Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-6vlrh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-22T21:58:22.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Treasury Securities Free of Default?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Srinivas Nippani ,
Pu Liu  and
Craig T. Schulman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The chain of events that led to the disagreement between the White House and Congrees over the increase of the federal debt limit from mid-October 1995 to March 1996 caused a default potential for Treasury securities. We examine the effect of this event chain on the yield spread between commercial paper and Treasury bills and find that both the three-and six-month yield spreads were reduced during the event period. The results suggest that the market charged a default risk premium to the Treasury securities. There is no evidence that these events had a sustained effect on T-bill rates since the yield spread during the post-event period resumed its pre-event level.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 251 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Nippani, School of Business, University of Arkansas of Monticello, Monticello, AR 71656; Liu, Finance Department, and Schulman, Department of Economics, Sam M. Walton College of Business Administration, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. We thank Louis Ederington, Wayne Lee, Glenn Boyle, Jon Karpoff (the editor), and Avi Kamara (associate editor and referee) for helpful comments. We also thank Christine Noonan at Moody's Investors Service for providing information on Moody's ration actions on Treasury securities.

References

Bernanke, B. S. ‘On the Predictive Power of Interest Rates and Interest Rate Spreads.’ New England Economic Review (11–12 1990), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Board of Governors of the Federal Reseve System, Washington, DC. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 82 (09. 1996), A3–A76.Google Scholar
Emery, D. R., and Finnerty, J. D.. Corporate Financial Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall (1997)Google Scholar
Hahn, T. K. ‘Commercial Paper.’ In Instruments of the Money Market, Seventh, Ed. Richmond, VA: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (1993), 105–127.Google Scholar
Holthausen, R. W., and Leftwich, R. W.. ‘An Analysis of Informational Value of Bond Rating Changes.’ Journal of Financial Economics, 17 (1986), 57–89.10.1016/0304-405X(86)90006-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. E. ‘Term Structure of Corporate Bond Yields as a Function of Risk of Default.’ Journal of Finance, 17 (1986), 57–89.10.1016/0304-405X(86)90006-1Google Scholar
Kamara, A. ‘Liquidity, Taxes and Short-Term Treasury Yields.’ Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 29 (09 1994), 403–417.10.2307/2331337S0022109000009005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamara, A. ‘The Relation between Default-Free Interest Rates and Expected Economic Growth is Stronger Than You Think.’ Journal of Finance, 52 (09 1997), 1681–1694.10.2307/2329452Google Scholar
Kamara, A. ‘Market Trading Structures and Asset Pricing: Evidence from Treasury-Bill Markets.’ Review of Financial Studies, 1 (1998), 357–375.10.1093/rfs/1.4.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. D., and Walter, J. R.. ‘Large Negotiable Certificates of Deposit.’ In Instruments of the Money Market, Seventh, Ed. Richmond, VA: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (1993), 34–47.Google Scholar
Newey, W., and West, K.. ‘A Simple Positive Semi-Definite Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix.’ Econometrica, 55 (1987), 707–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zivney, T. L., and Marcus, R. D.. ‘The Day the United States Defaulted on Treasury Bills.’ Financial Review, 24 08 1989), 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar