%% Using the Kalman Filter to Estimate and Forecast the Diebold-

Li Yield Curve Model

%
% In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, additional
solvency
% regulations have been imposed on many financial firms, placing
greater
% emphasis on the market valuation and accounting of liabilities.
Many firms,
% notably insurance companies and pension funds, write annuity
contracts and
% incur long-term liabilities that call for sophisticated
approaches to model
% and forecast yield curves.
%
% Moreover, as the value of long-term liabilities greatly
increases in low
% interest rate environments, the probability of very low yields
should be
% modeled accurately. In such situations, the use of the Kalman
Filter, with
% its ability to incorporate time-varying coefficients and infer
unobserved
% factors driving the evolution of observed yields, is often
appropriate for
% the estimation of yield curve model parameters and the
subsequent simulation
% and forecasting of yields, which are at the heart of insurance
and pension
% analysis.
%
% The following example illustrates the use of the State-Space
Model (SSM)
% and Kalman filter by fitting the popular Diebold-Li _yields-
only model_ [2]
% to a monthly time series of yield curves derived from
government bond
% data. The example highlights the estimation, simulation,
smoothing, and
% forecasting capabilities of the SSM functionality available in
the
% Econometrics Toolbox(TM), and compares its estimation
performance to that
% of more traditional econometric techniques.
%
% The example first introduces the Diebold-Li model, then
outlines the
% parametric state-space representation supported by the SSM
functionality

1
% of the Econometrics Toolbox, and then illustrates how the
Diebold-Li model
% may be formulated in state-space representation. Once
formulated in
% state-space representation, the example reproduces the in-
sample estimation
% results published in [2], and compares the results obtained to
those of the
% two-step approach as outlined by Diebold and Li in [1].
%
% The example concludes with a simple illustration of the minimum
mean square
% error (MMSE) forecasting and Monte Carlo simulation
capabilities of the SSM
% functionality.
%
% Copyright 2014 The MathWorks, Inc.

%% The Diebold-Li Model Yield Curve Model

%
% The Diebold-Li model is a variant of the Nelson-Siegel model
[3], obtained
% by reparameterizing the original formulation. For observation
date $t$ and
% time to maturity $\tau$, the Diebold-Li model characterizes the
yield
% $y_t(\tau)$ as a function of four parameters:
%
% $$y_t(\tau) = L_t + S_t \left(\frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau}}
{\lambda \tau} \right)
% + C_t \left(\frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau}}{\lambda \tau} -
e^{-\lambda \tau} \right)$$
%
% in which $L_t$ is the long-term factor, or _level_, $S_t$ is
the short-term
% factor, or _slope_, and $C_t$ is the medium-term factor, or
_curvature_.
% $\lambda$ determines the maturity at which the loading on the
curvature is
% maximized, and governs the exponential decay rate of the model.

%% The State-Space Model (SSM) of the Econometrics Toolbox

%
% The |ssm| function of the Econometrics Toolbox allows users to
specify a
% given problem in state-space representation. Once the
parametric form of
% an SSM is specified, additional related functions allow users
to estimate

2
% model parameters via maximum likelihood, obtain smoothed and
filtered states
% via backward and forward recursion, respectively, obtain
optimal forecasts
% of unobserved (latent) states and observed data, and simulate
sample of
% paths of latent states and observed data via Monte Carlo.
%
% For state vector $x_t$ and observation vector $y_t$, the
parametric form
% of the Econometrics Toolbox SSM is expressed in the following
linear
% state-space representation:
%
% $$ x_t = A_t x_{t-1} + B_t u_t $$
%
% $$ y_t = C_t x_t + D_t \epsilon_t $$
%
% where $u_t$ and $\epsilon_t$ are uncorrelated, unit-variance
white noise
% vector processes. In the above SSM representation, the first
equation is
% referred to as the _state equation_ and the second as the
_observation
% equation_. The model parameters $A_t$, $B_t$, $C_t$ and $D_t$
are referred
% to as the _state transition_, _state disturbance loading_,
_measurement
% sensitivity_, and _observation innovation_ matrices,
respectively.
%
% Although the SSM functions in the Econometrics Toolbox will
accommodate
% time-varying (dynamic) parameters $A_t$, $B_t$, $C_t$ and $D_t$
whose values
% and dimensions change with time, in the Diebold-Li model these
parameters
% are time-invariant (static).

%% State-Space Formulation of the Diebold-Li Model

%
% The Diebold-Li model introduced above is formulated such that
the level,
% slope, and curvature factors follow a vector autoregressive
process of first
% order, or VAR(1), and as such the model immediately forms a
state-space
% system. Using the notation of Diebold, Rudebusch, and Aruoba
[2], the state

3
% transition equation, which governs the dynamics of the state
vector (level,
% slope, and curvature factors), is written as
%
% $$ \begin{pmatrix} {L_t - \mu_L \cr S_t - \mu_S \cr C_t -
\mu_C} \end{pmatrix}
% = \begin{pmatrix} {a_{11} \ a_{12} \ a_{13} \cr a_{21} \ a_{22}
\ a_{23}
% \cr a_{31} \ a_{32} \ a_{33}} \end{pmatrix}
% \begin{pmatrix} {L_{t-1} - \mu_L \cr S_{t-1} - \mu_S \cr C_{t-
1} - \mu_C} \end{pmatrix} +
% \begin{pmatrix} {\eta_t(L) \cr \eta_t(S) \cr \eta_t(C)}
\end{pmatrix} $$
%
% The corresponding observation (measurement) equation is written
as
%
% $$ \begin{pmatrix} {y_t(\tau_1) \cr y_t(\tau_2) \cr \vdots \cr
% y_t(\tau_N)} \end{pmatrix} =
% \begin{pmatrix} {1 \ \frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau_1}}{\lambda
\tau_1} \
% \frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau_1}}{\lambda \tau_1} - e^{-\lambda
\tau_1} \cr
% 1 \ \frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau_2}}{\lambda \tau_2} \
% \frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau_2}}{\lambda \tau_2} - e^{-\lambda
\tau_2} \cr
% \vdots \cr
% 1 \ \frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau_N}}{\lambda \tau_N} \
% \frac{1 - e^{-\lambda \tau_N}}{\lambda \tau_N} - e^{-\lambda
\tau_N}} \end{pmatrix}
% \begin{pmatrix} {L_t \cr S_t \cr C_t} \end{pmatrix}
% + \begin{pmatrix} {e_t(\tau_1) \cr e_t(\tau_2) \cr \vdots \cr
% e_t(\tau_N)} \end{pmatrix}$$
%
% In vector-matrix notation, the Diebold-Li model is rewritten as
the following
% state-space system for the 3-D vector of mean-adjusted factors
$f_t$ and
% observed yields $y_t$:
%
% $$(f_t - \mu) = A(f_{t-1} - \mu) + \eta_t$$
%
% $$y_t = \Lambda f_t + e_t$$
%
% where the orthogonal, Gaussian white noise processes $\eta_t$
and $e_t$
% are defined such that
%
% $$ \begin{pmatrix} {\eta_t \cr e_t} \end{pmatrix} \sim WN

4
% \begin{pmatrix} {\begin{pmatrix} {0 \cr 0} \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
% {Q \ 0 \cr 0 \ H} \end{pmatrix}} \end{pmatrix} $$
%
% Moreover, the Diebold-Li model is formulated such that the
state equation
% factor disturbances $\eta_t$ are correlated, and therefore the
corresponding
% covariance matrix $Q$ is non-diagonal. In contrast, however,
the model
% imposes diagonality on the covariance matrix $H$ of the
observation equation
% disturbances $e_t$ such that deviations of observed yields at
various
% maturities are uncorrelated.
%
% Define the latent states as the mean-adjusted factors
%
% $$x_t = f_t - \mu$$
%
% and the intercept-adjusted, or deflated, yields
%
% $$y'_t = y_t - \Lambda\mu$$
%
% and substitute into the equations above, and the Diebold-Li
state-space
% system may be rewritten as
%
% $$x_t = Ax_{t-1} + \eta_t$$
%
% $$y'_t = y_t - \Lambda\mu = \Lambda x_t + e_t$$
%
% Now compare the Diebold-Li state-space system to the
formulation supported
% by the SSM functionality of the Econometrics Toolbox,
%
% $$ x_t = A x_{t-1} + B u_t $$
%
% $$ y_t = C x_t + D \epsilon_t $$
%
% From the above state-space systems, we immediately see that the
state
% transition matrix $A$ is the same in both formulations and that
Diebold-Li
% matrix $\Lambda$ is simply the state measurement sensitivity
matrix $C$ in
% the SSM formulation.
%

5
% The relationship between the disturbances, however, and
therefore the
% parameterization of the $B$ and $D$ matrices of the SSM
formulation, is
% more subtle. To see this relationship, notice that
%
% $$\eta_t = Bu_t$
%
% $$e_t = D\epsilon_t$$
%
% Since the disturbances in each model must be the same, the
covariance of
% $\eta_t$ in the Diebold-Li formulation must equal the
covariance of the
% scaled white noise SSM process $Bu_t$. Similarly, the
covariance of $e_t$
% must equal that of the process $D\epsilon_t$. Moreover, since
the $u_t$
% and $\epsilon_t$ disturbances in the SSM formulation are
defined as
% uncorrelated, unit-variance white noise vector processes, their
covariance
% matrices are identity matrices.
%
% Therefore, in an application of the _linear transformation
property_ of
% Gaussian random vectors, the covariances of the Diebold-Li
formulation are
% related to the parameters of the SSM formulation such that
%
% $$Q = BB'$$
%
% $$H = DD'$$
%
% To formulate the Diebold-Li model in a manner amenable to
estimation by
% the Econometrics Toolbox, users must first create an SSM model
with the
% |ssm| function. Moreover, an SSM model may be created with
unknown
% parameters defined explicitly or implicitly.
%
% To create an SSM model explicitly, all required matrices $A$,
$B$, $C$, and
% $D$ must be supplied. In the explicit approach, unknown
parameters appear
% as |NaN| values to indicate the presence and placement of
unknown values;
% each |NaN| entry corresponds to a unique parameter to estimate.

6
%
% Although creating a model explicitly by directly specifying
parameters
% $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ is sometimes more convenient than
specifying a model
% implicitly, the utility of an explicit approach is limited in
that each
% estimated parameter affects and is uniquely associated with a
single element
% of a coefficient matrix.
%
% To create a model implicitly, users must specify a parameter
mapping function
% which maps an input parameter vector to model parameters $A$,
$B$, $C$, and
% $D$. In the implicit approach, the mapping function alone
defines the model,
% and is particularly convenient for estimating complex models
and for imposing
% various parameter constraints.
%
% Moreover, the SSM framework does not store non-zero offsets of
state variables
% or any parameters associated with regression components in the
observation
% equation. Instead, a regression component is estimated by
deflating the
% observations $y_t$. Similarly, other related SSM functions,
such as |filter|,
% |smooth|, |forecast|, and |simulate|, assume that observations
are already
% manually deflated, or preprocessed, to account for any offsets
or regression
% component in the observation equation.
%
% Since the Diebold-Li model includes a non-zero offset (mean)
for each of
% the three factors, which represents a simple yet common
regression component,
% this example uses a mapping function. Moreover, the mapping
function also
% imposes a symmetry constraint on the covariance matrix $Q =
BB'$ and a
% diagonality constraint of the covariance matrix $H = DD'$, both
of which
% are particularly well-suited to an implicit approach. In
addition, the
% mapping function also allows us to estimate the $\lambda$ decay
rate parameter

7
% as well.
%
% Note that this state-space formulation, and the corresponding
approach to
% include a regression component, is not unique. For example,
the factor
% offsets could also be included by increasing the dimensionality
of the
% state vector.
%
% In the approach taken in this example, the inclusion of the
factor offsets
% in the state equation of the SSM representation introduces a
regression
% component in the observation equation. To allow for this
adjustment, this
% example uses a parameter mapping function to deflate the
observed yields
% during model estimation. The advantage of this approach is
that the
% dimensionality of state vector of unobserved factors remains 3,
and therefore
% directly corresponds to the 3-D _yields-only_ factor model of
Diebold,
% Rudebusch, and Aruoba [2]. The disadvantage is that, because
the estimation
% is performed on the deflated yields, other SSM functions must
also account
% for this adjustment by deflating and subsequently inflating the
yields.

%% The Yield Curve Data

%
% The yield data consists of a time series of 29 years of monthly
_unsmoothed
% Fama-Bliss_ US Treasury zero-coupon yields, as used and
discussed in [1]
% and [2], for maturities of 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30, 36,
48, 60, 72,
% 84, 96, 108, and 120 months. The yields are expressed in
percent and
% recorded at the end of each month, beginning January 1972 and
ending
% December 2000 for a total of 348 monthly curves of 17
maturities each. For
% additional details regarding the unsmoothed Fama-Bliss yields,
see the
% bibliography.
%

8
% The following analysis uses the entire Diebold-Li data set to
reproduce the
% estimation results published in [2], and compares the two-step
and SSM
% approaches.
%
% As an alternative, the data set could also be partitioned into
an _in-sample_
% period used to estimate each model, and an _out-of-sample_
period reserved
% to assess forecast performance. In concept, such a forecast
accuracy
% analysis could be conducted in a manner similar to that
published in
% Tables 4-6 of Diebold and Li [1]. However, to do so would take
far too
% long to complete, and is therefore unsuitable for a live MATLAB
example.

load Data_DieboldLi
maturities = maturities(:); % ensure a column vector
yields = Data(1:end,:); % in-sample yields for estimation

%% Two-Step Estimation of the Diebold-Li Model

%
% In their original paper [1], Diebold and Li estimate the
parameters of
% their yield curve model using a two-step approach:
%
% * With $\lambda$ held fixed, estimate the level, slope, and
curvature
% parameters for each monthly yield curve. This process is
repeated for all
% observed yield curves, and provides a 3-D time series of
estimates of the
% unobserved level, slope, and curvature factors.
%
% * Fit a first-order autoregressive model to the time series of
factors
% derived in the first step.
%
% By fixing $\lambda$ in the first step, what would otherwise be
a non-linear
% least squares estimation is replaced by a relatively simple
ordinary least
% squares (OLS) estimation. Within the Nelson-Siegel framework,
it is
% customary to set $\lambda$ = 0.0609, which implies that the
value at which

9
% the loading on the curvature (medium-term factor) is maximized
occurs at
% 30 months.
%
% Moreover, since the yield curve is parameterized as a function
of the
% factors, forecasting the yield curve is equivalent to
forecasting the
% underlying factors and evaluating the Diebold-Li model as a
function of
% the factor forecasts.
%
% The first step equates the 3 factors (level, slope, and
curvature) to the
% regression coefficients obtained by OLS, and accumulates a 3-D
time series
% of estimated factors by repeating the OLS fit for each observed
yield curve.
% The OLS step is performed below, and the regression
coefficients and
% residuals of the linear model fit are stored for later use.

lambda0 = 0.0609;
X = [ones(size(maturities))
(1-exp(-lambda0*maturities))./(lambda0*maturities) ...
((1-exp(-lambda0*maturities))./(lambda0*maturities)-exp(-
lambda0*maturities))];

beta = zeros(size(yields,1),3);
residuals = zeros(size(yields,1),numel(maturities));

for i = 1:size(yields,1)
olsfit = fitlm(X, yields(i,:)', 'Intercept', false);
beta(i,:) = olsfit.Coefficients.Estimate';
residuals(i,:) = olsfit.Residuals.Raw';
end

%%
% Now that the 3-D time series of factors has been computed, the
second step
% fits the time series to a first-order autoregressive (AR)
model. At this
% point, there are two choices for the AR fit:
%
% * Fit each factor to a univariate AR(1) model separately, as in
[1]
%
% * Fit all 3 factors to a VAR(1) model simultaneously, as in [2]
%

10
% Although the Econometrics Toolbox supports both univariate and
multivariate
% AR estimation, in what follows a VAR(1) model is fitted to the
3-D time
% series of factors. For consistency with the SSM formulation,
which works
% with the mean-adjusted factors, the VAR(1) model includes an
additive
% constant to account for the mean of each factor.

model = vgxset('nAR', 1, 'n', 3, 'Constant', true); % 3-D

VAR(1) model to fit
varfit = vgxvarx(model, beta(2:end,:), [], beta(1,:)); %
estimate 3-D VAR(1) model

%% SSM Estimation of the Diebold-Li Model

%
% As discussed above, the Diebold-Li model is estimated using the
implicit
% approach, in which a parameter mapping function is specified.
This
% mapping function maps a parameter vector to SSM model
parameters, deflates
% the observations to account for the means of each factor, and
imposes
% constraints on the covariance matrices.
%
% The following line of code creates an SSM model by passing the
parameter
% mapping function |Example_DieboldLi| to the |ssm| function, and
indicates
% that the mapping function will be called with an input
parameter vector
% _params_. The additional input arguments to the mapping
function specify
% the yield and maturity information statically, and are used to
initialize
% the function in a manner suitable for subsequent use in the
estimation.
% For additional details, see the helper function |
Example_DieboldLi|.

model =
ssm(@(params)Example_DieboldLi(params,yields,maturities));

%%
% The maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) of SSM models via the
Kalman filter
% is notoriously sensitive to the initial parameter values. In
this example,
11
% we use the results of the two-step approach to initialize the
estimation.
%
% Specifically, the initial values passed to the SSM |estimate|
function are
% encoded into a column vector. In this example, the matrix $A$
of the SSM
% model is set to the estimated 3-by-3 AR coefficient matrix of
the VAR(1)
% model stacked in a column-wise manner into the first 9 elements
of the
% column vector.
%
% From the discussion above, the matrix $B$ of the SSM model is a
3-by-3 matrix
% constrained such that $Q = BB'$, and in what follows the
estimate of $B$
% is the lower Cholesky factor of $Q$. Therefore, to ensure that
$Q$ is
% symmetric, positive definite, and allows for non-zero off-
diagonal
% covariances, 6 elements associated with the lower Cholesky
factor of $Q$
% must be allocated in the initial parameter column vector.
However, in what
% follows we initialize the elements of the initial parameter
vector with
% the square root of the estimated innovation variances of the
VAR(1) model.
%
% In other words, when the parameter vector is initialized, we
assume that
% the covariance matrix $Q$ is diagonal, yet still reserve space
for the
% below-diagonal elements of the lower Cholesky factor of the
covariance
% matrix such that $Q = BB'$. Again, the initial parameter
vector is arranged
% such that the elements of $B$ along and below the main diagonal
are stacked
% in a column-wise manner.
%
% Since the covariance matrix $H$ in the Diebold-Li formulation
is diagonal,
% the matrix $D$ of the SSM model is also constrained to be
diagonal such
% that $H = DD'$. Therefore, the elements of the initial
parameter vector

12
% associated with $D$ are set to the square root of the diagonal
elements
% of the sample covariance matrix of the residuals of the VAR(1)
model, one
% such element for each maturity of the input yield data (in this
example
% there are 17 maturities), again stacked in a column-wise
manner.
%
% Note that the $C$ matrix of the SSM model is not estimated
directly, but
% rather is a fully-parameterized function of the estimated decay
rate
% parameter $\lambda$, and is computed internally by the mapping
function.
% Moreover, the $\lambda$ parameter is initialized to the
traditional value
% 0.0609, and is stored in the last element of the initial
parameter column
% vector.
%
% Finally, the elements of the initial parameter vector
associated with the
% factor means are simply set to the sample averages of the
regression
% coefficients obtained by OLS in the first step of the original
two-step
% approach.

A0 = varfit.AR{1}; % get the VAR(1) matrix (stored as a cell

array)
A0 = A0(:); % stack it columnwise
Q0 = varfit.Q; % get the VAR(1) estimated innovations
covariance matrix
B0 = [sqrt(Q0(1,1)); 0; 0; sqrt(Q0(2,2)); 0; sqrt(Q0(3,3))];
H0 = cov(residuals); % sample covariance matrix of VAR(1)
residuals
D0 = sqrt(diag(H0)); % diagonalize the D matrix
mu0 = mean(beta)';
param0 = [A0; B0; D0; mu0; lambda0];

%%
% Now that the initial values have been computed, set some
optimization
% parameters and estimate the model using the Kalman filter by
calling the SSM
% function |estimate|. In this example, the covariance matrix $H
= DD'$ is

13
% diagonal, and so we opt to invoke the univariate treatment of a
multivariate
% series to improve the runtime performance of the estimation.

options =
optimoptions('fminunc','MaxFunEvals',25000,'algorithm','quasi-
newton', ...
'TolFun' ,1e-8,'TolX',1e-8,'MaxIter',1000,'Display','off');

[ssmfit,params] = estimate(model,yields,param0,'Display','off',
...
'options',options,'Univariate',true);

lambda = params(end); % get the estimated decay rate

mu = params(end-3:end-1)'; % get the estimated factor means

%% Comparison of Parameter Estimation Results

%
% Now compare the results obtained from the SSM to those of the
two-step
% approach. In addition to providing a sense of how closely the
results of
% the two approaches agree, the comparison also gives an idea of
how suitable
% the use of the two-step approach is for providing initial
parameter values
% required to estimate the SSM.
%
% First compare the estimated state transition matrix $A$ of the
SSM model
% to the AR(1) coefficient matrix obtained from the VAR model.

disp('SSM State Transition Matrix (A):')

disp('--------------------------------')
disp(ssmfit.A)
disp(' ')

disp('Two-Step State Transition Matrix (A):')

disp('-------------------------------------')
disp(varfit.AR{1})
disp(' ')

%%
% Notice how closely the results agree. In particular, notice
the large
% positive diagonal elements, indicating persistent self-dynamics
of each
% factor, while at the same time the small off-diagonal elements,
indicating
% weak cross-factor dynamics.
14
%%
% Now examine the state disturbance loading matrix $B$ and
compare the
% corresponding innovations covariance matrix $Q = BB'$ obtained
from the
% SSM to the innovations covariance of the VAR(1) model.

home
disp('SSM State Disturbance Loading Matrix (B):')
disp('-----------------------------------------')
disp(ssmfit.B)
disp(' ')

%%

disp('SSM State Disturbance Covariance Matrix (Q = BB''):')

disp('--------------------------------------------------')
disp(ssmfit.B * ssmfit.B')
disp(' ')

disp('Two-Step State Disturbance Covariance Matrix (Q):')

disp('-------------------------------------------------')
disp(varfit.Q)
disp(' ')

%%
% Notice that the estimated covariance matrices are in relatively
close
% agreement, and that the estimated variance increases as we
proceed from
% level to slope to curvature along the main diagonal.

%%
% Finally, compare the factor means obtained from the SSM to
those of the
% two-step approach.

home
disp('SSM Factor Means:')
disp('-----------------')
disp(mu)
disp(' ')

disp('Two-Step Factor Means:')

disp('----------------------')
disp(mu0')
disp(' ')

%%
15
% In this case, the estimated means are in relatively close
agreement for
% the level and slope factors, although the curvature differs
between the
% two approaches.

%% Comparison of Inferred Factors

%
% The unobserved factors, or latent states, which correspond to
the level,
% slope, and curvature factors of the Diebold-Li model, are of
primary interest
% in forecasting the evolution of future yield curves. We now
examine the
% states inferred from each approach.
%
% In the two-step approach, the latent states (factors) are the
regression
% coefficients estimated in the OLS step.
%
% In the SSM approach, the |smooth| function implements Kalman
smoothing
% such that for t = 1,2,...,T the smoothed states are defined as
%
% $$E[x_t|y_T,...,y_1]$$
%
% However, before we invoke the |smooth| function, recall from
the discussion
% above that the SSM framework must account for offset
adjustments made to
% the observed yields during estimation. Specifically, during
estimation the
% parameter mapping function deflates the original observations,
and therefore
% works with the offset-adjusted yields $y'_t = y_t - \Lambda\mu$
rather than
% the original yields.
%
% Moreover, since the adjustment is known only to the mapping
function, the
% estimated SSM model has no explicit knowledge of any
adjustments made to
% the original yields. Therefore, other related SSM functions
such as |filter|,
% |smooth|, |forecast|, and |simulate| must properly account for
any offsets
% or regression component associated with predictors included in
the
% observation equation.

16
%
% Therefore, before we call the |smooth| function to infer the
estimated states
% we must first deflate the original yields by subtracting the
intercept
% associated with the estimated offset, $C\mu = \Lambda\mu$, to
compensate
% for the offset adjustment that occurred during estimation.
However, the
% states then inferred will correspond to the deflated yields,
when in fact
% we are interested in the actual states themselves (the level,
slope, and
% curvature factors), and not their offset-adjusted counterparts.
Therefore,
% after smoothing, the deflated states must be re-adjusted by
adding the
% estimated mean, $\mu$, to the factors.
%
% This process of deflating the observations, and then inflating
the states
% to unwind the deflation, is an important but subtle point.

intercept = ssmfit.C * mu';

deflatedYields = bsxfun(@minus,yields,intercept');
deflatedStates = smooth(ssmfit,deflatedYields);
estimatedStates = bsxfun(@plus,deflatedStates,mu);

%%
% Now that we have inferred the states, we can compare the
individual level,
% slope, and curvature factors derived from the SSM and two-step
approaches.
%
% First examine the level, or long-term factor.

figure
plot(dates, [beta(:,1) estimatedStates(:,1)])
title('Level (Long-Term Factor)')
ylabel('Percent')
datetick x
legend({'Two-Step','State-Space Model'},'location','best')

%%
% Now examine the slope, or short-term factor.

figure
plot(dates, [beta(:,2) estimatedStates(:,2)])
title('Slope (Short-Term Factor)')
ylabel('Percent')
17
datetick x
legend({'Two-Step','State-Space Model'},'location','best')

%%
% Now examine the curvature, or medium-term factor,

figure
plot(dates, [beta(:,3) estimatedStates(:,3)])
title('Curvature (Medium-Term Factor)')
ylabel('Percent')
datetick x
legend({'Two-Step','State-Space Model'},'location','best')

%%
% as well as the estimated decay rate parameter $\lambda$
associated with
% the curvature.

home
disp('SSM Decay Rate (Lambda):')
disp('------------------------')
disp(lambda)
disp(' ')

%%
% Notice that the estimated decay rate parameter is somewhat
larger than the
% value used by the two-step approach (0.0609).
%
% Recall that $\lambda$ determines the maturity at which the
loading on the
% curvature is maximized. In the two-step approach $\lambda$ is
fixed at
% 0.0609, reflecting a somewhat arbitrary decision to maximize
the curvature
% loading at exactly 2.5 years (30 months). In contrast, the SSM
estimates
% the maximum curvature loading to occur at just less than 2
years (23.1
% months), which can be seen by plotting the curvature loading
associated
% with each value of $\lambda$. In either case, its hump-shaped
behavior
% as a function of maturity reveals why the curvature is
interpreted as a
% medium-term factor.

tau = 0:(1/12):max(maturities); % maturity (months)

decay = [lambda0 lambda];
loading = zeros(numel(tau), 2);
18
for i = 1:numel(tau)
loading(i,:) = ((1-exp(-decay*tau(i)))./(decay*tau(i))-exp(-
decay*tau(i)));
end

figure
plot(tau,loading)
title('Loading on Curvature (Medium-Term Factor)')
xlabel('Maturity (Months)')
ylabel('Curvature Loading')
legend({'\lambda = 0.0609 Fixed by Two-Step', ['\lambda = '
num2str(lambda) ' Estimated by SSM'],},'location','best')

%%
% From the graphs above, we see that although differences between
the two
% approaches exist, the factors derived from each approach are
generally in
% reasonably close agreement. That said, the one-step SSM/Kalman
filter
% approach, in which all model parameters are estimated
simultaneously, is
% preferred.

%%
% As a final in-sample performance comparison, we now compare the
means and
% standard deviations of observation equation residuals of the
two approaches
% in a manner similar to Table 2 of [2]. The results are
expressed in basis
% points (bps).
%
% In creating the table below, note that the state measurement
sensitivity
% matrix $C$ in the SSM formulation is also the factor loadings
matrix
% $\Lambda$ found in [2].

residualsSSM = yields - estimatedStates*ssmfit.C';

residuals2Step = yields - beta*X';

residualMeanSSM = 100*mean(residualsSSM)';
residualStdSSM = 100*std(residualsSSM)';
residualMean2Step = 100*mean(residuals2Step)';
residualStd2Step = 100*std(residuals2Step)';

home
disp(' ')
19
disp(' -------------------------------------------------')
disp(' State-Space Model Two-Step')
disp(' ------------------- ------------------')
disp(' Standard Standard')
disp(' Maturity Mean Deviation Mean Deviation')
disp(' (Months) (bps) (bps) (bps) (bps) ')
disp(' -------- -------- --------- ------- ---------')
disp([maturities residualMeanSSM residualStdSSM residualMean2Step
residualStd2Step])

%%
% An examination of the table above reveals that, although the
SMM is not
% always better than the two-step approach at all maturities, it
provides a
% significantly better fit at most intermediate maturities from 6
to 60 months.

%% Forecasting and Monte Carlo Simulation

%
% As a final illustration, we now highlight the minimum mean
square error
% (MMSE) forecasting and Monte Carlo simulation capabilities of
the SSM
% functionality.
%
% Recall that since the Diebold-Li model depends only on the
estimated factors,
% the yield curve is forecasted by forecasting the factors.
However, as
% discussed above, when forecasting or simulating yields we must
compensate
% for the offset adjustment made during SSM estimation, and so
must use the
% deflated yields upon which the estimation is based.
%
% Using the deflated yields, we now call the |forecast| function
to compute
% the MMSE forecasts of the deflated yields 1,2, ..., 12 months
into the
% future. The actual forecasted yields are then computed by
adding the
% estimated offset $C\mu$ to the deflated counterparts.
%
% Note that the yield curve forecast will have a row for each
future period
% in the forecast horizon (12 in this example), and a column for
each maturity
% in each yield curve (17 in this example).

20
horizon = 12; % forecast horizon (months)

[forecastedDeflatedYields,mse] =
forecast(ssmfit,horizon,deflatedYields);
forecastedYields =
bsxfun(@plus,forecastedDeflatedYields,intercept');

%%
% Now that the deterministic MMSE forecasts have been computed
using the
% |forecast| function, we now illustrate how the same results may
be
% approximated using the |simulate| function.
%
% Before performing Monte Carlo simulation, however, we must
first initialize
% the mean vector and covariance matrix of the initial states
(factors) of
% the fitted SSM model to ensure the simulation begins with the
most recent
% information available. To do this, the following code segment
calls the
% |smooth| function to obtain the smoothed states obtained by
backward
% recursion.
%
% Since the following step initializes the fitted mean and
covariance to that
% available at the very end of the historical data set, state
smoothing
% obtained from the |smooth| function, using information from the
entire
% data set, is equivalent to state filtering obtained from the |
filter|
% function, using only information which precedes the last
observation.

[~,~,results] = smooth(ssmfit,deflatedYields); % FILTER could

also be used
ssmfit.Mean0 = results(end).SmoothedStates; % initialize the
mean
cov0 = results(end).SmoothedStatesCov;
ssmfit.Cov0 = (cov0 + cov0')/2; % initialize the
covariance

%%
% Now that the initial mean and covariance of the states have
been set, compute
% out-of-sample forecasts via Monte Carlo simulation.
21
%
% In the following code segment, each sample path represents the
future
% evolution of a simulated yield curve over a 12-month forecast
horizon.
% The simulation is repeated 100,000 times.
%
% In a manner similar to the forecasts computed previously, the
simulated yield
% curve matrix has a row for each future period in the forecast
horizon (12 in
% this example), and a column for each maturity (17 in this
example). However,
% in contrast to the MMSE forecast matrix, the simulated yield
curve matrix
% has a third dimension to store the 100,000 simulated paths.
%
% Again, notice that the deflated yields are actually simulated,
and then
% post-processed to account for the factor offsets.

rng('default')
nPaths = 100000;
simulatedDeflatedYields = simulate(ssmfit, horizon, nPaths);
simulatedYields = bsxfun(@plus, simulatedDeflatedYields,
intercept');

%%
% Now that the yields have been simulated, compute the sample
mean and standard
% deviation of the 100,000 trials. These statistics are the
sample analog
% of the MMSE forecasts and standard errors. To facilitate the
calculation
% of sample means and standard deviations, the matrix of
simulated yields is
% re-ordered such that it now has 100,000 rows, 12 columns, and
17 pages.

simulatedYields = permute(simulatedYields,[3 1 2]); % re-order

for convenience
forecasts = zeros(horizon,numel(maturities));
standardErrors = zeros(horizon,numel(maturities));

for i = 1:numel(maturities)
forecasts(:,i) = mean(simulatedYields(:,:,i));
standardErrors(:,i) = std(simulatedYields(:,:,i));
end

%%
22
% Now visually compare the MMSE forecasts and corresponding
standard errors
% obtained from the |forecast| function along with those obtained
from the
% |simulate| function via Monte Carlo. The results are virtually
identical.

figure
plot(maturities, [forecasts(horizon,:)'
forecastedYields(horizon,:)'])
title('12-Month-Ahead Forecasts: Monte Carlo vs. MMSE')
xlabel('Maturity (Months)')
ylabel('Percent')
legend({'Monte Carlo','Minimum Mean Square
Error'},'location','best')

figure
plot(maturities, [standardErrors(horizon,:)'
sqrt(mse(horizon,:))'])
title('12-Month-Ahead Forecast Standard Errors: Monte Carlo vs.
MMSE')
xlabel('Maturity (Months)')
ylabel('Percent')
legend({'Monte Carlo','Minimum Mean Square
Error'},'location','best')

%%
% Of course, the additional benefit of Monte Carlo simulation is
that it allows
% for a more detailed analysis of the distribution of yields
beyond the mean
% and standard error, and in turn provides additional insight
into how that
% distribution affects the distribution of other variables
dependent upon it.
% For example, in the insurance industry the simulation of yield
curves is
% commonly used to assess the distribution of profits and losses
associated
% with annuities and pension contracts.
%
% The following code segment displays the distribution of the
simulated
% 12-month yield at one, six, and 12 months into the future,
similar in spirit
% to the forecasting experiment shown in Tables 4-6 of [1].

index12 = find(maturities == 12); % page index of 12-month yield

bins = 0:0.2:12;

23
figure
subplot(3,1,1)
hist(simulatedYields(:,1,index12), bins)
axis([0 12 0 15000])
title('Distribution of Simulated 12-Month Yields')
xlabel('Yield 1 Month into the Future (%)')

subplot(3,1,2)
hist(simulatedYields(:,6,index12), bins)
axis([0 12 0 8000])
xlabel('Yield 6 Months into the Future (%)')
ylabel('Bin Count')

subplot(3,1,3)
hist(simulatedYields(:,12,index12), bins)
axis([0 12 0 5000])
xlabel('Yield 12 Months into the Future (%)')

%% Summary
%
% A linear state-space model is a discrete-time, stochastic model
with two
% equations, a state equation that describes the transition of
unobserved
% latent states, and an observation equation that links the
states to the
% observed data and describes how an observer indirectly measures
the latent
% process at each period.
%
% This example formulates the popular _yields-only_ Diebold-Li
term structure
% model in state-space representation, and from a time series of
yield curves
% infers the latent states in an effort to determine the
underlying factors
% driving the evolution of interest rates. The Diebold-Li model
is a dynamic
% model with three factors, the novel insight of which is the
interpretation
% of the factors as level, slope, and curvature.
%
% The example shown above illustrates the mapping of the Diebold-
Li model to
% a form suitable for modeling via the SSM functionality of the
Econometrics
% Toolbox, then further illustrates the parameter estimation,
smoothing,
% forecasting, and Monte Carlo simulation capabilities.

24
%% Bibliography
%
% This example is based on the following papers, the first two of
which may
% be found at
http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~fdiebold/ResearchPapersChronological.ht
m.
%
% [1] Diebold, F.X and Li, C. (2006), "Forecasting the Term
Structure of
% Government Bond Yields", Journal of Econometrics, 130, 337-
364.
%
% [2] Diebold, F.X., Rudebusch, G.D. and Aruoba, B. (2006), "The
Macroeconomy
% and the Yield Curve: A Dynamic Latent Factor Approach",
Journal of
% Econometrics, 131, 309-338.
%
% [3] Nelson, R.C. and Siegel, A.F (1987), "Parsimonious Modeling
of Yield
% Curves", Journal of Business, 60, 4, 473-489.
%
% Furthermore, the entire unsmoothed Fama-Bliss yield curve
dataset, a subset
% of which is used in [1] and [2], may be found at
% http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~fdiebold/papers/paper49/FBFITTED.txt.

displayEndOfDemoMessage(mfilename)

25