investor. Most of all, as the
previous examples have shown, combining an active and
passive strategy may provide maximum diversification and
stable return per a lower unit of risk. In today’s large uni-
verse of securities and funds, there is not a specific fund or
strategy that is the “ultimate stock/bond picker.” The abil-
ity to successfully select securities is tied to a fund manager
or a team of professionals who have demonstrated consist-
ent performance. But even then, as discussed in chapter
one, an investor must continuously conduct due diligence
as things can turn even for the best investors. Investors
can be successful pickers themselves if they follow a dis-
ciplined approach. In that regard, every fund, strategy, or
individual portfolio that an investor chooses is essentially
an assembly of securities picks, regardless of whether those
strategies or funds are passive or active. The methodologies
of bond and stock picking that are discussed in this book
can be also be applied to mutual funds, ETFs, or closed-end
funds. Investors may choose to combine individual securi-
ties and invest a portion in mutual or closed-end funds. The
choice of a passive or active approach should then also be
determined by expense ratios. On average, passive invest-
ment strategies have an expense ratio of only 0.12 percent,
while active strategies are around 0.25 percent, according
to Morningstar Research. An investor should look at the
expense ratio closely as well as the liquidity profile of the
funds.
Exchange trade funds (ETFs) are in principle mutual
funds, but they have a different structure. ETFs are traded
through the day like individual stocks or bonds. Mutual
fund, in contrast, can be purchased only once a day. The
investor can redeem her mutual fund shares at the Net
Asset Value, which is the market value of the fund that gets
struck daily. ETFs made their introduction in the 1990s,
and today there 1,300 ETFs with over $ 1.9 trillion in assets,
according to Deutsche Bank research. The majority of ETFs
are index ETFs, with just a small percentage consisting out
actively managed. ETFs are a good example of portfolios
that greatly rely on individual picks because the reference
portfolio often attempts to mimic an index with an active
strategy. In ETFs, an investor can easily combine a stock
index with a bond index, unlike in a mutual fund, which
is benchmarked to an index. There are no futures contracts
on a bond index available, unlike in stocks, where index
futures are common. An index future is somewhat com-
parable to an index ETF as such futures contracts give the
investor access to the broader market. Thus ETFs have been
created to provide investors access to the broad universe of
bond indices, such as the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index.
By selecting ETFs on stock and bond indices and weighting
them accordingly, an investor can mimic a cross-over port-
folio at low transaction cost and high liquidity. An investor
can also manage an international strategy by purchasing
ETFs where the reference portfolio is invested in foreign
stocks or bonds. An advantage is that the investor does not
have to be concerned with managing currency risk them-
selves because foreign ETFs can be settled in domestic cur-
rency. It should be noted that in general ETFs do not come
without risk, and their volatility can be high.
There is another set of funds, and those are closed-end
funds (CEF). A closed-end fund issues a fixed number of
shares and reinvests the proceeds in the underlying assets.
The shares of closed-end funds are also traded on the stock
exchange, but unlike mutual funds, they are not redeem-
able by stockholders at the NAV. Closed-end funds are
known for their share prices trading at significant discounts

or premiums to the NAV. A strategy is to buy closed-end
funds with the deepest discount to NAV and sell them with
the largest premium under the assumption that discounts
and premiums mean revert toward the NAV. A CEF is an
example of a “cross-over” strategy. A CEF’s shares trade like
an individual stock on an exchange, while the reference
portfolio of the fund can be solely invested in bonds. In the
Income, Municipal, US Treasury, and Total Return sectors,
there are fixed-income CEFs where shares trade at times at
a deep discount to the net asset value. A CEF is concerned
with paying regular dividend. The dividend is derived from
income sources like coupon interest, option premiums,
and carry earned from the yield curve, currency, or credit
spread. An investor can select a fixed-income CEF and man-
age a cross-over strategy by actively trading the shares of
the fund while “passively” managing the underlying bond
portfolio, earning regular dividend. A caveat is that the
liquidity of CEFs is less than that of ETFs, and volatility can
be high during certain times of market stress.
A Few Final Words From the Author
To be a consistent stock or bond picker requires discipline

for detail and consistency in framework. If the valuation
framework frequently changes, the likelihood of success
in discovering value may be lower. Although stock/bond
picking is not systematic, there are models that use a large
number of variables to identify the right picks. The author
of this book hopes the reader can use some of frameworks
and variables outlined here. Whether investors choose a
quantitative or qualitative approach, the choice of an indi-
vidual security is always a unique choice because that is
when the decision is made to pick or not to pick. There will
always be stock pickers who just look at stocks, and there

will always be bond pickers who only look at bonds. The
author of this book hopes the ideas presented may bridge
some of the gap between stock and bond pickers. The dou-
ble digit returns stocks have historically experienced is also
possible to achieve in bonds by applying some of the stock-
picking methods and maintaining prudent risk manage-
ment on the higher volatility an investor would have to
accept. The stable, more conservative returns that are typi-
cal for bonds can be replicated in stocks by using ideas such
as carry in the final stock analysis. In the end, stocks and
bonds live together in today’s fast moving financial market
that is highly correlated. There is therefore more need to
learn from stock and bond picking to navigate successfully
a volatile global marketplace.
Bibliography
Chapter 1
Adrian, Tobias, and Michael Fleming. “The Recent Bond Market Selloff
in Historical Perspective” Liberty Street Economics, August 2013.
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2013/08/the-recent
-bond-market-selloff-in-historical-perspective.html#.VOFnmOl0yUk.
Bernanke, Ben. “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here.”
Remarks before the National Economists Club, Washington, DC,
November 21, 2002. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches
/2002/20021121/default.htm
Bernanke, Ben. “Long-Term Interest Rates.” At the Annual Monetary
/Macroeconomics Conference: The Past and Future of Monetary Policy,
sponsored by Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, San Francisco,
California. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernan
ke20130301a.htm
Bernanke, Ben. “Reflections on the Yield Curve and Monetary Policy.”
Remarks before the Economic Club of New York, New York, New York,
March 20, 2006, http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech
/bernanke20060320a.htm.
Fabozzi, Frank. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Gordon, Myron J. “Dividends, Earnings and Stock Prices.” Review of
Economics and Statistics 41, no. 2 (1959): 99–105.
Graham, Benjamin. Securities Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1934.
Greenspan, Alan. The Federal Reserve’s Semiannual Monetary Policy Report.
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, US
Senate, February 26, 1997. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs
/hh/1997/february/testimony.htm.
Kim, Don H., and Jonathan H Wright. “An Arbitrage-Free Three-Factor
Term Structure Model and the Recent Behavior of Long-Term Yields
and Distant-Horizon Forward Rates.” Federal Reserve Board, 2005.
Krugman, Paul. “Dow 36,000: How Silly Is It? ” MIT website commen-
tary, 2006. MIT, http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/dow36K.html.
Laughlin, Laura Silva. “Luck vs. Skill: What Bill Gross and Bill Miller
Have in Common,” Fortune Magazine, March 18, 2014. http://fortune
.com/2014/03/18/luck-vs-skill-what-bill-gross-and-bill-miller-have-in
-common/.
Modigliani, F., and M. Miller. “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance
and the Theory of Investment.” American Economic Review 48, no. 3
(1958): 261–297.
Ross, Stephen, Randolph Westerfield, and Jeffrey Jaffe. Corporate Finance.
7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
199
200 Bibliography
Shiller, Robert. Irrational Exuberance. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 2000.
Tobin, James. “A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory,”
Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 1, no. 1 (1969): 15–29.
Chapter 2
Burghardt, Galen. The Treasury Bond Basis: An In-Depth Analysis for
Hedgers, Speculators and Arbitraguers. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2005.
Galitz, Lawrence. The Handbook of Financial Engineering. 3rd ed. London:
FT Press, 2013.
Illmanen, Antti. Expected Returns.London; Wiley, 2011.
Macauley, Frederick. The Movements of Interest Rates. Bond Yields and Stock
Prices in the United States since 1856. New York: National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1938.
Plona, Christopher. The European Bond Basis: An In-Depth Analysis for
Hedgers, Speculators, & Arbitrageurs. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
Chapter 3
Damodaran, Aswath. The Dark Side of Valuation. 2nd ed. New York: FT
Press, 2009.
Modigliani, F., and M. Miller. “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance
and the Theory of Investment.” American Economic Review 48, no. 3
(1958): 261–297.
Chapter 4
Black, Fisher. “Noise.” Journal of Finance, 41 (1986): 529–543.
Hull, John. Options, Futures and Other Derivatives. 9th ed. New York:
Prentice Hall, 2014.
Passareilli, Dan. Trading Options Greeks: How Time, Volatility, and Other
Pricing Factors Drive Profits. 2nd ed. New York: Bloomberg Press, 2012.
Chapter 5
Graham, Benjamin. The Intelligent Investor: The Definitive Book on Value
Investing. Rev. ed. New York: HarperBusiness, 2006.
Patro, Dilip, Louis R. Piccotti, and Yangru Wu. “Exploiting Closed-End
Fund Discounts: The Market May Be Much More Inefficient Than You
Thought.” Social Science Research Network, July 18, 2014. http://papers
.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2468061.
Index
Adrian, Tobias, 36 capital asset pricing model (CAPM),

Alibaba, 112–15 106, 109, 112
Amazon, 78–81, 84, 112–13, 180–5, capital structure, 102–11
189–94 carry, 4, 45–59, 65, 68, 70–4, 77,
American Electric Power (AEP) 150–1, 153, 168–71
Company, 180, 182 carry portfolios, 173–5
Amgen, 180–3, 186, 189–90, 192–4 cash-and-carry arbitrage, 55–7
Apple, 50, 107–8, 110–12, 189, 191–4 CDX Index, 107, 126, 146–9
arbitrage Chevron, 79
bond index, 63 Chicago Board of Options Exchange
bond switching and, 86–7, 89 (CBOE), 141
boundaries, 64 Chicago Board of Trade, 120, 143–4
cash-and-carry, 55–6, 59 Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 64,
convertible bonds and, 7, 39, 116 143, 153
cost-of-carry, 56 Cisco, 114
fixed-income investing and, 5, 64 closed-end funds (CEF), 196–7
relative-value, 54–5, 90–1 Coca Cola, 87–9, 173–4
volatility and, 136–7 collateralized loan obligations (CLOs),
asset allocation 127–9
active, 4–5 compounded annual growth rate
passive, 5 (CAGR), 37
at-the-money (ATM) option, 136 ConocoPhillips, 79
consumer price index (CPI), 27–8
Bank of America, 87, 90–1 contingent convertible capital notes
Bank of International Settlements (CoCos), 39–40, 120–7
(BIS), 82–3 convertible bonds, 7, 38–9, 106,
Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, 41, 115–20, 127
161, 196 convexity, 5, 61, 137, 191
Barclays Capital Securities Index, 121 coupons
Barclays Convertible Securities arbitrage and, 89–91
ETF, 119–20 carry and, 45–7, 73
Bernanke, Ben, 4, 11–13, 35–6 convertible bonds and, 39–40,
Bieber, Justin, 116 115–16, 119
Black, Fischer, 135 coupon switch, 86, 89
Black-Scholes model, 136, 138, 153 dividends and, 19, 84
bonds ELNs and, 129
bond-picking framework, 58–64 fixed, 10, 17, 169–70
cross-over investing and, 27–32 floating, 14
debt and, 59, 63 FX swaps and, 154–5, 157
laddering and, 62 interest rate and, 49, 86
long maturity, 34, 54, 61, 86, laddering and, 52, 76–7
177–8, 182, 189 loans and, 127
short maturity, 11, 34, 77, options and, 144, 154–5, 157
85–6, 170 portfolio construction and, 184–6,
switches and pairs trading, 85–91 188
butterfly spread, 61, 178 put-cal parity and, 11
see also spreads relative value and, 55, 60–2
201
202 Index
coupons—Continued duration
returns and, 34 bonds and, 5, 9, 110, 113–14, 126,
stacking, 62 177
zero-coupon bonds, 11, 61, equity, 6–7, 19, 169–72, 175
129, 179 fixed-income investing and, 50,
credit default swaps (CDS), 59–60, 53–4, 61, 63, 65, 68, 71–7, 84,
71, 87–8, 110, 147, 178 86, 90
credit risk premium, 48–9, 59–60, 150 interest rates and, 19, 21
cross-over investing options, 143–5, 150–1, 157
bond returns, 27–32 portfolio construction and, 177, 191–3
debt and equity, 38–40 stocks and, 6, 9
dividend discount model, 13–17 synthetic duration, 143
effective pickers, 40–2 Dynegy, 116–20
equity returns, 24–7
equity risk premium, 36–8 Equity Linked Foreign Exchange
Fed model of valuation, 10–13 Option (ELF-X), 153
interest-rate sensitivity, 17–24 equity risk premium, 36–8, 100, 115
overview, 3–10 equity strategy
Tobin’s Q ratio, 32–8 Alibaba and, 112–15
currency options, 151–7 bank loans and, 127
capital structure, 102–6
Damodaran, Aswath, 105, 109, 112 CLOs and, 127–8
Dark Side of Valuation, The CoCos and subordinated debt, 120–7
(Damodaran), 105 convertible bonds, 115–16
debt Dynegy and, 117–20
bonds and, 59, 63 ELNs and, 129
capital structure and, 102–11 ETFs and, 128–9
CDS spread and, 88 going green and, 129–32
CoCos and, 120–7 growth and value, 101–2
corporate, 7, 17, 46, 48–50, 65–6, 180 overview, 95–101
default and, 59, 146 putting theory into practice, 106–11
dividends and, 168–71 Twitter and, 116–17
Dynegy and, 118 equity-linked notes (ELNs), 129
equity and, 7, 38–40, 67–8, ExxonMobil, 78
99–102, 182
equity-like, 127–9 “Fed model” of valuation, 10–13
Europe and, 140 Financial Stability Board (FSB), 124
FX and, 84–5, 154 fixed-income investing
GDP and, 30, 32 bond switches and pairs trading,
green investing and, 129–31 85–91
financing and, 14 bond-picking framework, 58–64
passive index funds and, 175 carry framework, 45–54
PE ratio and, 99 duration and, 50, 53–4, 61, 63, 65,
subordinated, 7, 120–7, 168 68, 71–7, 84, 86, 90
Twitter and, 116 multicurrency, 77–85
US and, 140, 149 overview, 45, 64–6
value and, 114–15 relative-value framework, 54–7
discounted cash flow (DCF) model, 98 utilities, 66–77
dividend discount model (DDM), Fleming, Michael, 36
15–16, 98 floating-rate note (FRN), 19, 113
Dow Jones, 78–81, 84 Ford, 78–81, 84, 87
Duke Energy, 68–9, 71–2, 75–6, 117, foreign exchange (FX), 81–5, 153–5
119, 173–4 FXAllm, 152
Index 203
G7, 129 WACC and, 100

G20, 129 yield curve and, 49, 61
General Electric (GE), 78–9, 81, International Monetary Fund
84–5, 172–4 (IMF), 129
General Motors (GM), 78, 87 intrinsic value, 4, 96–100, 109, 182
going green, 129–31 Investment Grade Credit Default Swap
Gordon, Myron, 16 Index (IG CDX Index), 107, 146–7
Graham, Benjamin, 4 Irrational Exuberance (Shiller), 25
Greenspan, Alan, 10–13, 35
Gross, Bill, 41 Johnson & Johnson, 189–93
gross merchandise volume JP Morgan, 87, 90–1, 128, 181, 183,
(GMV), 112–13 185
junk status, 48
Hawkins, Humphrey, 10
Kim, Don, 34–5
Ibbotson, Robert, 37, 100–1, 104 see also Kim-Wright model
IBM, 78–81, 107–11, 155, 172 Kim-Wright model, 35
implied exchange rate, 80–1 Krugman, Paul, 14, 29
inflation
bonds and, 27, 61, 86 laddering
economy and, 8–9, 12 bonds and, 62
EPS and, 99 carry framework and, 51–3
equilibrium policy rate and, 30 fixed-income investing and, 51–3,
interest rates and, 12–13, 23 62, 65, 68, 73
investments and, 41 portfolio construcion and, 182–5
IPOs and, 52 stocks and, 65, 68, 73, 76–7
long-term, 35–7 utility stocks and, 68, 73, 76–7
portfolio construction and, 161–2, Legg Mason Value Trust Fund, 40
177, 188–9 leveraged buyouts (LBO), 166
real policy rate and, 28–31 liquidity
Tips portfolio and, 178–80 arbitrage and, 90
yield curve and, 61 bonds and, 61–4
interest rates CDS and, 59
bonds and, 27, 60, 71–2, 86, 96 currency and, 47
carry and, 46–7, 56 economy and, 5, 7, 9–10
coupon stack and, 62 FX swaps and, 47, 82
debt and, 105, 127 laddering and, 55
economy and, 8–9, 11–14, 16 options and, 135, 152
forecasting, 31, 33–4 portfolio construction and, 161,
FX rate swap and, 81, 84 164–5, 177–8, 182, 184, 191,
inflation and, 12–13, 23 195–7
laddering and, 52 premium and, 34
long-term, 36 risk and, 46, 51
mispricing and, 64 stocks and, 51–2
options and, 144–5, 147–50, 153–4 London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR)
PE ratio and, 37–8 Index, 19, 59, 64, 83
policy rate and, 30
portfolio construction and, 162, 174, Macauley, Frederick, 53
179, 184, 188–9 Macauley duration, 53
roll down return and, 50 Master Limited Partnerships
sensitivity, 17–24 (MLPs), 168
short-term, 27, 29, 34–5, 53–4 McDonald’s, 78–81, 84
term premium, 34 Miller, Bill, 40–1
204 Index
Miller, Merton, 14, 106 equity risk premium, 36–8, 100, 115
mispricing, 54, 64 liquidity, 178
Modigliani, Franco, 14, 106 option premiums, 60, 64, 144–5,
mortgage-backed securities (MBS), 62 147, 152–3, 156–7, 175
multicurrency investing, 77–85 put premium, 11, 60
risk premiums, 5, 7, 14–15, 27, 105,
NASDAQ, 78, 153 107, 110, 184
NAV, 196–7 term premium, 27, 31, 34–6
noise, 99, 135, 138, 144 time value premium, 137
see also selling noise price-to-earnings (PE) ratio, 6, 11–12,
5, 23–4, 26
option-adjusted spread (OAS), 48, 60, principal component analysis (PCA),
63, 87, 114, 118–19, 184, 192 61
options put premium, 11, 60
currency options, 151–7
overview, 135–43 Q ratio, 32–8
premiums, 60, 64, 144–5, 147, quantitative easing (QE) program,
152–3, 156–7, 175 12–13
roll strategies, 142–3
structural theta, 143–51 real-estate investment trusts (REITs),
taxes and, 143 21–2, 168, 171
volatility and, 135–40 relative-value arbitrage, 90
see also arbitrage
“passive” equity, 175–6 relative-value framework of investing,
passive investment, 5, 176–7, 194–5 54–7
Pepsi, 87–9 repo rate, 46
Perry, Katy, 116 residual value, 35, 97
pickers, 40–2 Richards, Carl, 42
portfolio construction risk premiums, 5, 7, 14–15, 27, 105,
carry portfolios, 173–5 107, 110, 184
choice of stocks and bonds, 191–4 risk-weighted assets (RWAs), 124
combining, 185–6 roll down, 49–51, 58–9, 150, 175, 178,
corporate bond portfolio, 180–2 189
dividend, coupon, and carry, 168–72 see also yield curve
equities, 182
ladder, 182–5 S&P 500
long/short and other strategies, bank loan index and, 128
163–5 buy-backs and, 17
mix of stocks and bonds, 161–3 dividend yields, 11
“passive” equity, active bonds, 175–6 earnings yield and, 10, 37
picking right securities, 176–7 earnings/share vs. nominal GDP,
portfolio construction approach, 26–7
177–8 ETF and, 119
rebalancing, 186–7 Eurostaxx Index vs., 126
relative value and switches, 187–91 Fed model and, 10
risks and variance, 165–8 IG CDX Index and, 106–7, 146
Treasury and Tips, 178–80 individual average performance, 20
Power Shares Senior Loan Portfolio, 128 interest rate and, 17–19
premiums intrinsic valuation model and, 98
carry premium, 46 LBOs and, 166
credit risk premium, 48–9, 59–60, multicurrency and, 78
150 option strategies and, 138–9, 141–2,
currency, 84–5 146–51
Index 205
passive managers and, 5 volatility

pickers and, 41 arbitrage and, 136–7
portfolio construction and, 161–3, bonds/stocks and, 7, 48–9, 115, 129
166, 174–5, 180, 185–6, 188, convertible bonds and, 117–20
192, 194 currencies and, 47
sector performance relative to, equity returns and, 24–6
22–3, 66–7, 74 Fed policy and, 10, 13
SPDR Convertible Bond ETF vs., green investing and, 130–1
120–1 liquidity and, 34
trailing index put and, 140 options and, 135–40, 142–4, 147,
utility stocks and, 69, 71, 73–4 151, 155
volatility and, 138–9 PE ratio and, 37
secular stagnation, 29 portfolios and, 161, 163–6, 168–9,
Securities Industry and Financial 171, 174–7, 186, 191, 196–7
Markets Association (SIFMA), 180 premium and, 34–6
Security Analysis (Graham), 4 S&P and, 147–8
selling noise, 63–5 selling noise and, 63–5
see also noise subordinated debt and, 121
Shiller, Robert, 25–6, 37 tracking error and, 63
single payment options trading
(SPOT), 151–2 weighted average cost of capital
Southern Company, 71–3, 75, 173, (WACC), 100, 103, 106, 108–10
189–90, 192–4 World Bank, 129
spline curve, 60–1, 178 World Economic Forum, 129
spreads, 5, 19, 48, 59–64, 86–8, 90, Wright, Jonathan, 34–5
106, 113–14, 117, 119, 126, 137, see also Kim-Wright model
146–8, 152, 155, 178, 184,
187–8, 191–2, 197 yield curve
see also butterfly spread; option- bonds and, 5–7, 48, 58–61, 65, 178,
adjusted spread 184
subordinated debt, 7, 120–7, 168 carry and, 51, 174
CEFs and, 197
term premium, 27, 31, 34–6 defined, 49
time value premium, 137 dividend and, 51
Tobin, James, 32–4 fixed-income investing and, 49, 86
see also Q ratio inflation and, 34
total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC), interest rates and, 54
124 portfolios and, 174–5
Treasury and Tips, 178–80 premium and, 34–5
Twitter, 87, 116–17 repo financing and, 60
roll down and, 49–50
Union Pacific, 180–3, 185 shape of, 54
stocks and, 65, 71–2
Verizon, 50, 173–4, 180–3, 185 Treasury and Tips, 178–80, 188
VIX Index, 148 see also roll down

Ben Emons (Auth.) - Mastering Stocks and Bonds - Understanding How Asset Cross-Over Strategies Will Improve Your Portfolio's Performance-Palgrave Macmillan US (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ben Emons (Auth.) - Mastering Stocks and Bonds - Understanding How Asset Cross-Over Strategies Will Improve Your Portfolio's Performance-Palgrave Macmillan US (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ben Emons (Auth.) - Mastering Stocks and Bonds - Understanding How Asset Cross-Over Strategies Will Improve Your Portfolio's Performance-Palgrave Macmillan US (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

Who is the author of the book?

Who is the author of the book?

Mastering Stocks and

List of Figures and Tables vii

2 Fixed-Income Strategies for the Equity Investor 43

3 Equity Strategy for the Bond Investor 93

5 The Portfolio Construction 159

1.1 Total stock and bond fund ﬂows 9

4.3 Bond-Stock portfolio in options 151

1.1 Returns of different sectors versus changes

3.3 IBM capital structure 108

and bonds to stage a sustainable economic recovery, the cor-

in an investment strategy to spot trends in the economy

at earnings of a company and compares the stock within

equity duration can be as long as 30 years, but may fluctu-

and commodities), and measured by a bid-and-ask price

Equity Fund Flows, $ bn

hence supportive for stock prices. Bond prices go down

Valuation: The Fed Model

From a top-down macro view, the “Fed model” is commonly

calculating the Greenspan put as the difference between the

real interest rate taken from Treasury Inflation Protected

Figure 1.2 The Greenspan put and the Bernanke call.

central bank put and call is theoretical, but is significant

Dividend Discount Model

There are different ideas about how to value equities. Several

of dividend payments. Nobel Laureate economist Paul

become a further pressing issue in asset allocation strategies

● Five-year historic median growth rate per year is 8 percent.

Financial theory developed a model that became famous

originated by Myron Gordon in 1959. This model values

Present Value of Cumulative Dividend Payments Received

# Years to Recover % of Purchase Price

Figure 1.3 Dividend discount model.

Stock prices are in general not insulated from changes in

Exploring past Phase IV and Phase I patterns provides

S&P 500 Individual Index average performance

Consumer Financials Energy Industrials Materials Utilities Technology

Phase I: Fed hiked slowly 8% –2% 30% 18% 9% –10% 12%

Source: FRBNY. Annual data from 1990–2014.

of dividend policy from major blue chip companies. In

Table 1.2 Sector performance relative to the S&P 500 Index

Rising Rates Falling Rates

Pharmaceuticals –60% 50%

reliance on current income and an accompanying elevated

consistent relative performance when their stock prices are

Median S&P PE Real Long Term Treasury Yield Average

the long-term relationship between real interest rates and

The universe of financial securities (stocks, bonds, curren-

0 Cash Tsy Bonds Corp Bonds HighYield

Best Decade average

It is important to distinguish, however, whether returns

in removing volatility from earnings. Shiller uses a trailing

1. stock index dividend yield

To calculate equity total returns, a fundamental discount-

S&P 500 Earnings per share, normalized

US Nominal GDP S&P 500 Earnings per Share