Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.38275

Negative Convexity in Pass-Through MBS: Mechanisms and Conditions

Abstract

This paper investigates the mechanisms and conditions underlying negative convexity in pass-through mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) backed by fixed-rate mortgages. We first derive an exact decomposition of MBS prices into three components: the present value of interest-rate-independent cash flows, the present value of principal repaid early through interest-rate-dependent prepayments, and an interest rate option component capturing the reduction in future cash flows due to prepayments. Under a first-order approximation, the latter two components resemble portfolios of floorlets and Asian-style interest rate options, respectively. We then apply a cumulant expansion to derive closed-form valuation approximations under the one-factor Hull--White model. Numerical results show that including the second cumulant improves accuracy relative to a first-cumulant approximation. Building on the price decomposition, we decompose duration and convexity into component-level contributions and express the condition for negative convexity in terms of their second-order interest rate sensitivities. Finally, phase diagrams across interest rate levels and refinancing sensitivities identify the regions where negative convexity occurs and the corresponding sign boundaries. The negative-convexity region expands as the long-run mean of refinancing sensitivity increases. Negative convexity can arise even when no refinancing incentive exists initially, while its magnitude may vary nonmonotonically with the interest rate level. These findings explain negative MBS convexity through the sensitivities of its price components and quantitatively characterize the conditions governing its occurrence.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kaname Imagawa. 2026-10-28. Negative Convexity in Pass-Through MBS: Mechanisms and Conditions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.38275

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Quantifying Repair Risk in Crypto Option Surfaces

Option desks adjust crypto option quotes into price surfaces that remain within bid-ask intervals and satisfy standard no-arbitrage restrictions across strikes before computing Greeks, hedge quantities, or risk measures. For the same quote panel, however, these constraints may admit multiple such surfaces, which we call admissible repairs, with different downstream outputs. We define the resulting variation as repair risk and propose repair-risk validation, a matched framework for quantifying dispersion in Greeks, hedge quantities, and risk measures. The mechanism is finite-difference amplification: two admissible repairs within price distance $\varepsilon$ can differ in local normalized-strike curvature by $4\varepsilon/h^2$, where $h$ is local normalized-strike spacing. We evaluate repair risk on Deribit BTC and ETH option chains, using $L_1$ and $L_2$ projections of midpoint prices onto the same admissible set as matched controls. Across 108 matched evaluations spanning 18 sampled calendar months, the median 90th percentile of the scaled spot-gamma gap for $L_2$ versus the $ρ=10$ smoothness-penalized repair is nearly twenty times the matched $L_1$--$L_2$ control. We also instantiate NN-Proj, a neural-projection repair, to test whether learned repairs exhibit repair risk. Despite good held-out fit, its downstream outputs remain distinct from those of classical repairs. Across five seeds with the same training window and architecture, its curvature dispersion exceeds the matched $L_1$--$L_2$ control in 17 of 18 months ($p=1.45\times10^{-4}$). For a USD 1 million risk reversal, switching from $L_2$ to the $ρ=10$ repair shifts the median 90th-percentile hedge notional by 18.62 basis points of gross spot notional. VaR-style estimates also exhibit greater dispersion across repairs. The repair rule is therefore part of the risk model, not merely a feasibility check.

q-fin.PR↗

An Application of Geometric Riemannian Pricing Algorithm for Valuing Catastrophe Bonds in Incomplete Markets: Market-Consistent Financial Entropy and the Split of Frequency and Severity Risk Premia

This paper presents a framework for pricing catastrophe (CAT) bonds in incomplete markets through Riemannian geometric optimization of financial entropy. We formulate pricing-measure selection as a maximum financial entropy problem on a finite-dimensional manifold of equivalent measures, parameterized by the non-hedgeable market prices of catastrophe frequency and severity risk, with discounting fixed by the default-free term structure. Since unconstrained entropy maximization recovers the physical measure, we incorporate observed secondary-market spreads, both pooled and date by date. For a compound Poisson-generalized Pareto loss model with Wang distortion, we derive closed-form expressions for financial entropy and the Riemannian metric. We show that CAT bond prices depend on frequency and severity premia primarily through the risk-neutral trigger intensity, making the two premia unidentifiable from market data alone; the entropy criterion resolves this ambiguity. Using a hypothetical earthquake CAT bond calibrated to quarterly spreads of Golden State Re II Ltd. (Series 2014-1), we obtain risk-neutral trigger intensities of 6.58 to 10.45 times the physical intensity (9.20 pooled and 18.26 at the end of 2015). The model-implied risk multiple aligns with the market spread-to-expected-loss ratio (8.87 versus 8.81 at issuance). The minimal-entropy measure attributes 53.5% to 63.7% of the log risk multiple to frequency risk, reflecting the selection principle rather than market identification. Finally, equating the coupon with the quoted spread understates the risk multiple by approximately half.

q-fin.PR↗

Does Ecosystem Activity Validate TVL?

Total value locked (TVL) is widely used to assess decentralized finance ecosystems. Prior evidence finds that portfolios formed on TVL alone are spanned by the crypto market portfolio (Brigida 2025). This paper asks whether TVL becomes more informative when combined with measures of adoption, usage, development, protocol revenue, or social attention. I construct weekly value-weighted 2x3 portfolios that independently sort tokens on TVL-to-market-cap and one of seven ecosystem-activity ratios. Portfolio returns are computed from token prices using lagged-market-capitalization weights and evaluated against crypto market and size factors. Across the available 2022-2025 samples, none of the six on-chain double sorts rejects the benchmark after controlling for multiple testing. The same conclusion holds over 83 common weeks for which social-attention data are available. Several specifications reject at unadjusted levels, but none survives Holm adjustment. The social-attention rejection is only marginal under asymptotic inference and is insignificant under a moving-block bootstrap. Equal-weighted portfolios and formal parameter-stability tests lead to the same broad conclusion. The evidence therefore does not show that ecosystem activity reliably transforms TVL into an incremental return signal.

q-fin.PR↗