Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Demand Deposits: Valuation and
Interest Rate Risk Management
YANG LU
KEVIN VISVANATHAR
Master of Science Thesis
Stockholm, Sweden 2015
Avistakonton: Värdering och
Ränteriskhantering
YANG LU
KEVIN VISVANATHAR
Examensarbete
Stockholm, Sverige 2015
Avistakonton:Vardering och Ranteriskhantering
Yang LuKevin Visvanathar
Examensarbete INDEK 2015:29KTH Industrial Engineering and Management
Industrial ManagementSE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Demand Deposits:Valuation and Interest Rate Risk Management
Yang LuKevin Visvanathar
Master of Science Thesis INDEK 2015:29KTH Industrial Engineering and Management
Industrial ManagementSE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Sammanfattning
Till foljd av finanskrisen 2008 har regulatoriska myndigheter infort mer strikta regelverk foratt framja en sund finansiell riskhantering hos banker. Trots avistakontons okade betydelsefor banker har inga regulatoriska riktlinjer introducerats for hur den associerade ranteriskenska hanteras ur ett riskperspektiv. Avistakonton ar forknippade med tva faktorer somforsvarar utvarderingen av dess ranterisk med traditionella ranteriskmetoder: de saknaren forutbestamd loptid och avistarantan kan andras nar sa banken onskar. Med hansyntill detta gap fokuserar denna studie pa att empiriskt analysera tva modelleringsramverkfor att vardera och mata ranterisken hos avistakonton: Economic Value Model Framework(EVM) and Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM). Analysen genomfors genom attinitialt ta fram modeller for hur avistarantan och volymen pa avistakonton utvecklas over tidmed hjalp av ett modernt och unikt dataset fran en av Sveriges storsta kommersiella banker.Studiens resultat indikerar att modellerna for avistarantan och avistavolymen inte forbattrasnar makroekonomiska variabler ar inkluderade. Detta ar i kontrast till vad tidigare studierhar foreslagit. Vidare visar studiens resultat att det modellerna skiljer sig nar avistakontonaar segmenterade pa en mer granular niva. Slutligen pavisar resultatet att EVM producerarranteriskestimat som ar mindre kansliga for antanganden an RPM.
Nyckelord: avistakonton, ranterisk, marknadsranta, stokastisk simulering, nuvarde, rep-likerande portfolj, sparkonto, transaktionskonto
i
Abstract
In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, regulatory authorities have implementedstricter policies to ensure more prudent risk management practices among banks. Despitethe growing importance of demand deposits for banks, no policies for how to adequatelyaccount for the inherent interest rate risk have been introduced. Demand deposits are as-sociated with two sources of uncertainties which make it difficult to assess its risks usingstandardized models: they lack a predetermined maturity and the deposit rate may bechanged at the bank’s discretion. In light of this gap, this study aims to empirically in-vestigate the modeling of the valuation and interest rate risk of demand deposits with twodifferent frameworks: the Economic Value Model Framework (EVM) and the ReplicatingPortfolio Model Framework (RPM). To analyze the two frameworks, models for the demanddeposit rate and demand deposit volume are developed using a comprehensive and noveldataset provided by one the biggest commercial banks in Sweden. The findings indicate thatincluding macroeconomic variables in the modeling of the deposit rate and deposit volumedo not improve the modeling accuracy. This is in contrast to what has been suggested byprevious studies. The findings also indicate that there are modeling differences betweendemand deposit categories. Finally, the EVM is found to produce interest rate risks withless variability compared to the RPM.
Keywords: demand deposits, interest rate risk, market interest rate, stochastic simulation,economic value, replicating portfolio, savings account, transaction account
ii
Acknowledgement
We would like to express our gratitude for all the received support during this thesis. First,we would like to thank Max Loxbo and Carl Lonnbark for the introduction of this topic andtheir continuous support throughout this process. Furthermore, we would also like to thankour supervisor Gustav Martinsson at the Royal Institute of Technology for his invaulableadvice and support. Finally, we would like to express our gratiude to our families and friendsfor their constant support.
Stockholm, May 2015Yang Lu & Kevin Visvanathar
iii
Contents
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
List of Definitions viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Current Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Problem Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Purpose and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6 Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Literature Review 7
2.1 Market Competition and Implications for Demand Deposits . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Theoretical Framework 12
3.1 Market Interest Rate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1 SARIMAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.2 Box-Jenkins Model Fitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.3 Interest Rate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.1 Interest Rate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Methodology 21
4.1 General Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.1 Demand Deposit Categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2 Market Interest Rate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3.1 Deposit Rate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3.2 Deposit Volume Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3.3 Interest Rate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iv
4.4.1 Interest Rate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.6 Reliability and Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5 Data 31
5.1 Deposit Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2 Deposit Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3 Macroeconomic Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3.1 Unemployment Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3.2 Gross Domestic Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.3 Monetary Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.3.4 Market Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4 Market Interest Rate Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6 Results and Analysis 37
6.1 Market Interest Rate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.2.1 Deposit Rate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.2.2 Deposit Volume Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.2.3 Interest Rate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.3 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.3.1 Portfolio Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.3.2 Interest Rate Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7 Discussion 58
7.1 Model differences: Account and Client Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
7.2 Interest Rate Risk Comparison of EVM and RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.3 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8 Conclusion 64
References 66
Appendix 69
Appendix A - Complementing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix B - Model Parameter Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix C - Model Residual Correlation Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
v
List of Figures4.1 Methodology Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1 Deposit Volume Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2 Deposit Rate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3 Market Interest Rate Securities Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.1 Modeled STIBOR 1-Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.2 Modeled Deposit Rates: Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.3 Modeled Deposit Rate: Categorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.4 Modeled Deposit Volume: SA Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.5 Modeled Deposit Volume: TA Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.6 Modeled Deposit Volume: SA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.7 Modeled Deposit Volume: SA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.8 Modeled Deposit Volume: TA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.9 Modeled Deposit Volume: TA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.1 Deposit Volume Data: SA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
A.2 Deposit Volume Data: SA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
A.3 Deposit Volume Data: TA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A.4 Deposit Volume Data: TA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A.5 Unemployment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
A.6 Gross Domestic Product Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
A.7 Monetary Aggregate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A.8 The market Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
C.9 Deposit Volume ACF and PACF: SA Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
C.10 Deposit Volume ACF and PACF: TA Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
C.11 Deposit Volume ACF and PACF: SA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
C.12 Deposit Volume ACF and PACF: SA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
C.13 Deposit Volume ACF and PACF: TA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
C.14 Deposit Volume ACF and PACF: TA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
C.15 Deposit Rate ACF and PACF: SA Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
C.16 Deposit Rate ACF and PACF: TA Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
C.17 Deposit Rate ACF and PACF: SA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
C.18 Deposit Rate ACF and PACF: SA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
C.19 Deposit Rate ACF and PACF: TA Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
C.20 Deposit Rate ACF and PACF: TA Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
vi
List of Tables6.1 Fitted Market Interest Rate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2 Fitted Deposit Rate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.3 Evaluation of Deposit Rate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.4 Fitted Deposit Volume Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.5 Evaluation of Deposit Volume Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.6 Interest Rate Risk for EVM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.7 Portfolio Constructions - Aggregate Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.8 Portfolio Constructions - Saving Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.9 Portfolio Constructions - Transaction Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.10 Interest Rate Risk for the RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
B.1 Deposit Rate Model Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
B.2 Deposit Volume Model Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
vii
List of Definitions
Corporate Accounts - Accounts held by firms and used for business related purposes.
Demand Deposits - Deposits that may be withdrawn at any given point in time and theoffered deposit rate may be changed at the bank’s discretion.
Deposit Liability - The net deposit liability banks’ owe customers. Defined as the currentdeposited capital less the expected present value of future rents.
Deposit Rate - The rate customers earn from depositing capital in demand deposits ac-counts.
Deposit Volume - The total amount of capital deposited in demand deposits accounts.
EVM - Economic Value Model Framework. A framework used for valuing and measuringthe interest rate risk in demand deposits.
HHI - Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. A commonly used measure for estimating the marketconcentration.
IRE - Interest Rate Elasticity. A measure of the interest rate risk which is used in theEVM.
M0 - A measure of the monetary aggregate in an economy. Defined as the total amount ofphysical cash and coins.
Private Accounts - Accounts held by individuals for personal use.
Deposit Rent - The net cash flow banks receive from investing deposited capital in a shortterm market security less the deposit rate paid.
RPM - Replicating Portfolio Model Framework. A framework used for valuing and mea-suring the interest rate risk in demand deposits.
SA - Saving Accounts. Accounts that enable parties to save money for a prolonged periodto high interest rate.
STIBOR - Stockholm Interbank Offered Rate, which is the average rate banks at theSwedish Market are willing to lend to each other without demanding collateral.
TA - Transaction Accounts. Typically used for everyday banking needs.
viii
1 Introduction
This section serves to introduce the reader to this study. First, a background of the problem
area is presented followed by a deeper discussion of the problem and its relevance. The
purpose and aim of the study is then presented, which is broken down into two research
questions. Next, the delimitations and contributions of the thesis are discussed. The section
is concluded with a brief synopsis of the disposition for the remainder of the paper.
The purpose of this study is to empirically evaluate the modeling of the valuation and in-
terest rate risk in demand deposits. Two sets of frameworks are investigated: the Economic
Value Model Framework (EVM) and the Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM).
Demand deposits, such as savings accounts and transaction accounts, do not have a prede-
termined maturity and the offered deposit rate may be changed at the bank’s discretion.
These intrinsic properties make demand deposits difficult to model and quantify the asso-
ciated risks. This topic is of interest since the absence of a generally accepted model has
prompted regulatory authorities to recommend a conservative approach for managing the
inherent risk in demand deposits, which is suboptimal for banks. This study constructs and
analyzes models for valuing and estimating the interest rate risk in demand deposits using
a unique, comprehensive and novel dataset provided by one the biggest commercial banks
in Sweden.
1.1 Background
One of the primary functions for commercial banks is enabling people and firms to save
capital while also providing access to financial markets (Swedish National Bank, 2014).
This allows parties to save capital for future needs and provides opportunities to borrow
capital for immediate investment needs. Banks1 are able to generate profits from the spread
in the interest rate earned from outstanding loans and the deposit rate paid to customers
for depositing capital, as the deposit rates paid are typically below the market interest
rate.
To finance the outstanding loans, banks have two main sources of short-term funding avail-
able: capital deposited by its customers and issued securities such as bonds. Traditionally,
transforming issued securities to provide lending have been a more expensive alternative
than transforming deposited capital. While deposits typically are a source of cheaper fund-
ing, they also expose banks to risks as deposits and loans mature at different points in time.
1The word “banks” refers to commercial banks unless otherwise stated.
1
Banks normally control the risks through Asset and Liability Management (ALM). Deposits
are typically seen among banks’ liabilities while outstanding loans are regarded as assets.
ALM oversees the process of effectively managing risks arising due to mismatches between
assets and liabilities, while also finding the optimal allocation mix of assets and liabilities
for funding the institution’s operations and maximizing profits.
For Sweden’s four biggest commercial banks, the net interest rate income, generated by their
assets and liabilities constitutes on average 61% of their total income.2 The transformation
of deposited funds into loans is of importance because 54% of Swedish banks’ liabilities are
represented by deposits from customers and 63% of the banks’ assets are loans (Statistics
Sweden (SCB), 2014).
There are two main risk categories associated with demand deposits: liquidity risk and in-
terest rate risk. This paper focuses on the interest rate risk which reflects banks’ sensitivity
to changes in interest rates (Swedish Supervisory Financial Authority (SFSA), 2014). It is
defined as the risk that an investment’s value will change as a result of changes in interest
rates. Usually, this is reflected in the fact that the interest rates used to calculate an invest-
ment’s present value changes, thus affecting the present value. With demand deposits, the
interest rate risk is also manifested in the fact that changing interest rates could also affect
customer behavior. For example, increasing market interest rates might lead to customers
withdrawing money and seeking more profitable alternatives elsewhere. In contrast, the
liquidity risk is the risk that a bank might not have enough capital to appease withdrawals
caused by other factors than interest rate changes.
Due to the unique uncertainties in future deposit rates and volumes3, it is notoriously
difficult to value demand deposits and quantify the associated risks. There is no generally
accepted method as of yet, despite a range of sophisticated methods being suggested in
previous studies. This could potentially be due to the fact that this area has not been
regulated until very recently, resulting in banks sticking to simpler (and to some degree
inadequate) methods rather than dedicating enough resources to understand and implement
the more sophisticated ones.
2Computed as an unweighted average of the net interest rate income’s share of the total income in 2014for Sweden’s biggest four banks: Nordea (72%), SEB (42%), Handelsbanken (71%) and Swedbank (58%).The numbers in the parentheses are the corresponding share for respective bank. All relevant figures areprovided in the income statement in each bank’s annual report for the fiscal year 2014.3Volume refers to the monetary value, also known as balance.
2
1.1.1 Current Practices
The Basel II accord issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) under-
lines the importance of modeling deposit rates and volumes in order to accurately report
interest rate risk in the banking book4. The absence of a generally accepted valuation and
interest rate risk model for demand deposits prompted BCBS (2004) to review contempo-
rary practices among banks. BCBS (2004) identified three methods banks typically use:
gap analysis, duration based methods and simulation techniques.
The simplest method, gap analysis, uses a maturity schedule to distribute the interest
rate sensitive assets to pre-determined “time bands” (BCBS, 2004). A “time band” is an
estimation of the time the demand deposit will remain at the bank. The interest rate risk
exposure is evaluated by subtracting the interest rate sensitive liabilities from corresponding
asset for each “time band”. This produces a “gap” informing of the expected change in net
interest income from an interest rate movement (BCBS, 2004). For instance, a negative
gap, i.e. when the liabilities exceed the assets, implies that an increase in market interest
rate may have a negative effect on banks’ net interest income. Moreover, as all assets in a
given “time band” are assumed to mature simultaneously, this method neglects variations in
characteristics for the assets within a “time band” (BCBS, 2004). Furthermore, gap analysis
does not consider differences in the spread between market interest rates and deposit rates
that might occur due to market interest rates movements and its affect on customer behavior
(BCBS, 2004).
An alternative approach used in conjunction with “time bands” are duration based methods
(BCBS, 2004). Duration is a measure of the sensitivity of the value of an asset to changes
in market interest rates. This class of methods assign a sensitivity weight to each “time
band” that is determined by estimating the duration of the assets and liabilities for respective
“time-band”. Duration based methods are prevalent among Japanese banks (Bank of Japan
(BOJ), 2014). Like gap analysis, this approach suffers from the arbitrary construction of
the “time bands” (BCBS, 2004; BOJ, 2014).
To address the shortcomings of the previous approaches, some banks use simulation tech-
niques (BCBS, 2004). This approach estimates the interest rate risk on simulated future
scenarios regarding the development of demand deposits. It is considered more complex as it
typically requires a model for the dynamics of the deposit volume, deposit rate, and market
interest rate (BCBS, 2004). Due to the complexity, banks prefer to use a combination of
gap analysis and duration based approaches as described above (BCBS, 2004).
4The banking book is an accounting term that refers to assets on a bank’s balance sheet that are expectedto be held to maturity.
3
The two most prevalent models in previous studies are the economic value model framework,
henceforth EVM (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; Jarrow and van Deventer, 1998; Nystrom,
2008) and the replicating portfolio model framework, henceforth RPM (Kalkbrener and
Willing, 2004; Maes and Timmermans, 2005). Both frameworks are based on simulation
techniques. The aim of the EVM is to estimate the net present value of the cash flows
that a bank receives from investing the demand deposits at a market interest rate minus
the deposit rate paid for the deposits (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; Jarrow and van
Deventer, 1998). The economic value is usually seen as the sum of the present value of these
expected net cash flows (BCBS, 2004). Interest rate risk is typically estimated by examining
how changes in market interest rates affect the economic value (Hutchison and Pennacchi,
1996; O’Brien, 2000). In contrast, the RPM aims to estimate the margin banks may earn
by investing the demand deposits in a replicating portfolio consisting of market interest rate
securites with finite maturities (Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004). The interest rate risk is
typically measured by analyzing the duration of the replicating portfolio (Kalkbrener and
Willing, 2004; Maes and Timmermans, 2005). There exists a need for empirical evaluation
of both frameworks since previous studies mainly focus on the theoretical aspects.
1.2 Problem Discussion
In recent years, demand deposits have become an increasingly important part of banks’
ALM. Constituting a substantial share of banks’ funding source, it is necessary to understand
the intrinsic properties of demand deposits. Since the future volumes and deposit rates
of demand deposits are unknown, correctly incorporating demand deposits into ALM and
capital and funding planning poses a significant challenge as it requires a clear understanding
of the underlying risks.
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, supervisory authorities have increased the monitoring
of banks’ management regarding demand deposits. The continued absence of a generally
accepted model for estimating the value and maturity of demand deposits have contributed
to the SFSA adopting a conservative approach, recommending the repricing date5 to be set
at zero years for all demand deposits (SFSA, 2014). Although demand deposits may be
withdrawn at the customers’ discretion, a substantial part of the demand deposit volume
can usually be found relatively stable over time as seen in historical data, which banks refer
to as core deposits (Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004). Thus, setting the repricing date to zero
years may result in banks missing out on the potentially higher returns typically associated
with investments in long maturity securities. On the other hand, setting a repricing date
5The repricing date is the date at which an asset or liability is revalued. For instance, a repricing date ofzero years implies that the value of an asset is reestimated continuously.
4
too distant into the future implies that the banks can tie up their capital in investments
with longer maturities. These uncertainties may result in increased maturity mismatches
between assets and liabilities (Goldstein and Pauzner, 2005; Dermine, 2015). By postponing
the repricing date into a distant future, banks may not be able to meet unpredictable future
withdrawals from demand deposits. This in turn increases banks’ exposure towards panic-
based bank runs, i.e. bank runs occurring when all depositors withdraw simultaneously
believing the bank will fail.
It can also be misleading to view demand deposits as one unified category, as both savings
accounts and transaction accounts count as demand deposits but have different purposes
and dynamics such as deposit rates. Since the pressures from regulatory authorities are
relatively new, there has not been a need to properly model the behavior of demand deposits
until recently. There is thus a knowledge gap in this area, both in theory and in practice,
considering its importance for financial institutions.
1.3 Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to empirically evaluate the modeling of the valuation and interest
rate risk in demand deposits. The goal of this study is to examine the following:
♦ How can demand deposit rates, volumes, and interest rate risk be modeled?
The foundation of this study is composed of the two sets of frameworks: the Economic
Value Model (EVM) and the Replicating Portfolio Model (RPM). Furthermore, given that
demand deposits come in different shapes, the following research questions are formulated
to assist in reaching the goal of this study:
♦ RQ1: How does the modeling of demand deposit rates and volumes differ between
account and client categories?
♦ RQ2: How do the interest rate risk estimations from the EVM compare to those of
the RPM?
1.4 Delimitations
A number of delimitations is required for the implementation of this thesis. First, this study
is solely focusing on the Swedish demand deposits market. Thus, the analysis is subject to
5
the Swedish regulatory setting which may not necessarily extend to other jurisdictions. This
study does not investigate the effect of different regulatory settings on the demand deposits
market. Second, the lack of a generally accepted framework for valuing demand deposits
and its corresponding interest rate risk has resulted in the development of several different
frameworks by both practitioners and academics. The scope of this study is delimited to only
focus on investigating the two most prevalent frameworks in the academic literature.
1.5 Contributions
This study is of interest both from a practical and theoretical perspective. The practical
contribution of this study are modeling frameworks for valuing and assessing the interest
rate risk in demand deposits based on the latest research. Thus, it complements and im-
proves banks’ current risk management practices, particularly for Swedish banks. From a
theoretical perspective, the contribution is threefold: first, this study provides an update
of an arguably outdated research field using a novel and comprehensive dataset. Secondly,
this study extends existing body of knowledge by considering macroeconomic factors in
extended time series models for the deposit rate and volume. Finally, the separation of
demand deposits into client categories provides additional unique insights.
1.6 Disposition
The remainder of this study is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature
regarding the modeling of demand deposits. Section 3 presents the theoretical framework
that this study is based upon, including an extensive description of the EVM and the RPM.
Section 4 presents the methodology and discusses its limitations, validity and reliability.
Section 5 describes the examined data. This entails a detailed review of the dataset regarding
the demand deposit rates and volumes that are provided by the case bank. Section 6 presents
and analyzes the obtained results. Section 7 discusses the findings with respect to each
research question. This section is concluded with a discussion regarding the implications of
the findings from a sustainability perspective. Section 8 concludes this study by summarizing
the results in the context of the main goal of this study, with additional suggestions for future
research.
6
2 Literature Review
This paper contributes to the existing literature regarding the valuation and interest rate risk
management of demand deposits. In general, the literature on this topic is relatively scarce
and somewhat outdated (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; Jarrow and van Deventer, 1998;
O’Brien, 2000; Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003). This paper extends the existing literature
by empirically analyzing the two most prominently discussed frameworks, the EVM and the
RPM, using a comprehensive and novel dataset. The outline for the remainder of the section
is as follows: next, a review of past studies examining how market competition affects the
demand deposit market is presented. This is followed by a review of the EVM and the RPM
for managing the interest rate risk in demand deposits.
2.1 Market Competition and Implications for Demand Deposits
In order to develop models that are able to capture the dynamics of demand deposits
adequately, it is important to understand how banks’ demand deposit products are affected
by the competitive environment. Neumark and Sharpe (1992) are among the first to study
how banks’ offered deposit rates are affected by market concentration. The authors find
banks in concentrated markets to be more rigid in increasing deposit rates, i.e. showing
delayed reactions to rising market interest rates, while being more responsive with lowering
deposit rates in response to declining market interest rates (Neumark and Sharpe, 1992).
This behavior can be seen as banks exercising market power, allowing banks to maximize
the spread between offered deposit rates and market interest rates which in turn improves
their profits. This sort of imperfect competition is attributed to the fact that customers, i.e.
the depositors, face search and switching costs, hindering them from moving their money
to other banks (Neumark and Sharpe, 1992).
Rosen (2007) extends Neumark and Sharpe’s (1992) research by also analyzing how the
market size structure of a local market, the presence of multimarket banks, and the bank’s
size affect the offered deposit rates. Market size structure of a local market is defined as
the distribution of market shares of banks of different sizes (Rosen, 2007). Rosen’s (2007)
findings support Neumark and Sharpe’s (1992) conclusion of banks taking advantage of
customers’ information disadvantage when setting the deposit rate. The author also provide
evidence of banks competing more intensely against other banks of a similar size and that
large banks generally tend to offer lower deposit rates than small banks (Rosen, 2007).
Lastly, Rosen (2007) finds the market size structure of a local market and the bank size to
have a larger effect on banks’ offered deposit rates than the market concentration at a local
7
market level. This is also supported by Hannan and Prager (2006) who find the offered
deposit rates for multi-market banks to depend more on the market concentration at a state
market level than at a local market level.
Overall, past studies are in unison of market competition having a significant effect on banks’
offered deposit rates. Though all the above reviewed studies focus on the American market,
Swedish banks are also likely to consider the competitive environment when determining
the deposit rate. The evidence of a significant relationship between market competition and
deposit rates (Neumark and Sharpe, 1992; Hannan and Prager, 2006; Rosen, 2007) may be
necessary to account for in modeling the deposit rate.
2.2 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM)
This section reviews the literature regarding the EVM for valuing demand deposits and
estimating the associated interest rate risk. Past studies primarily focus on the theoretical
development of interest rate risk management for demand deposits (Hutchison and Pennac-
chi, 1996; Jarrow and van Deventer, 1998; Nystrom, 2008).
In their seminal paper, Hutchison and Pennacchi (1996) develop an analytical valuation
framework for demand deposits under an equilibrium-based approach. The framework con-
sists of a model for the market interest rate, deposit volume, deposit rate, and interest
rate risk respectively.6 The market interest rate is assumed to be the only source of risk
(Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996). The deposit volume is assumed to be dependent on the
deposit rate, market interest rate and other exogenous factors affecting the volume such
as macroeconomic factors (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996). Analogously, the deposit rate
is suggested to be a function of market interest rate and other exogenous factors (Hutchi-
son and Pennacchi, 1996). The interest rate risk is measured by analyzing the change in
the deposit liability7 due to a parallel shift of the market interest rate of 100 basis points
(bps).
Jarrow and van Deventer (1998) is another influential paper in the EVM literature. In
contrast to Hutchison and Pennacchi (1996), the authors solely focus on the theoretical
development of a valuation model for demand deposits and credit card loans under an
arbitrage-free setting. Jarrow and van Deventer (1998) shows the deposit rent may be
modeled as an exotic interest rate swap when the deposit volume is only dependent on the
6From henceforth, deposits will refer to demand deposits unless stated otherwise.7The deposit liability is defined as the initial deposit volume less the present value of all future rents. Rent
is the net cash flows a bank receives from investing the deposits at a market interest rate less the depositrate paid to depositors (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; Jarrow and van Deventer, 1998).
8
market interest rate.
Nystrom (2008) extends Jarrow and van Deventer’s (1998) work by developing specific
models for the deposit rate and deposit volume respectively. Nystrom (2008) proposed
deposit rate model is able to capture how the offered deposit rate is affected by banks favoring
customers who deposit large sums. Furthermore, Nystrom’s (2008) proposed deposit volume
model is able to capture differences in customer behavior. The completeness of Nystrom’s
(2008) suggested models for the deposit rate and the deposit volume makes the models
significantly more complex than the ones proposed by Hutchison and Pennacchi (1996), and
consequently more difficult to implement in practice.
Hutchison and Pennacchi’s (1996) and Jarrow and van Deventer’s (1998) main contribution
is an analytical solution for valuing and measuring interest rate risk in demand deposits.
Frauendorfer and Schurle (2003) argue that the analytical solutions are based on simplify-
ing and to some extent inadequate assumptions. In contrast to Hutchison and Pennacchi
(1996) and Jarrow and van Deventer (1998), O’Brien (2000) develops a numerical model
for deposit volume and deposit rate. A prevalent assumption in Hutchison and Pennacchi’s
(1996) model is that the deposit rate exhibits a symmetrical behavior in response to changes
in the market interest rate. O’Brien (2000) evaluates how Hutchison and Pennacchi’s (1996)
assumption affects the interest rate risk estimates by also considering an asymmetric behav-
ior of deposit rate changes in the analysis. The asymmetric behavior of the deposit rate is
supposed to capture the observed tendency of banks to quickly lower deposit rates during
declining market interest rates while being slower with increasing the deposit rates when
market interest rates increase (Neumark and Sharpe, 1992; O’Brien, Orphanides and Small,
1994; Rosen, 2007). O’Brien (2000) finds that the estimated interest rate risk is reduced
when the deposit rate exhibits a symmetrical behavior. O’Brien’s (2000) findings indicate
that the choice of deposit rate model may affect the estimated interest rate risk.
There has not been as much focus in previous literature regarding the impact of macroe-
conomic factors on deposit volumes, which may be explained by the fact that their future
values are difficult to predict. Jarrow and van Deventer (1998) suggest that unemployment
rate and income level may improve the deposit volume modeling. However, no attempt is
made to include the variables in their own model. O’Brien (2000) includes household in-
come in the model for deposit volume, but simplifies by assuming that it exhibits a constant
growth. Carmona (2007) suggests that the unemployment rate may influence the number of
individuals in need of short-term funding, as the unemployed may aim to be more cautious
with their capital to compensate for their loss of income. This in turn can be related to the
volume of demand deposits, as demand deposits are a form of short-term funding.
9
A common characteristic in the aforementioned studies is the focus on U.S. markets. This
paper extends this literature by analyzing the applicability of the EVM on a European
market. Moreover, macroeconomic factors are mostly excluded in the actual analyses of the
previous literature, something this paper addresses.
2.3 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM)
The aim of the RPM is to mimic the behavior of the demand deposits by constructing a
portfolio of market interest rate securities whose returns resemble the deposit rate (Frauen-
dorfer and Schurle, 2003). RPMs are typically constructed by matching the price and delta8
profile of the demand deposits (Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004) or by solving an optimization
problem (Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003; Maes and Timmermans, 2005).
Maes and Timmermans (2005) construct an RPM using optimization algorithms. The ben-
efit of this approach, compared to Kalkbrener and Willing’s (2004), is that no model for
the deposit volume is needed. Instead, the optimization problem relies solely on the deposit
rates and the market interest rate securities. As RPMs constructed using optimization is
not reliant on deposit volume, a disadvantage is that the liquidity risk is not accounted for.
Maes and Timmermans (2005) address this by assuming only a part of the deposit volume
is invested in the RPM. The authors construct RPMs for the two different optimization cri-
teria and evaluate the resulting differences on the corresponding interest rate risk estimates.
The two criteria used are maximizing the risk-adjusted margin and minimizing the standard
deviation of the margin between the deposit rate and the expected return of the RPM. The
authors find the choice of optimization criterion to have little effect on the interest rate risk
(Maes and Timmermans, 2005).
Maes and Timmermans (2005) construct their RPMs using historical data and assuming
the portfolio weights are constant. Frauendorfer and Schurle (2003) argue the static ap-
proach as the one used by Maes and Timmermans (2005) does not adequately account for
future changes in the market environment and customer behavior. Frauendorfer and Schurle
(2003) address the aforementioned weaknesses by creating a dynamic RPM able to consider
future scenarios when determining the portfolio weights. The proposed portfolio is also able
to change the portfolio weights in response to changing environments. Frauendorfer and
Schurle’s (2003) findings indicate that the dynamic RPM is able to mimic the behavior of
the deposit rate better and generate more accurate interest rate risk estimates.
8Delta is a measure of how the price (value) of demand deposits changes with respect to a change in theunderlying determinant (in this case deposit rates). For instance, a call option with a delta of 0.5 meansthat for every 1 SEK the underlying asset increases with the option increase in value with 0.5 SEK.
10
Dewachter (2006) compares the dynamic RPM with the EVM as proposed by Hutchison
and Pennacchi (1996) and O’Brien (2000). In contrast to Frauendorfer and Schurle (2003),
Dewachter’s (2006) dynamic RPM does not allow the portfolio weights to change in response
to changing environment. The author argues the EVM is superior to the RPM as it is not
only able to compute the interest rate risk, but also the present value of the deposit liability
(Dewachter, 2006). This is supported by Bardenhewer (2007) who finds that the EVM
typically provides higher hedging efficiency than the RPM.
This paper contributes to aforementioned literature by extending Dewachter’s (2006) and
Bardenhewer’s (2007) analysis of the two different frameworks.
11
3 Theoretical Framework
This section presents the theoretical framework that serves as a basis for this study. First,
theoretical concepts for the interest rate modeling are presented. This is followed by a detailed
description of the theory behind the EVM and the RPM respectively.
3.1 Market Interest Rate Models
A central aspect of demand deposit modeling, regardless of approach, is the market interest
rate as it is assumed to not only be the primary driving factor behind the deposit rates and
deposit volumes, but also the return which banks can invest at (Hutchison and Pennacchi,
1996; O’Brien, 2000; Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004). It is consequently essential to properly
understand the different market interest rate models that are currently being used. The
simulated series of future market interest rates may vary depending on which model is
being used, which in turn may affect the estimated interest rate risk.
Models used in the existing literature for simulating stochastic short-term market interest
rates typically exhibit mean reversion (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; Jarrow and van
Deventer, 1998; O’Brien, 2000; Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004). The mean reversion attribute
means the interest rate will tend to move to its average over time. This attribute is crucial
to capture since interest rates will most likely not increase or decrease indefinitely as this
would greatly affect economic activity. This section aims to provide an overview of the
Vasicek model which is used in this paper. The Vasicek model is used since it is prevalent
in previous studies on demand deposits (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000),
thus the reliability of this study may increase by choosing it. A commonly cited drawback
of the Vasicek model is that the interest rates can take negative values (Hull, 2009). A more
in-depth argument for this choice of model can be found in section 4.2.
The Vasicek model (Vasicek, 1977) is a so-called one-factor model where the movements in
the interest rate are only driven by a single source of market risk. The model was the first
of its kind to include mean reversion. The model itself is written as the following stochastic
differential equation (Hull, 2009):
drt = a(b− rt)dt+ σdWt (3.1)
where Wt is a Wiener process, which together with the standard deviation σ represent the
12
shock factor, i.e. the factor deciding the volatility of the interest rate. The drift term
a(b − rt) can be interpreted as the spread between the long term mean level b and the
interest rate at time t, multiplied by a, the speed of which the interest rate reverts to the
long term mean.
3.2 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM)
In the EVM, the aim is to model future deposit volumes and deposit rates in order to
estimate the future “rents” and in extension the value of the deposit liability. The rents are
defined as the net cash flows a bank receives from investing the deposits at a short term
market interest rate minus the deposit rate paid to depositors:
Rt = Vt(rt − rdt ) (3.2)
where Rt , Vt , rdt and rt is the rent, the deposit volume, the deposit rate, and the market
interest rate at time t respectively. It is thus assumed in this study that banks can invest
the deposit volume for a return of the short term market interest rate, which is in line with
previous research (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000; Dewachter, 2006).
The deposit liability is defined as the current (t = 0) deposit volume (V0) minus the sum of
the present value of all the future rents (Rk):
L = V0 −T∑k=1
ZkRk (3.3)
Zt =
t∏k=1
1
(1 + 112rk)
(3.4)
where L is the deposit liability, T is the time horizon for the simulations, rk is the annualized
market interest rate at month k and Zt is the discount factor at time t. The deposit liability
is of importance since this is where the interest rate risks are of concern from the banks’
perspective.
13
3.2.1 SARIMAX
The future deposit rates and deposit volumes are modeled with the SARIMAX framework.
The SARIMAX model is an extension of the more common Autoregressive model (AR),
which is encountered in many of the previous studies (Jarrow and van Deventer, 1998;
O’Brien, 2000; Dewachter, 2006). Apart from the AR-components, the SARIMAX model
comes with an added seasonal component (S), an integrated part (I), a moving-average part
(MA), and exogenous input variables (X). The SARIMAX framework allows for exogenous
variables in the modeling of the deposit rate and deposit volume, respectively, which previous
studies have indicated might improve the modeling accuracy (see e.g. Jarrow and van
Deventer, 1998; Carmona, 2007).
The AR model is a stochastic process in which the output variable, i.e. the future values,
are written as a linear combination of lagged values of itself, i.e. its previous values, plus an
error term. The benefit of the AR model is that it captures both the deterministic factors
and the stochastic residuals (Brockwell and Davis, 2002). The AR model of order p for
the time series Yt, where p stands for the number of lags to include, takes the following
form:
Φ(B)(Yt − µ) = εt (3.5)
Φ(B) = 1− φ1B − ...− φpBp (3.6)
where µ is the mean term, εt is white noise, φ1, ..., φp are the parameters of the model, and
B is the backshift operator:
BiYt = Yt−i (3.7)
The AR model can be extended by introducing a Moving-average (MA) polynomial, result-
ing in a Autoregressive-Moving-average (ARMA) model. The MA part causes the output
variable to also be dependent on previous white noise, i.e. previous random shocks, whereas
the AR model is only dependent on the current white noise term. This can be interpreted
as a stochastic process where random shocks can have a lasting effect on the output variable
over several time periods, e.g. the deposit volume taking several time periods to recover
from a bank run. The ARMA model is an extension of Eq. (3.5) and (3.6) and may be
14
written as:
Φ(B)(Yt − µ) = Θ(B)εt (3.8)
Θ(B) = 1− θ1B − ...− θqBq (3.9)
where the newly introduced θ1, ..., θq are the MA parameters and q is the order of the MA
part, i.e. the number of white noise lags.
The series of white noise must be stationary in order for the ARMA model to be of any
significance. The definition of stationarity is that the expected value and autocovariance
function are independent of the time t (Brockwell and Davis, 2002). If the process turns out
to be non-stationary, stationarity can be reached by differencing the process, e.g. modeling
the change in interest rate, ∆r, instead of r itself. This differencing step is known as the
integrated part (I) of the model. The ARMA model thus becomes the ARIMA model:
Φ(B)(Wt − µ) = Θ(B)εt (3.10)
Wt = (1−B)kYt (3.11)
where Wt is the new differenced series of Yt from the ARMA model and k is the number of
differences.
When the process shows signs of seasonality, a seasonal component (S) can be included.
The SARIMA model is identical to Eq. (3.10) and (3.11) except with a small modification
to Eq. (3.11):
Wt = (1−B)k(1−Bs)KYt (3.12)
where Wt is the new differenced series of Yt from the ARIMA model, k is the number of
non-seasonal differences, K is the number of seasonal differences, and s is the length of the
seasonal cycle. Another option is to directly add the AR and MA terms of the seasonal
15
cycle to Φ(B) and Θ(B) respectively.
Lastly, the X in the SARIMAX model corresponds to the exogenous input variables. Often,
the output variable that is modeled will depend not only on its previous values, but also on
other exogenous variables. The SARIMAX model is an extension of Eq. (3.12) and can be
written as:
Wt = µ+∑i
Ψi(B)Xi,t +Θ(B)
Φ(B)εt (3.13)
Ψ(B) = ψ0 − ψ1B − ...− ψrBr (3.14)
where Xi,t is the i:th exogenous input variable, Ψi is the polynomial backshift operator for
the i:th exogenous input variable and r is the number of lags to include for the exogenous
input variable.
3.2.2 Box-Jenkins Model Fitting
The parameters of the SARIMAX models is estimated using the Box-Jenkins method, which
is the standard methodology when it comes to time series model fitting (Brockwell and Davis,
2002). The first step sets out to identify a suitable model. First, plots of the autocorrelation
functions (ACF) of the time series of the dependent variables and exogenous variables are
analyzed with regards to stationarity. If the ACF of a particular variable is exponentially
decreasing for each lag, stationarity can be concluded. Otherwise, the variable is differenced
until stationarity is reached. Once all the variables are stationary, the cross-correlation plots
between the exogenous variables and the dependent variables are analyzed. The lag(s) with
the highest cross-correlation will be chosen as the exogenous variable(s) to include in the
model.
The dependent variables are then regressed on the exogenous variables without the ARMA
terms. The resulting ACF and partial autocorrelation function (PACF) plots of the residuals
are then analyzed. The PACF plot is analyzed first in order to determine which AR terms to
include. AR terms should be included up to the lag where the PACF becomes statistically
insignificant. Additionally, sudden spikes in the PACF may indicate seasonality and should
thus also be included (e.g. 12 months seasonal data will show a spike in the PACF at lag 12).
This process is subsequently repeated for the ACF plot to determine the MA terms.
16
After a model has been selected, the parameters for the ARMA terms and exogenous vari-
ables are estimated using the conditional least squares method:
Minimize
n∑t=1
(xt −∞∑i=1
πixt−i)2 (3.15)
where xt is the analyzed time series and πi are computed from:
Θ(B)
Φ(B)= 1−
∞∑i=1
πiBi (3.16)
where B, Φ and Θ is the backshift operator, AR-parameters and MA-parameters respectively
as defined by Eq. (3.7), (3.6) and (3.9) in section 3.2.1.
Finally, the model is validated by testing the residuals of the model. The residuals must
be white noise, i.e. independent of each other and have constant mean and variance which
are independent of time. The ACF and PACF plots of the final residuals are analyzed for
this purpose. Furthermore, a chi-square test with the null-hypothesis that the residuals are
white noise is computed using the Ljung-Box formula:
χ2m = n(n+ 2)
m∑k=1
r2kn− k (3.17)
where m is the lag and:
rk =
n−k∑t=1
atat+k
n∑t=1
a2t
(3.18)
where at is the residual series of length n.
The constructed models are evaluated based on their standard error and Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC) score. The AIC score is a commonly used measure for model selection and
is a measure of how well the estimated model represent the “true” model (Brockwell and
Davis, 2002). The lower the AIC score, the closer the estimated model represents the “true
17
model” (Brockwell and Davis, 2002). The formula for AIC is as follows:
AIC = ln
( n∑t=1
a2t
n+ 2p
)n (3.19)
where p is the number of parameters in the model, including the white noise term.
3.2.3 Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is defined as the risk that an investment’s value will change as a result
of changes in the interest rates (SFSA, 2014). Typically, this is reflected in the fact that
the interest rates used to calculate an investment’s present value changes, thus affecting the
present value. With demand deposits, interest rate risk is also manifested in that changes in
market interest rate may affect depositors’ behavior. For example, increasing market interest
rates might lead to customers withdrawing money and seeking more profitable alternatives
elsewhere. This results in changes in the deposit volume, and thus also the rents and the
deposit liability. In short, the present value of the deposit liability is affected by interest rate
risk not only in terms of discount factors, but also in terms of the deposit volume.
Traditional interest risk measures typically only consider the first source of risk (Hutchison
and Pennacchi, 1996) and are thus not directly applicable for demand deposits. Instead,
the interest rate risk in the EVM is in this study estimated by calculating the interest rate
elasticity. This choice of measure is in line with the interest rate risk measure used by
O’Brien (2000) and Dewachter (2006). Elasticity is a measure of how sensitive an asset is
to its underlying variable (Bodie, Kane and Marcus, 2014). The aim is to measure how the
value of the deposit liability changes subject to parallel shifts in the market interest rate
yield curve. From Eq. (3.3) it can be seen that the deposit liability is a function of the
deposit rate, the deposit volume, and the market interest rate. Additionally, the deposit
rate and volume are both dependent on the market interest rate as well. The interest rate
elasticity will therefore be able to capture all of the aspects of which shifts in the market
interest rate affect the deposit liability.
After applying the parallel shifts to the future market interest rate yield curve, a new deposit
liability Lnew is calculated. The interest rate elasticity (IRE) is then calculated as:
18
IRE =LnewL− 1 (3.20)
with L and Lnew computed in accordance to Eq. (3.3). Because the IRE can take positive
and negative values, the interest rate risk will be assessed from the absolute value of the
IRE. For example, a larger absolute value in the IRE means that the interest rate risk is
higher.
3.3 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM)
An alternative approach for modeling the dynamics and estimating the interest rate risk in
demand deposits is the RPM. In the RPM, the dynamics of a bank’s deposits are estimated
by transforming it into a portfolio of market interest rate securities with known maturities.
The idea is to mimic the dynamics of the deposit volume with a portfolio of market interest
rate securities (Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003).
Optimization criteria commonly used in the RPM are maximizing the risk-adjusted margin
or minimizing the variance between the portfolio return and deposit rate over time (Maes and
Timmermans, 2005). The idea behind the former criterion is to maximize the profit banks
receive from investing the deposit volume in a portfolio of market interest rate securities. The
latter criterion is typically used to mimic the behavior of the demand deposits (Frauendorfer
and Schurle, 2003). This paper focuses on the latter criterion as the primary aim is to
replicate the deposits dynamics. The optimization problem may be formulated as:
Minimize Variance of (rp −R)
subject to
n∑i=1
wi = 1,
wi ≥ 0.
(3.21)
where R is the deposit rate and the portfolio return rp =n∑i=1
wiri, i.e. equal to the sum of
the returns of each individual asset multiplied with the allocated weight invested in asset
i (wi). The first constraint states that the portfolio weights shall add up to one, i.e. it
ensures that no money is unused. Finally, the second constraint prohibits the undertaking
of any short positions. This constraint is included to improve comparability with previous
studies (Maes and Timmermans, 2005; Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003).
19
3.3.1 Interest Rate Risk
A benefit of the RPM is that the interest rate risk may be estimated with traditional
measures such as duration. This is feasible since the replicating portfolio and not the actual
deposits is used for estimating the interest rate risk. Duration measures the approximate
change in value due to a parallel shift of the market interest rate yield curve (BCBS, 2004).
A duration measure typically associated with RPM is the Macaulay duration (Maes and
Timmermans, 2005; Dewachter, 2006), which is defined as:
D =
n∑i=1
wimi (3.22)
where wi is the portfolio weight invested in security i and mi is its maturity. Macaulay
duration (D) is expressed in the weighted average time to repayment. The main advantage
of the Macaulay duration is that it estimates the average time the deposited capital is
expected to remain at the bank. However, it is not an explicit measure of how the deposit
value changes due to changes in the market interest rate. Instead, the following formula
may be used:
∆P
P= −D∆y (3.23)
where P and ∆P is the portfolio value and change in portfolio value respectively and D
is Macaulay duration as specified in Eq. (3.22). This formula estimates the change in
portfolio value due to small changes (parallel shifts) in the portfolio yield ∆y (Hull, 2009).
This measure allows for a direct comparison of the interest rate risk estimate of the RPM
with the corresponding estimate from the EVM since unit of measure is changed. Similar to
the EVM, the interest rate risk in the RPM will be viewed from an absolute value perspective
as well. This means that a larger absolute value in the change of portfolio value indicates a
higher interest rate risk.
20
4 Methodology
This section introduces the methods used to answer the research questions of the study. The
four key issues of this study are the choice of model for the market interest rate, the deposit
rate and the deposit volume and how to measure the interest rate risk. The remainder of
this section describes the selected models in this study. First, the market interest rate model
used in both frameworks is presented. Next with regards to RQ1, the models for the EVM
are elaborated upon, followed by a detailed explanation of the models for the RPM. To an-
swer RQ2, the demand deposits are grouped into SA and TA, as well as private accounts and
corporate accounts. Lastly, the limitations, validity and reliability of the study are discussed.
An overview of the overall workflow for the EVM and RPM is presented below in Figure 4.1.
Vasicek model
Market Interest Rate
Deposit Rates
Deposit Volumes
Deposit Rents
Deposit Liability
Interest Rate Risk
Market Interest Rates
Portfolio Optimization
Interest Rate Risk
EVM RPM
Figure 4.1: Illustration of the workflow for the EVM and the RPM approaches applied in this study.
21
4.1 General Method
The general method of this study is based on stochastic simulation, where the interest
rate risk is analyzed based on future forecasted scenarios. Stochastic simulation is together
with backtesting two of the most common techniques in analyzing non-maturing liabilities
(see e.g. Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000; Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004).
The main difference between the two methods is that stochastic simulation considers future
scenarios in the analysis whereas backtesting only utilizes historical data. Each method is
associated with different advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage of backtesting is the use of real world data to evaluate the developed
models. This enables one to determine how well the model would have been in the past
(Hagin and Kahn, 1990). Still, a disadvantage of backtesting is that the obtained result
may be sensitive to the selected time period of study (Hagin and Kahn, 1990). Selecting
a too long time period may lead to the inclusion of old data with little relevance to the
current deposit dynamics. Analogously, a too short time period may lead to an exclusion of
significant events which may have had an impact on the current deposit dynamics. Moreover,
backtesting implicitly assumes future dynamics will resemble the current ones, which is not
always the case (Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003).
The cited drawbacks of backtesting are addressed in stochastic simulation. The main benefit
of stochastic simulation is that multiple future scenarios are used in the analysis. This
alleviates the need for assumptions regarding the future development of deposit dynamics
(Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003). Still, the added benefit of stochastic simulation comes
with increased complexity as all included factors in the analysis must be simulated. This
may be cumbersome, especially in the case of demand deposits which require models for the
market interest rate, deposit rate, deposit volume and other exogenous variables such as
macroeconomic indicators. Further, caution should be taken as the difficulty to implement
the model increases as the number of variables in the model increases. For these cited
reasons, it is important to construct as simple models as possible without sacrificing the
predictive ability when using stochastic simulation techniques.
By using stochastic simulation, this study is able to consider different scenarios of future
developments of the deposit market in the analysis. This study runs Monte Carlo simulations
to obtain 1000 different scenarios for 20 years into the future, starting in January 2015.
These simulated scenarios serve as basis for the analysis of the EVM and the RPM. The
20-year time horizon is selected since the 20-year interest rate swap is the security with
the highest maturity available for the construction of the replicating portfolios. This time
horizon is lower than the time horizon used by O’Brien (2000) and Dewachter (2006), whose
22
time horizons are 30 years and 40 years respectively. A longer time horizon results in higher
deposit rents, lower deposit liabilities and an increased uncertainty in the forecasts. The
results produced from this study should therefore be seen as a more conservative estimate
of the deposit liability and the interest rate risk.
4.1.1 Demand Deposit Categorization
The demand deposit accounts are defined in this study as deposit accounts without re-
strictions on the number of withdrawals/deposits that the account holder can make. This
definition is in line with previous studies (see e.g. Jarrow and van Deventer, 1998). The
two main types of demand deposits are savings accounts (henceforth SA) and transaction
accounts (henceforth TA). SA are typically used for saving money, while TA are for everyday
banking needs such as shopping transactions. As a result, the volumes of TA will usually
have more frequent fluctuations than the volumes of SA, while also paying lower deposit
rates than SA (Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000). Because of these differences,
this study separates demand deposits into SA and TA, which is in line with Hutchison and
Pennacchi (1996) and O’Brien (2000). To extend on the previous literature, this study
further investigates private (personal) accounts and corporate accounts separately, as cor-
porations often have the possibility to negotiate higher deposit rates because of their higher
capital base.
4.2 Market Interest Rate Model
As explained in section 3.1, the market interest rate is a central aspect in both frameworks
since it typically seems to not only be the primary driving factor behind the deposit rates
and deposit volumes, but also the return which banks may invest at. This study utilizes the
one-factor Vasicek model to simulate the market interest rate for a couple of reasons. First,
as the Vasicek model is commonly used in previous studies on demand deposits (Hutchison
and Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000), reliability and comparability can be increased by using
the model. Furthermore, the Vasicek model allows for negative interest rates, something
frequently cited as a disadvantage, whereas modified versions of the Vasicek model, such
as the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross model9, removes this possibility (Hull, 2009). With the current
negative interest rate environment on the Swedish market in consideration, the possibility
for negative interest rates in the Vasicek model may be a desirable attribute. Although
the negative interest rate environment may merely be a temporary occurrence, it can be
argued as to why it is significant and should be considered: First, the current interest
9A more detailed description of the model can be found in Cox, Ingersoll and Ross (1985).
23
rate environment provides evidence that negative interest rates are not as implausible as
previously believed. Furthermore, Zeytun and Gupta (2007) find the difference in interest
rate estimates of the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross model and the Vasicek model to be minimal. With
these cited reasons in mind the Vasicek model is chosen in this paper under the belief that
the current negative interest rates are significant enough to warrant their inclusion in this
study’s probability space of possible events.
The following is the discrete time Vasicek model used in this study:
rt = rt−1 + a(b− rt−1)∆t+ σ√
∆tzt (4.1)
where rt is the short term market interest rate at time t, zt is a random variable with
standard normal distribution N(0,1), and σ is the volatility of the interest rate. The drift
term a(b − rt−1) can be interpreted as the spread between the long term mean level b and
the interest rate at time t− 1, multiplied by a, the speed of which the interest rate reverts
to the long term mean. The model is mean reverting and stationary for all a > 0, which are
desirable traits when modeling interest rates as mentioned in the literature review.
The parameters a, b and σ are estimated by the maximum likelihood method using historical
monthly interest rate data. As all the other data used in this study are also on a monthly
basis, the time steps will be monthly increments, resulting in ∆t being equal to 1. Breusch-
Pagan test is used to ensure the residuals of the model are normally distributed with a
constant variance. Breusch-Pagan is a test for heteroskedasticity in the estimated model,
i.e. whether the variance of the residuals is dependent on the values of the explanatory
variables (Woodridge, 2013).
4.3 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM)
As described in section 3.2, the main aspect of the EVM is to estimate future rents in
order to calculate the deposit liability. As the rents are dependent on the future deposit
rates and deposit volumes, it is necessary to derive predictive models for these. The models
are constructed using the Box-Jenkins method as described in section 3.2.2. The market
interest rate used for the EVM approach is the 1-month STIBOR.10 This choice is based
upon previous research using market interest rates of a similar maturity (Hutchison and
Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000; Dewachter, 2006).
10Stockholm Interbank Offered Rate
24
4.3.1 Deposit Rate Model
In accordance with Hutchison and Pennacchi (1996), O’Brien (2000) and Dewachter (2006),
the deposit rate model used in this study is a function of the short term market interest rate
and lagged values of the deposit rate itself. Furthermore, as the market concentration has
been proven to be correlated with the deposit rates (Hannan and Prager, 2006; Rosen, 2007),
such a variable is also included in the analysis. Drawing from the SARIMAX framework
from section 3.2.1, the following model is used:
(1−B)k(1−Bs)Krdt = Ψ1(B)rt + Ψ2(B)xt + cI[rt−rt−1>0] +Θ(B)
Φ(B)εt (4.2)
where rdt is the deposit rate at time t, rt is the market interest rate, xt is the market
concentration variable, and c is a constant. I is the indicator function which takes the value
1 if the market interest rate have increased over the last month and otherwise is 0. This
intends to capture the asymmetric behavior of deposit rates as banks tend to quickly lower
deposit rates during declining market interest rates while being slower with increasing the
deposit rates when market interest rates increase (Neumark and Sharpe, 1992; O’Brien,
Orphanides and Small, 1994; Rosen, 2007). The unknown parameters and the resulting
model are estimated and presented in section 6.2.1.
Market concentration is measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). It is one of
the most widely used measure of market concentration and widely used in previous studies
(Neumark and Sharpe, 1992; Hannan and Prager; 2006; Rosen, 2007). HHI (xt) is defined
as (Rosen, 2007):
xt =
n∑i=1
γ2i (4.3)
where γi is the market share of bank i. The index returns a value between 0 and 1 where the
former indicate a perfectly competitive market and the latter a monopoly market.
4.3.2 Deposit Volume Model
The deposit volume model is a function of lagged values of itself, the spread between the
market interest rate and the deposit rate, and several macroeconomic variables. The spread,
which is also included by O’Brien (2000), is a way to incorporate the opportunity costs
25
depositors face, as only including the deposit rate may be misleading. By including them
separately, multicollinearity might be an issue since the deposit rate is a function of the
market interest rate. Building upon the suggestions of Jarrow and van Deventer (1998),
O’Brien (2000), and Carmona (2007), the macroeconomic variables included in this paper are
the gross domestic product, unemployment rate, and the monetary aggregate. Once again
using the SARIMAX framework from section 3.2.1, the following model is suggested:
(1−B)k(1−Bs)KVt = µ+ Ψ1(B)(rt − rdt ) + Ψ2(B)Gt + Ψ3(B)Ut + Ψ4(B)Mt + Θ(B)Φ(B) εt (4.4)
where Vt, rt, Gt, Ut, Mt, is the deposit volume, the market interest rate, the gross domestic
product, the unemployment rate and the monetary aggregate at time t respectively. Finally,
rdt is the deposit rate at time t as determined by Eq. (4.2). The unknown parameters and
the resulting model are estimated and presented in section 6.2.2.
4.3.3 Interest Rate Risk
The interest rate risk in the EVM is estimated numerically with the interest rate elasticity
(IRE) presented in Eq. (3.20). In order to calculate the change in the deposit liability due
to parallel shifts in the market interest rates yield curve, 1000 future 20-year paths of market
interest rates are simulated. The average path is then used to discount the future rents,
as well as to simulate the future 20-year deposit rates and deposit volumes. The deposit
volume used to calculate the rents are the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the
simulated volume. This is to take a more conservative approach by not overestimating the
future growth rate, as the case bank in this study has sustained a relatively high growth
rate in the last decade. The market interest yield curve is constructed by compounding the
simulated market interest rates. The interest rate elasticity is then calculated for parallel
shifts of 100 and 200 bps in the simulated market interest rate yield curve, which is in
accordance with BCBS (2004) recommendations.
This particular method for constructing the yield curve and estimating the interest rate risk
is used to increase comparability with previous studies using a similar approach (Hutchison
and Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000). By measuring the elasticity subject to parallel shifts in
the market interest rate yield curve, Eq. (3.20) is equivalent to the interest rate risk formula
used in the RPM (Eq. (3.23)). This allows for a comparison with the results obtained from
the RPM approach. While there are other analytical approaches to measuring interest
26
rate risk such as the Modified duration11, they are not fit for this study since a numerical
approach is applied here (Monte Carlo simulations), hence the numerical IRE method being
more suited. To further increase comparability with the RPM approach, the interest rate
risk will be calculated for the 10- and 15-year time horizons as well12 (see section 4.4).
4.4 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework (RPM)
The following section provides a detailed description regarding the construction of the repli-
cating portfolio. The purpose of constructing an RPM is to compare its interest risk es-
timates with corresponding estimates for the EVM as stated in the second research ques-
tion.
This study develops a dynamic RPM since previous studies find it to be superior to static
RPMs (see e.g. Dewachter, 2006). The main benefit of the dynamic RPM is that the
optimal portfolio is constructed based on both historical and future deposits dynamics.
This is typically illustrated in two ways (Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003):
♦ Multiple future scenarios are simulated and used in constructing the optimal portfolio.
♦ The portfolio weights are allowed to change dynamically to better replicate the future
deposit dynamics.
In this study, the constructed RPM only incorporates the first cited benefit. To let the
portfolio weights remain constant, this study assumes the portfolio is reinvested every month
with the same weights. While banks in practice typically are more active in reallocating
their replicating portfolios to match the in- and outflow of demand deposits, the reason why
the portfolio weights are not allowed to change dynamically is due to the added complexity
it requires. Though it may improve the obtained findings, the increased complexity is very
difficult to implement due to its computational demands (Bardenhewer, 2007).
The portfolio is constructed by minimizing the variation between the portfolio return and the
deposit rate as formulated by Eq. (3.21). As discussed in section 3.3, this criterion is com-
monly used when the primary aim is to mimic the behavior of the demand deposits.
The optimal portfolio weights are determined by simulating 1000 different scenarios for 20
years into the future of each asset (i.e. the market interest rate securities) and deposit rate.
For each scenario, the optimal portfolio weights with regards to the problem formulation
11Modified duration is defined as the percentage derivative of price with respect to yield.12This is done by only using the first 10 and 15 years of the simulated 20-year paths.
27
in Eq. (3.21) are determined. The final portfolio weight wi for asset i is computed as the
average weight allocated to asset i of every scenario:
wi =
1000∑k=1
wik
1000
(4.5)
where wi is the optimal weight of asset i in the final portfolio, and wki is the allocated weight
to asset i in scenario k. To simulate future scenarios, models for the deposit rates and the
market interest rate securities need to be developed. The deposit rate model is developed
as described in section 4.3.1 and the market interest rate securities are modeled with the
one-factor Vasicek model as described in section 4.2.
Analogously to previous studies (see e.g. Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004; Maes and Tim-
mermans, 2005), the replicating portfolio in this study consists of liquid short-term and
long-term maturity securities. The short-term market interest rate securities are the 1-day,
1-week, 1-month, 3-month and 6-month STIBOR. The long-term market interest rate secu-
rities are 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 7-year, 10-year, 15-year and 20-year swap rates.13 A
cited drawback of the RPM is that the obtained findings are typically sensitive to the choice
of longest maturity security included in the portfolio (Kalkbrener and Willing, 2004). This
paper addresses this issue by constructing three different RPMs for three different choices
of the longest maturity security. The three portfolio constructions are: the 20-year portfolio
which contains all securities, the 15-year portfolio which exclude the 20-year swap, and the
10-year portfolio which contain securities with a maturity of 10 years and below.
4.4.1 Interest Rate Risk
After constructing the replicating portfolio, the next step is to compute the interest rate
risk. To allow for a direct comparison with the corresponding estimates of the EVM and
subsequently answer the second research question, this paper use the interest rate risk
measure defined by Eq. (3.22-3.23). This choice of measure is in line with Dewachter (2006)
and Maes and Timmermans (2005) except for the unit of measure, as the mentioned studies
uses Macaulay duration as defined in Eq. (3.22). Because the Macaulay duration report
the interest rate risk in a different unit of measure than the interest rate elasticity used
in the EVM, a direct comparison between the two frameworks is unattainable. This issue
is solved by Eq. (3.22). To allow for a direct comparison and thus answering the second
13The dataset is described in detail in section 5.4.
28
research question, the interest rate risk is estimated for parallel shifts of 100 bps and 200
bps in the market interest rate yield curve. The yield curve will be constructed with the
market interest rate securities mentioned in the previous section.
4.5 Limitations
Regarding the methodology, two limitations of this study should be kept in mind. The first
concerns the time series modeling used in the construction of the deposit rate and deposit
volume. Time series modeling involves to a large extent trial and error in determining the
number of lags the included variables should have. This trial and error procedure is carried
out manually which means it is not feasible to evaluate all possible model combinations in
the analysis.14 Though this might result in an arbitrary model construction, this is to a large
extent mitigated by the use of Box-Jenkins framework. As discussed in section 3.2.2, the
Box-Jenkins framework provide a systematic way to identify suitable model combinations
which reduces the number of model combinations to evaluate.
As accounted for section 4.4, an assumption is made regarding the construction of the
replicating portfolio. Typically, dynamic RPM also allows the portfolio weights to change
continuously to better reflect the market conditions (Frauendorfer and Schurle, 2003). This
study assumes the portfolio weights to be constant for simplifying reasons. As mentioned in
section 4.4, allowing the portfolio weights to change continuously is difficult to implement
due to the required computational power (Bardenhewer, 2007).
4.6 Reliability and Validity
Reliability refers to the absence of differences in results if the research were repeated and
is typically important in quantitative research. A high level of reliability implies one would
obtain the same result if the study is repeated (Collis and Hussey, 2014). Since this study
is of quantitative nature, the reliability is inherently good. Stochastic simulation methods
as this study relies upon are typically based on a random shock term for generating future
scenarios. Per definition it is impossible to replicate something which is random. In attempt
to mitigate this and further improve the reliability and replicability, 1000 different scenarios
are simulated in the analysis. This is expected to improve the accuracy of the study as the
interest rate risk is estimated based on the average scenario, which reduces the possibility of
14To illustrate the cumbersome work testing all possible model combinations may involve, assume an AR(1)process should be fitted to a time series with 130 observations. Just for this simple case there exists 129different AR(1) model combinations that could be tried.
29
an extreme scenario distorting the findings. Moreover, as the random shock term is assumed
to follow a gaussian distribution, the average scenario is always expected to converge to the
“true” average scenario as the number of generated scenarios increase.
Validity concerns how well the obtained findings measure the examined phenomena (Collis
and Hussey, 2014). In this study, a number of selections from both a data collection and
methodological perspective is made to improve the validity. Regarding the data collection15,
this study utilizes a unique dataset provided by one of Sweden’s four largest retail banks.
The dataset contains information of the deposited capital and offered deposit rate for all
demand deposit accounts provided by the bank between 2004 to 2015. The rest of the data
is of secondary nature gathered from reliable and established sources, which minimizes the
possibility of measuring errors. From a methodological standpoint, the selected models are
chosen with regards to previous research to ensure they are capable of accurately capture
the deposit dynamics and avoiding interpretation errors. Still, no model, regardless of how
well it may perceive to be, can predict the exact future as it is based on certain assumptions
which means the validity of any model could always be disputable.
15The dataset is described in section 5.
30
5 Data
This section introduces the dataset used in this study. The data regarding the historical
deposit volumes and deposit rates is a unique dataset provided by one of Sweden’s four
biggest retail banks. The data for the macroeconomic variables and the market interest rate
securities are of a secondary nature. All of the data are given in nominal values, i.e. the
inflation is not adjusted for. The reason why the data is not adjusted for inflation is that
deposits are regarded as a part of banks’ liabilities. Thus, adjusting for inflation leads to an
underestimation of banks deposit liabilities which is not sensible from a risk management
perspective. The remainder of this section discusses each data type and the required data
treatment more in detail.
5.1 Deposit Volumes16
The data for the deposit volumes consists of 132 monthly observations between January 2004
and December 2014. The dataset is provided by a major Swedish retail bank and contains
information from all their demand deposit accounts on the Swedish market. Only deposit
accounts with the base currency SEK is included in this study to avoid issues regarding
currency risks. Since the bank, which is not disclosed for business reasons, offers several
different demand deposit accounts that share many similarities, the data is grouped into SA
and TA. A more detailed disposition of the demand deposit accounts cannot be disclosed
for business reasons. Moreover, the data is analyzed on an aggregate level as well as on
a customer level. On a customer level, the analysis focuses on private individual accounts
and corporate accounts separately. The historical deposit volumes on an aggregate and
customer level are displayed in Figure 5.1. More detailed illustrations of respective category
is provided by Figures A.1-A.4 in Appendix A. Worth noting is that the case bank in this
study has a much larger volume for private accounts than for corporate accounts. The divide
between SA and TA is more evenly distributed in terms of volume. It can be seen that the
TA volumes fluctuate significantly more than the SA. The growth rates are quite similar
for all categories except the corporate SA, whose volume development saw two large growth
spurts between 2007-2009 and 2011-2013. This is more clearly visible in Figure A.2.
16The deposit volume data presented in this study is scaled for business reasons.
31
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4·105
Year
MSEK
SA PrivateSA CorporateTA PrivateTA Corporate
Figure 5.1: The deposit volume (in MSEK) from 2004 to 2014. Fromtop to bottom: the red area represents TA Corporate, yellow area rep-resent TA Private, light blue area represents SA Corporate and theblue area represents SA Private.
5.2 Deposit Rates
The deposit rates for the different account types have been computed implicitly. This is done
since some depositors receive a higher deposit rate as they deposit more capital. Analogously
to the data of the deposit volume, the deposit rate data is provided by the case bank. The
data contains the total amount every customer receives each month for depositing their
capital at the case bank. The deposit rate is computed on a monthly basis by:
Deposit rate at month i =Amount paid to depositors month i
Deposit volume month i(5.1)
The deposit rate data consists of 132 monthly observations from January 2004 to December
2014. The deposit rates for the different account types are illustrated in Figure 5.2. For
reference the STIBOR 1-Month is also provided. It is clear that the deposit rates for SA are
32
almost always higher than for TA, while corporate deposit rates are generally higher than
private ones. The market interest rate is always higher than the deposit rates, as should
be expected. The differences become smaller as the general level of interest rates decreases.
The plot also suggests that the SA follow the fluctuations of the market interest rate more
closely than the TA.
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
%
SA PrivateSA CorporateTA PrivateTA CorporateSTIBOR1M
Figure 5.2: The deposit rates for SA and TA on a private and corporate level,from 2004 to 2014. For reference the STIBOR 1-Month is also provided.
5.3 Macroeconomic Variables
The macroeconomic variables included in this study are the unemployment rate, gross do-
mestic product, monetary aggregate and market concentration as measured by HHI. The
latter is used in the model construction for the deposit rate while all the others are used
in the modeling of the deposit volume. A detailed presentation of each variable is provided
below.
5.3.1 Unemployment Rate
The unemployment rate is included in the deposit volume analysis as Carmona (2007) sug-
gests it reflects the number of individuals that are in need of short term funding. If this
relation is existent, the deposit volume is expected to decline as unemployment rate rise,
i.e. the deposit volume is inversely correlated with the unemployment rate. Unemployment
is defined as people between 15 and 74 years of age that have searched for an employment
33
but not worked for the past four weeks (Statistics Sweden, 2014). Unemployment rate is
the proportion of unemployed to the entire workforce. The data of the unemployment rate
in Sweden is collected from Statistics Sweden (2014) and consists of 132 monthly observa-
tions between January 2004 and December 2014. The historical unemployment rates are
illustrated by Figure A.5 in Appendix A.
5.3.2 Gross Domestic Product
Previous studies (Jarrow and van Deventer, 1998; O’Brien, 2000) have suggested that in-
cluding people’s income level may improve the deposit volume modeling as people typically
deposit capital to save for future consumption. Therefore, income level should be positively
correlated with deposit volume. This study uses nominal values of gross domestic product
(GDP) as a proxy for a population’s income level. It is not adjusted for inflation in order to
achieve congruence with the deposit volume and the deposit rate data. GDP is a measure
of the economic growth in a country. The GDP measure used in this study is defined as the
sum of the final uses of all goods and services. It is measured using the production approach,
which measures the value added by producers (Statistics Sweden, 2010). This measure is
used as a proxy for income level as it is argued that the more value added by the producers,
the more is distributed to the employees in terms of increased salaries. The Swedish GDP
data is collected from Statistics Sweden (2015) and consists of 44 observations spanning
from Q1 2004 to Q4 2014 on a quarterly basis. Since the GDP data consists of cumulative
GDP over entire quarters, the GDP in this study is broken down into monthly data points in
congruence with the data for deposit rates and volumes. This is done by linear interpolation
and assuming that a quarter’s GDP is distributed uniformly over the three corresponding
months. Linear interpolation is a simple method which fill in the missing data points by
taking the arithmetic average of the two adjacent data points (Eriksson, 2008). The final
time series is displayed by Figure A.6 in Appendix A.
5.3.3 Monetary Aggregate
Monetary Aggregate is examined as a possible explanatory variable of the deposit volume.
The definition of monetary aggregate used is the so-called M0, which is defined as the total
amount of physical cash and coins in Sweden (Statistics Sweden, 2014). The data is collected
from Statistics Sweden (2015) and consists of 132 monthly observations between January
2004 and December 2014. The time series is illustrated by Figure A.7 in Appendix A.
34
5.3.4 Market Concentration
Previous research (see e.g. Neumark and Sharpe, 1992; Rosen, 2007) is in unison that market
concentration affects the offered deposit rate. Because of this, market concentration, as
measured by HHI, is included in the analysis of the deposit rate. In this study, market share
is defined in terms of bank i’s total deposits in relation to the total deposits in the Swedish
bank market. This definition is in line with Hannan and Prager (2006) and Rosen (2007),
thus it is expected to improve the reliability of this study. The data contains market shares
of every bank operating in Sweden and is collected from Swedish Bankers’ Association. The
data consists of 11 observations spanning from January 2004 to January 2014 on a yearly
basis. The data has been interpolated to a monthly basis with linear interpolation. Since
the data for the market concentration only spans to January 2014, linear extrapolation is
applied to extract monthly values of HHI between January 2014 and December 2014. Linear
extrapolation is a method where a tangent line is constructed based on the arithmetic mean
of the two adjacent points, which is then used to make short-term predictions of the data
(Harder, 2005). The final dataset consists of monthly observations between 1st January
2004 and 1st January 2015 and is displayed by Figure A.8 in Appendix A.
5.4 Market Interest Rate Securities
The market interest rate securities used in the EVM and the RPM are:
♦ 1-day, 1-week, 1-month, 3-month and 6-month STIBOR.
♦ 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 7-year 10-year, 15-year and 20-year swap rates for SEK
interest rate swaps.
The data is collected from Bloomberg and consists of 132 monthly observations per security
between January 2000 and December 2014. The historical time series for the market interest
rate securities are displayed in Figure 5.3.
35
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Year
%1d STIBOR
7d STIBOR
1m STIBOR
3m STIBOR
6m STIBOR
1y Swap
2y Swap
3y Swap
5y Swap
7y Swap
10y Swap
15y Swap
20y Swap
Figure 5.3: STIBOR and Swap rates between 2000 and 2014. Note that thelonger the maturity the security has, the less it fluctuates over time. DataSource: Bloomberg.
36
6 Results and Analysis
In this section, the empirical results are presented and analyzed with regards to the research
questions of this study. First, the parameters and simulated values of the market interest
rate model are presented. This is followed by the results from the EVM, which include the
final models for the deposit rates and the deposit volumes as well as the interest rate risk
estimates. Finally, the section is concluded by the results from the RPM, where the different
optimal portfolios are presented together with their corresponding interest rate risks.
6.1 Market Interest Rate Model
The first step in both EVM and RPM is to estimate the interest rate model which is used to
forecast future developments of the market interest rates. Recall that the discrete Vasicek
model as described by Eq. (4.1) is used to simulate the market interest rates. The obtained
parameters for the STIBOR 1-Month are presented in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: The statistics of the estimated market interest rate model. */**/*** denotessignificance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively. Recall from Eq. (4.1) that thefitted Vasicek model is formulated as: rt = rt−1 + a(b− rt−1)∆t+ σ
√∆tzt
Parameter Estimate Std Error t-statistic p-value
a 0.01645*** 0.0054 3.06 0.0024
b 0.01238 0.0143 0.87 0.3869
σ 0.00209
Adjusted R2 0.9922
Breusch-Pagan p-value 0.0706
As seen in Table 6.1, the speed of reversion variable a is statistically significant at the 1%
level, while the long term mean b is not statistically significant at the 10% level. This is
due to the historical market interest rates used in calibration of the model, which include
large fluctuations during the period of which the data was available. It is thus difficult to
fit a long term mean with high statistical significance. Despite that, the adjusted R2 is
0.9922, indicating the model is suitable as it is able to explain 99.22% of the variations of
the dependent variable rt. This value may seem remarkably high, but this suggests that the
market interest rate is heavily dependent on its own most recent value. This most likely
helps explain why the majority of the well-known market interest rate models include the
rt−1 variable (see e.g. Vasicek, 1977; Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross, 1985). Furthermore, the
37
Breusch-Pagan test for heteroscedasticity suggests that heteroscedasticity can be rejected
at the 5% level, meaning that the error terms are uncorrelated and normally distributed
with constant variance, which is in line with the assumptions made beforehand.
The long term mean of 1.238% is low considering that the inflation target is set at 2%
(Swedish National Bank, 2014). This is merely a result of the historical evolution of the
STIBOR 1-Month, which has a declining trend for the last couple of decades. Furthermore,
the relatively high p-value of 38.69% leads to more uncertainty in the forecast, which suggest
that the long term mean may not be perfect. This seemingly low forecasted market interest
rate results in a more conservative estimate of the future deposit rents and liabilities, which
is sensible from a risk management perspective. It is difficult to put the results from the
fitted market interest rate model in relation to the previous demand deposit research (e.g.
Hutchison and Pennacchi, 1996; O’Brien, 2000), since the statistics and diagnostics are
never reported. The fitted model together with the 20-year forecast and the historical
market interest rates are shown in Figure 6.1.
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20320
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
%
STIBOR 1m
Modeled STIBOR 1m
Figure 6.1: The historical and modeled values of STIBOR 1-Month from 2004 to2034. The simulated values from 2015 to 2034 are the average of 1000 simulatedpaths from the Monte Carlo simulation.
6.2 Economic Value Model Framework (EVM)
The results from the EVM are presented in this section. First, the parameters and diagnos-
tics of the final deposit rate models are presented, which is then followed by the presentation
of the deposit volume models. Finally, the interest rate risk is presented and analyzed. All
38
of the results are separated into SA and TA on an aggregate level and then further divided
into private and corporate accounts. The key findings of the EVM are as follows:
♦ The deposit rate models are all similar across the account types: the included terms
are the lag 1 AR term and the lag 0 spread variable. Neither market competition nor
the asymmetry term are found to improve the models.
♦ The deposit volume models vary more between account types: all of the models include
the lag 12 AR term, suggesting that a 1-year seasonality exists. Models for TA also
include a lag 1 AR term. TA and corporate accounts are more responsive to changes
in the spread variable compared to SA and private accounts respectively. None of the
macroeconomic variables (GDP, Unemployment, and Monetary aggregate) improve
the models significantly.
♦ The interest rate risk is lower for SA compared to TA, and lower for corporate accounts
compared to private accounts. The interest rate risk also decreases as the simulated
time horizon decreases.
Since the plots used in the Box-Jenkins model fitting steps consist of over 300 individual
graphs, they will not be attached to this paper, but are instead available upon request.
6.2.1 Deposit Rate Model
The Box-Jenkins method for model fitting described in section 3.2.2 are applied in order
to fit SARIMAX models for the deposit rates. Results from this process show that the
best suited models for the deposit rates include only the lag 1 AR component and the lag
0 component of the market interest rate. Both the dependent variable (deposit rate) and
the exogenous variable (market rate) are differenced once for the sake of stationarity. The
models take the following form:
(1−B)rdt = ψ1,0(1−B)rt +1
1− φ1Bεt (6.1)
The estimated parameters and test statistics are presented in Table 6.2. For the plots
of ACFs, PACFs and cross-correlations used in the Box-Jenkins model fitting steps, see
Appendix C.
39
Table 6.2: The statistics of the estimated deposit rate models.*/**/*** denotes significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respec-tively. The final fitted model is of the following form:(1−B)rdt = ψ1,0(1−B)rt + 1
1−φ1Bεt
Parameter Estimate Std Error t-statistic p-value
SA Aggregate
φ1 -0.43307*** 0.08042 -5.39 <0.0001
ψ1,0 0.67577*** 0.02547 26.53 <0.0001
TA Aggregate
φ1 -0.32057*** 0.0858 -3.74 0.0003
ψ1,0 0.29647*** 0.015 19.77 <0.0001
SA Private
φ1 -0.42365*** 0.08086 -5.24 <0.0001
ψ1,0 0.66834*** 0.0258 25.91 <0.0001
SA Corporate
φ1 -0.35479*** 0.08368 -4.24 <0.0001
ψ1,0 0.74432*** 0.03111 23.93 <0.0001
TA Private
φ1 -0.26878*** 0.08791 -3.06 0.0027
ψ1,0 0.20665*** 0.01498 13.79 <0.0001
TA Corporate
φ1 -0.34622*** 0.08358 -4.14 <0.0001
ψ1,0 0.49602*** 0.02395 20.71 <0.0001
The parameters of the deposit rate models are significant at the 1% level across the board.
This indicates that the market interest rate and the lag 1 AR component is sufficient in
explaining the deposit rates when using the SARIMAX framework. The market interest
rate parameter ψ1,0 takes larger values for SA compared to TA, and also for corporate
accounts compared to private accounts. This indicates that SA and corporate accounts
follow the market interest rate more closely than their counterparts. Moreover, the small
standard errors of the parameters, especially for the market interest rate, suggest that they
are sufficient in predicting the deposit rates. The fitted models and the simulated deposit
rates together with the historical deposit rates are shown in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3.
40
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20320
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
%Modeled STIBOR 1mSA AggregateTA AggregateModeled SA AggregateModeled TA Aggregate
Figure 6.2: The historical and modeled values of deposit rates for the aggre-gate SA and the aggregate TA from 2004 to 2034. The simulated deposit ratesfrom 2015 to 2034 are averages based on the 1000 simulated market interestrates (STIBOR 1-Month). The modeled STIBOR 1-Month is also shown forreference.
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20320
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
%
Modeled STIBOR 1mSA PrivateSA CorporateTA PrivateTA CorporateModeled SA PrivateModeled SA CorporateModeled TA PrivateModeled TA Corporate
Figure 6.3: The historical and modeled values of deposit rates separated intoprivate and corporate along with SA and TA from 2004 to 2034. The simulateddeposit rates from 2015 to 2034 are averages based on the 1000 simulated mar-ket interest rates (STIBOR 1-Month). The modeled STIBOR 1-Month is alsoshown for reference.
41
As can be seen from Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3, the deposit rates for TA are generally lower
than for SA, which helps explain why they are less affected by changes in the market interest
rate. It is also evident that corporate accounts receive a higher deposit rate than private
accounts.
Both the market concentration variable and the asymmetry term are found to be statistically
insignificant at the 10% level for all models, whilst also not improving the AIC score of the
models upon inclusion, thus being excluded from the final model. See Table 6.3 for the AIC
scores and standard errors of the models which are used to compare the models with each
other. Appendix B lists the detailed statistics for the market concentration variable and the
asymmetry term.
Table 6.3: The AIC and standard error (Std Error) of the tested de-posit rate models. r, x, and I indicate that the model includes themarket interest rate, the market competition variable (HHI), and theasymmetry term respectively. The lags of the included market inter-est rate (0 lag) and market competition (0 lag) variables are chosenaccording to the Box-Jenkins model fitting method and are shown inAppendix B. Lower AIC and Std Error indicate a better model.
r r, x r, I r, x, I
SA Aggregate
AIC -1483.29 -1481.85 -1482.02 -1480.56
Std Error 0.000835 0.000837 0.000836 0.000838
TA Aggregate
AIC -1643.54 -1641.73 -1641.8 -1639.99
Std Error 0.000453 0.000454 0.000454 0.000456
SA Private
AIC -1481.59 -1480.13 -1480.14 -1478.66
Std Error 0.000841 0.000842 0.000842 0.000844
SA Corporate
AIC -1443.91 -1442.77 -1443.29 -1442.12
Std Error 0.000971 0.000971 0.000969 0.00097
TA Private
AIC -1653.82 -1651.85 -1652.16 -1650.19
Std Error 0.000436 0.000437 0.000437 0.000438
TA Corporate
AIC -1512.55 -1511.68 -1510.55 -1509.68
Std Error 0.000747 0.000747 0.00075 0.000749
42
6.2.2 Deposit Volume Model
Again, the Box-Jenkins model fitting method is used to fit SARIMAX models to the deposit
volumes. The best suited models for the deposit volumes include a mix of AR and MA
components, with the spread between the market interest rate and the deposit rate as the
only exogenous variable. Both the dependent variable (deposit volume) and the exogenous
variable (spread) are differenced once for the sake of stationarity. The models take the
following form:
(1−B)Vt = µ+ ψ1(B)(rt − rdt ) +θ(B)
φ(B)εt (6.2)
The models differ from each other in the different account and client categories with regards
to the lags of the ARMA and spread terms. The final models together with the estimated
parameters and test statistics for the deposit volumes are presented in Table 6.4. For the
plots of ACFs, PACFs and cross-correlations used in the Box-Jenkins model fitting steps,
see Appendix C.
43
Table 6.4: The parameter estimates and statistics of the estimated deposit volume models for all accounts and clients categories. */**/***denotes significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively.
Equation Parameter Estimate Std Error t-statistic p-valueSA Aggregate
(1−B)Vt = µ+ ψ1,3B3(1−B)(rt − rdt ) + 1−θ1B
1−φ12Bεt
µ 589.34*** 205.4 2.87 0.0048φ12 0.64228*** 0.07652 8.39 <0.0001θ1 -0.27109*** 0.08854 -3.06 0.0027ψ1,3 130070*** 43390 3 0.0033
TA Aggregate
(1−B)Vt = µ+ ψ1,2B2(1−B)(rt − rdt ) + 1−θ2B
1−φ1B−φ12B12 εt
µ 558.99*** 158.4 3.53 0.0006φ1 -0.45754*** 0.07061 -6.48 <0.0001φ12 0.42645*** 0.07118 5.99 <0.0001θ2 0.29746*** 0.09211 3.23 0.0016ψ1,2 -203950** 92770 -2.2 0.0298
SA Private
(1−B)Vt = µ+ ψ1,3B3(1−B)(rt − rdt ) + 1−θ1B
1−φ12Bεt
µ 531.21*** 188.8 2.81 0.0057φ12 0.65625*** 0.07511 8.74 <0.0001θ1 -0.24634*** 0.08913 -2.76 0.0066ψ1,3 94619** 39980 2.37 0.0195
SA Corporate
(1−B)Vt = µ+ ψ1,2B2(1−B)(rt − rdt ) + 1−θ1B
1−φ12Bεt
µ 24.991 62.34 0.4 0.6892φ1 0.78160*** 0.07011 11.15 <0.0001θ1 -0.34818*** 0.08644 -4.03 <0.0001ψ1,2 -21423** 8971 -2.39 0.0184
TA Private
(1−B)Vt = µ+ ψ1,2B2(1−B)(rt − rdt ) + 1−θ2B
1−φ1B−φ12B12 εt
µ 310.99*** 88.74 3.5 0.0006φ1 -0.48590*** 0.06952 -6.99 <0.0001φ12 0.42611*** 0.06948 6.13 <0.0001θ2 0.46738*** 0.08835 5.29 <0.0001ψ1,2 -115420** 54720 -2.11 0.0369
TA Corporate
(1−B)Vt = µ+ ψ1,1B1(1−B)(rt − rdt ) + 1
1−φ1B−φ12B12 εt
µ 258.47* 146.2 1.77 0.0796φ1 -0.22034*** 0.07181 -3.07 0.0026φ12 0.60911*** 0.07538 8.08 <0.0001ψ1,1 -98862 60600 -1.63 0.1053
44
From Table 6.4 it is clear that the SARIMAX framework with the spread variable as an
exogenous input variable is sufficient in modeling the deposit volumes. The spread variable
and the mix of AR and MA components are mostly statistically significant at the 1% level.
The mean constants (µ) are positive also statistically significant at the 1% level for the
majority of the models, suggesting a continued growth in future deposit volumes. In general,
the volumes for SA are found to have a more delayed reaction to the changes in spread (i.e.
higher lag on the spread variable) compared to TA. The same discrepancy exists for corporate
accounts and private accounts, with the latter showing a more delayed reaction. While all
models incorporate a 12 month seasonal component (φ12B12), the TA also include an AR1
term, i.e. the 1-month lag (φ1B), which has a negative coefficient. Since the dependent
variable (the deposit volume) is differenced once, the negative AR1 term means that the
new change in volume will be negatively correlated to the most recent change in volume.
This is evident in Figure A.1-A.4 in Appendix A, where the volumes for TA fluctuate much
more than for SA.
Table 6.4 also shows that the parameter for the spread variable takes negative values for
all models except the private SA (and as result also the aggregated SA since the private
portion is substantially larger than the corporate). This means that the volume for private
SA is positively correlated to changes in the spread (note that the spread is also differenced
once), while the other accounts are negatively correlated. As seen in Figure 5.2 and Eq.
(6.1), the nominal value of the spread increases as market interest rates increase. The
negative spread coefficient in the volume models can thus be interpreted as private clients
being more inclined to deposit money into their SA during increasing market interest rates,
while choosing to keep their money in TA during decreasing market interest rates. Since
salary is normally automatically transferred to TA, the aforementioned phenomenon could
be explained by private clients not bothering to transfer the new influx of capital to their SA
during decreasing market interest rates, and vice versa for increasing market interest rates.
For corporate accounts, this discrepancy between SA and TA does not exist. Corporate
clients are more inclined to withdraw capital from both SA and TA during rising interest
rate environments and deposit capital during declining interest rate environment.
The fitted models and the simulated deposit volumes together with the historical deposit
volumes are presented in Figure 6.4-6.9.
45
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20321
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5·105
Year
MSEK
SA AggregateModeled SA Aggregate
Upper 95%
Lower 95%
Figure 6.4: The historical and modeled values of the deposit volume for theaggregate SA from 2004 to 2034. Included are the lower and upper limits of the95% confidence interval for the simulated values from 2015 to 2034.
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20321
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4·105
Year
MSEK
TA AggregateModeled TA Aggregate
Upper 95%
Lower 95%
Figure 6.5: The historical and modeled values of the deposit volume for theaggregate TA from 2004 to 2034. Included are the lower and upper limits of the95% confidence interval for the simulated values from 2015 to 2034.
46
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20321
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4·105
Year
MSEK
SA PrivateModeled SA Private
Upper 95%
Lower 95%
Figure 6.6: The historical and modeled values of the deposit volume for privateSA from 2004 to 2034. Included are the lower and upper limits of the 95%confidence interval for the simulated values from 2015 to 2034.
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032
−2
0
2
4
6
·104
Year
MSEK
SA CorporateModeled SA Corporate
Upper 95%
Lower 95%
Figure 6.7: The historical and modeled values of the deposit volume for corporateSA from 2004 to 2034. Included are the lower and upper limits of the 95%confidence interval for the simulated values from 2015 to 2034.
47
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20320.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6·105
Year
MSEK
TA PrivateModeled TA Private
Upper 95%
Lower 95%
Figure 6.8: The historical and modeled values of the deposit volume for privateTA from 2004 to 2034. Included are the lower and upper limits of the 95%confidence interval for the simulated values from 2015 to 2034.
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 20320.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2·105
Year
MSEK
TA CorporateModeled TA Corporate
Upper 95%
Lower 95%
Figure 6.9: The historical and modeled values of the deposit volume for corporateTA from 2004 to 2034. Included are the lower and upper limits of the 95%confidence interval for the simulated values from 2015 to 2034.
48
Figure 6.7 show that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the simulated corpo-
rate SA volume becomes negative after year 2020. This is a result of the estimated µ having
low statistical significance along with a high standard error (see Table 6.4). The reason µ
was difficult to fit relative to the models for the other types of accounts is because the his-
torical corporate SA volume has a significantly different profile, characterized by two growth
spurts in-between otherwise flat growths, which could not be explained by the exogenous
variables included in this study either. Possible explanations may be acquisitions/losses of
major corporate clients, but without the necessary data, these are mere speculations.
The exogenous macroeconomic variables are found to be either statistically insignificant or
not leading to a significant improvement enough to warrant the added complexity when
included. Table 6.5 presents the AIC scores and standard errors of the models which are
used to compare the models with each other. It is clear that the AIC scores and standard
errors are more or less the same for the different combinations of macroeconomic variables.
The largest improvement can be seen in the deposit volume model for corporate TA, where
including all three macroeconomic variables improves the AIC score and the standard error
by 4.2% each. This is a relatively small improvement considering the addition of three
extra variables that has to be modeled on their own as well. This in turn would increase
the uncertainty in the forecast even more. Appendix B lists the detailed statistics for the
macroeconomic variables.
49
Table 6.5: The AIC and standard error (Std Error) of the tested deposit volume models. S, G,U , and M indicate that the model includes the spread variable (rt − rdt ), the GDP variable, theunemployment variable, and the monetary aggregate variable respectively. The lags of the includedvariables are chosen according to the Box-Jenkins model fitting method and are shown in AppendixB. Lower AIC and Std Error indicate a better model.
S S, G S, U S,M S, G, U S, G, M S, U, M S, G, U, M
SA Aggregate
AIC 2091.8 2090.2 2093.1 2093.5 2090.2 2091.3 2094.6 2090.6
Std Error 842.9 834.6 843.8 845.3 831.3 834.9 845.8 829.5
TA Aggregate
AIC 2411.2 2406.7 2413.2 2409.9 2408.4 2402.6 2411.8 2404.6
Std Error 2718.6 2661.6 2729.6 2695.0 2669.1 2609.5 2704.5 2620.3
SA Private
AIC 2069.4 2068.6 2070.8 2071.4 2069.0 2070.5 2072.6 2070.6
Std Error 772.4 766.8 773.4 775.4 765.4 769.7 776.2 767.3
SA Corporate
AIC 1730.2 1731.7 1694.9 1732.2 1696.4 1733.6 1696.8 1754.7
Std Error 194.8 195.2 197.8 195.6 198.3 196.0 198.6 250.8
TA Private
AIC 2338.0 2339.3 2339.8 2337.6 2341.1 2339.5 2339.6 2341.5
Std Error 2047.3 2049.6 2053.6 2036.0 2056.3 2043.7 2044.3 2052.0
TA Corporate
AIC 2203.7 2189.2 2124.4 2202.2 2109.2 2191 2123.4 2111.2
Std Error 1143.2 1077.4 1163.4 1132.4 1090.7 1080.7 1154.3 1095.3
6.2.3 Interest Rate Risk
The liabilities and interest rate elasticities estimated from the simulated 10-, 15- and 20-year
horizons, respectively, are shown in Table 6.6. The interest rate elasticities are estimated
from a +100 and +200 bps parallel shift in the simulated market interest rate yield curve.
Since the asymmetry term is not included in the deposit rate models, the interest rate
elasticities are symmetric, i.e. the interest rate elasticity subject to a -100 bps shift is equal
to that of a +100 bps shift but with opposite signs.
50
Table 6.6: The estimated interest rate elasticity for the three different time horizons T (10, 15 and 20 years)subject to parallel shifts of the simulated market interest rate yield curve. The deposit liabilities (L) are thepre-shifted values, shown as percentages of the deposit volumes at t=0 (January 2015). ∆L indicates thepercentage change in deposit liability as a result of a +100 (+200) bps parallel shift in the simulated marketinterest rate yield curve. Higher absolute value indicate higher interest rate risk. Since the asymmetry termis not included in the deposit rate models, the interest rate elasticities are symmetric, i.e. the interest rateelasticity subject to a -100 bps shift is equal to that of a +100 bps shift but with opposite signs.
Change in deposit liability value due to a 100 bps (200 bps) increase in market interest rates
∆L (T=20 years) ∆L (T=15 years) ∆L (T=10 years)
SA Aggregate -5.99% (-10.83%) -4.57% (-8.49%) -3.10% (-5.92%)
TA Aggregate -14.46% (-25.79%) -10.53% (-19.30%) -6.85% (-12.88%)
SA Private -6.25% (-11.30%) -4.76% (-8.85%) -3.23% (-6.16%)
SA Corporate17 -4.83% (-7.87%) -3.60% (-6.15%) -2.38% (-4.28%)
TA Private -16.38% (-29.23%) -11.94% (-21.88%) -7.77% (-14.62%)
TA Corporate -7.77% (-13.89%) -5.94% (-10.90%) -4.09% (-7.70%)
The first thing from Table 6.6 to note is that all of the deposit liabilities for the different
categories decrease in value when the market interest rates are shifted upwards. This is
because the spread between the deposit rates and the market interest rate increases with
increasing market interest rates. An increased spread results in higher deposit rents and
thus a bigger decrease in deposit liability. This is slightly counteracted by the changes in
deposit volumes which generally decrease with increasing market interest rates (recall the
negative spread coefficient from Table 6.4). Declining volumes result in lower rents, but
the effect on the deposit liability from the decline in volume is only marginal compared
to the impact from the increased spreads, which is why the interest rate elasticities still
remain negative. Furthermore, it is clear that the interest rate risk becomes smaller as the
simulated time horizon shortens. This is simply explained by the fact that the amount of
rents are increased as the time horizon increases.
It is also evident that TA are more exposed to changes in the market interest rates (i.e.
higher interest rate risk) compared to SA. This is in line with this study’s previous findings
that the deposit rates of SA follow the market interest rate more closely than those of TA.
Since the rents (and thus liabilities) are functions of the spread between the deposit rates
and the market interest rate, the rents will not be significantly altered during a parallel shift
in the market interest rate if the deposit rate follows suit, as the spread will stay roughly
17The deposit volume used to estimate the interest rate elasticity for corporate SA is the actual forecastedvolume, as opposed to the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval used for the other volumes. This isdue to unexplainable behavior in the historical volumes for corporate SA, resulting in a model with higheruncertainty which produces a lower 95% limit that takes negative values. The implications of this choicewill be further discussed in section 7.1.
51
the same. Because the spread increases more for TA after an upward shift in the market
interest rate than for SA, the rents of TA will see a bigger increase. This results in a bigger
decrease in liability value which in turn results in TA having a higher interest rate elasticity
compared to SA. The same line of reasoning can be applied to the differences in interest
rate elasticity between corporate accounts and private accounts: the higher deposit rates for
corporate accounts follow the market interest rates more closely, thus resulting in a lower
interest rate elasticity than for private accounts. Furthermore, recall that the private SA
is the only category where the volume is positively correlated to the spread. This means
that the volume (and thus rents) of private SA increases when the market interest rates
are shifted upwards, while the other account types experience a decrease in volume. Still,
the larger increase of spreads on the TA categories have a bigger impact on the deposit
liabilities, as both the TA categories have higher elasticities than private SA despite its
increase in volume.
Finally, the interest rate elasticities from the 20-year horizon are similar to the results of
O’Brien (2000), who obtained results of -12% and -15% for a +100 bps parallel shift for
SA and TA respectively. On the other hand, Hutchison and Pennacchi (1996) obtained
interest rate elasticities of -0.4% and -6.7% for a +100 bps parallel shift for SA and TA
respectively. This is more comparable to the results from the 10-year horizon in this study.
These similarities indicate that the results obtained in this study are reasonable.
6.3 Replicating Portfolio Model Framework
This section presents the results from the RPM. First, the results from the portfolio con-
structions are presented. Analogous to the analysis of the EVM model, the analysis of SA
and TA is first done on an aggregate level and then on a customer level for private and
corporate clients respectively. This is followed by an analysis of the estimated interest rate
risks of the optimal portfolios. The key findings of the RPM are as follows:
♦ The first part of the analysis concerns the construction of the optimal portfolios for
TA and SA on an aggregate level and a customer level. Three different portfolios are
constructed: the 10-year, the 15-year and the 20-year portfolio. The results indicate
that the portfolio allocations for the TA and SA differ slightly. Typically, the portfolios
for the TA allocates a larger weight to the security with the longest maturity. Similar
trends is observable between private accounts and corporate accounts with the former
typically allocating more weight to the security with the longest maturity.
♦ In general, the portfolio allocations are sensitive to the portfolio maturity. All the
52
portfolios except the 10-year portfolios allocate most weight to the security with the
longest maturity. In contrast, the 10-year portfolios allocate most weight to the 1-week
STIBOR.
♦ The previous point is reflected in the interest rate risk estimates as the 10-year port-
folios generate significantly lower estimates than the 20-year and 15-year portfolios.
Still, the interest rate risk is higher for all TA compared to SA, and for private accounts
compared to corporate accounts.
6.3.1 Portfolio Construction
The optimal portfolios are constructed by solving the optimization problem described by
Eq. (3.21) for 1000 different future scenarios obtained from the Monte Carlo simulations.
Replicating portfolios for three different maturities are constructed: 10 years, 15 years and
20 years. The optimal portfolios for the aggregate level of TA and SA are presented in Table
6.7. The optimal 20-year and 15-year portfolios for both account types allocate the largest
weight to the security with the longest maturity in the portfolio. The optimal 20-year and 15-
year portfolios for TA (SA) allocate 95% (68%) and 91% (63%) to the security with longest
maturity respectively. This result may be interpreted as the capital deposited in demand
deposit accounts remains at the bank for a prolonged period. Moreover, the results indicate
that money deposited in TA remains at the bank for a longer period than money deposited
in SA. In general, the findings seem to confirm the popular view among practitioners that
deposited capital remains at the bank for a long time. Still, the large allocations to the
security with maximum maturity indicate that the optimal 20-year and 15-year portfolios
are very risky and not suitable for hedging purposes. Furthermore, the results for the 10-
year portfolio for both the TA and SA strongly indicate that the optimal portfolios are
sensitive to the choice of maximum maturity security included in the portfolio. In contrast
to the 20-year and the 15-year portfolios, the 10-year portfolios allocate the largest weight
to the 1-week STIBOR. Consequently, this result contradicts the findings of the 20-year
and 15-year portfolio which indicated that the deposited capital in TA and SA remains at
the bank a long time. Note that the optimal portfolio allocations based on the problem
formulation in Eq. (3.21) are determined based on the covariance between the securities
and the deposit rate. Thus, the difference in results between the 10-year portfolios and
the 20-year and 15-year portfolios are likely due to the 10-year swap rate having a lower
correlation with the deposit rate than the other securities. In total, the findings provide
support to Kalkbrener and Willing’s (2004) conclusion of the RPM being sensitive to the
choice of securities used in constructing the portfolio.
53
Table 6.7: The optimal 20-year, 15-year, and 10-year portfolios to the optimization problem described by Eq. (3.21).The portfolios are modeled for the aggregate SA and the aggregate TA. The portfolio allocations are given in percent.Minimum variance specifies how well the portfolio replicate the behavior of the deposit rate, with the lower value thebetter.
SA Aggregate TA Aggregate
20-year Portfolio 15-year Portfolio 10-year Portfolio 20-year Portfolio 15-year Portfolio 10-year Portfolio
Minimum Variance 0.0081% 0.0093% 0.00117% 0.0089% 0.0110% 0.0153%
Market Interest Rate Security
STIBOR 1 Day 0.32% 1.20% 6.49% 0.50% 1.23% 5.79%
STIBOR 1 Week 10.76% 17.09% 55.80% 1.67% 5.46% 54.65%
STIBOR 1 Month 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.28% 0.61% 1.09%
STIBOR 3 Month 16.77% 14.71% 15.91% 2.53% 1.45% 1.69%
STIBOR 6 Month 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 1-year 2.61% 2.23% 1.81% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 2-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 3-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 5-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 7-year 0.93% 0.67% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 10-year 0.51% 0.82% 19.38% 0.06% 0.04% 36.79%
Swap 15-year 0.05% 63.27% Omitted 0.00% 91.20% Omitted
Swap 20-year 68.06% Omitted Omitted 94.88% Omitted Omitted
To examine if the variability of the optimal portfolio weights is present on a more granular
level, further analysis is made on a customer level. Both SA and TA are further segmented
into private and corporate accounts, where the former refers to accounts owned by private
individuals and the latter corporations. The results for the SA and TA are displayed in Table
6.8 and 6.9 respectively. The observed patterns in the portfolio allocations for the respective
portfolios at the aggregate level are also observed at the customer level. Analogous to the
aggregate level, the optimal 20-year and 15-year portfolios at the customer level allocates
most weight to the security with the longest maturity. This is observed both when TA and
SA are segmented on a private and corporate client level. Moreover, the results presented
in Table 6.8 and 6.9 support the observed pattern at the aggregate level, showing that the
capital deposited in TA remains at the bank longer than the capital in SA. The results
also indicate that the capital deposited in SA and TA by private clients remains at the
bank longer than the capital deposited by corporate clients. This may be interpreted as
corporate clients being more active in their capital management than private clients, and
this behavior is more pronounced for SA. Analogous to the findings on the aggregate level,
the results on a customer level is also sensitive to the choice of portfolio maturity. As
before, most weight are allocated to the 1-week STIBOR when the longest maturity of the
securities included in the portfolio is 10 years. Subsequently, this implies that the majority
of capital in SA and TA only remain at the bank for a short time period, contradicting the
results of the 20-year and 15-year portfolios. Similar to the aggregate level, the difference in
results between the 10-year portfolios and the other portfolios are likely due to the 10-year
54
swap rate having a lower correlation with the deposit rate than the other securities. This
only further highlights the RPM’s sensitivity to the choice of included securities, providing
further support to Kalkbrener and Willing’s (2004) results.
A natural extension of the RPM is to use the constructed portfolios to hedge the interest rate
risk in demand deposits. Overall, the low variance between all constructed portfolios and
the deposit rates suggests that the portfolios mimic the deposit rates closely. This implies
that the portfolios may be interesting for hedging purposes. Yet, as previously mentioned,
the large allocation to the security with the longest maturity in the 20-year and 15-year
portfolios for both the SA and TA makes them risky to use for hedging. In contrast, the 10-
year portfolio seems more sensible to use for hedging from a risk management perspective
since it allocates most capital to the 1-week STIBOR rather than tying up the capital
for several years. Still, it is not able to track the deposit rates as closely as the 20-year
and 15-year portfolios. It is also interesting to note that hedging private and corporate
accounts separately does not result in a significant improvement from hedging accounts
on an aggregate level. In conclusion, a bank interested in using a replicating portfolio for
hedging purposes face a trade-off between capital commitment and hedging efficiency.
Table 6.8: The optimal 20-year, 15-year and 10-year portfolio to the optimization problem described by Eq. (3.21). Theportfolios are modeled for SA and separated into private and corporate accounts. The portfolio allocations are givenin percent. Minimum variance specifies how well the portfolio replicate the behavior of the deposit rate, with the lowervalue the better.
SA: Private Corporate
20-year Portfolio 15-year Portfolio 10-year Portfolio 20-year Portfolio 15-year Portfolio 10-year Portfolio
Minimum Variance 0.0084% 0.0099% 0.0126% 0.0081% 0.0092% 0.0114%
Market Interest Rate Security
STIBOR 1 Day 1.01% 1.90% 7.03% 0.75% 2.07% 8.12%
STIBOR 1 Week 9.86% 16.61% 60.15% 12.72% 18.86% 54.48%
STIBOR 1 Month 0.00% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.03% 0.55%
STIBOR 3 Month 11.78% 10.22% 10.98% 18.73% 16.49% 17.09%
STIBOR 6 Month 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 1-year 1.51% 1.21% 0.90% 2.66% 2.30% 1.88%
Swap 2-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 3-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 5-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 7-year 0.30% 0.22% 0.23% 1.08% 0.92% 0.83%
Swap 10-year 0.44% 0.53% 20.10% 0.84% 1.10% 17.05%
Swap 15-year 0.00% 69.31% Omitted 0.11% 58.22% Omitted
Swap 20-year 75.10% Omitted Omitted 63.12% Omitted Omitted
55
Table 6.9: The optimal 20-year 15-year, and 10-year portfolios to the optimization problem described by Eq. (3.21).The portfolios are modeled for TA and separated into private and corporate accounts. The portfolio allocations are givenin percent. Minimum variance specifies how well the portfolio replicate the behavior of the deposit rate, with the lowervalue the better.
TA: Private Corporate
20-year Portfolio 15-year Portfolio 10-year Portfolio 20-year Portfolio 15-year Portfolio 10-year Portfolio
Minimum Variance 0.0094% 0.0116% 0.0163% 0.0080% 0.0098% 0.0134%
Market Interest Rate Security
STIBOR 1 Day 0.35% 1.07% 5.31% 1.02% 1.80% 6.90%
STIBOR 1 Week 0.92% 4.01% 53.38% 4.16% 9.01% 56.00%
STIBOR 1 Month 0.21% 0.32% 0.88% 0.72% 1.41% 2.08%
STIBOR 3 Month 1.47% 0.80% 1.09% 5.27% 3.36% 3.21%
STIBOR 6 Month 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 1-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60% 0.33% 0.10%
Swap 2-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 3-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 5-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Swap 7-year 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.01% 0.01%
Swap 10-year 0.02% 0.00% 39.34% 0.39% 0.34% 31.71%
Swap 15-year 0.00% 93.79% Omitted 0.00% 83.73% Omitted
Swap 20-year 97.03% Omitted Omitted 87.79% Omitted Omitted
6.3.2 Interest Rate Risk
One of the goals of this study is to evaluate how the interest rate risk estimates differ for the
respective frameworks. This interest rate risk for the RPM is estimated by Eq. (3.23) and
defined as the percentage change in portfolio value due to a parallel shift in the portfolio
yield (i.e. the market interest rate securities). The results are presented in Table 6.10. Note
that the interest rate risk is symmetric, i.e. the change in portfolio value subject to a -100
bps shift is equal to that of a +100 bps shift but with the opposite sign.
56
Table 6.10: The interest rate risk for the optimal 20-year, 15-year, and 10-year portfolios to theoptimization problem described by Eq. (3.21) for every account category. The interest rate risk isestimated as the change in portfolio value subject to a +100 (+200) bps parallel shift in the marketinterest rate yield using Eq. (3.23). Higher absolute value indicate higher interest rate risk. Theinterest rate risk is symmetric, i.e. the change in portfolio value subject to a -100 bps shift is equalto that of a +100 bps shift but with the opposite sign.
Change in portfolio value due to a 100 bps (200 bps) increase in market interest rates
20-year Portfolio 15-year Portfolio 10-year Portfolio
SA Aggregate -13.8051% (-27.6101%) -9.6813% (-19.3625%) -2.0466% (-4.0932%)
TA Aggregate -18.9903% (-37.9806%) -13.6896% (-27.3792%) -3.6947% (-7.3894%)
SA Private -15.1317% (-30.2633%) -10.5056% (-21.0111%) -2.0748% (-4.1496%)
SA Corporate -12.8737% (-25.7474%) -8.9752% (-17.9504%) -1.8348% (-3.6697%)
TA Private -19.4123% (-38.8246%) -14.0723% (-28.1447%) -3.9479% (-7.8958%)
TA Corporate -17.6203% (-35.2407%) -12.6088% (-25.2176%) -3.1928% (-6.3857%)
The interest rate risk estimates displayed in Table 6.10 indicate that the interest rate risk
varies depending on the portfolio maturity. This is expected as the optimal portfolios for the
different maturities either allocate most weight to the security with the longest maturity
or have a different composition to the others (10-year portfolio). The interest rate risk
to a 100 bps change for the 20-year (15-year) portfolio varies between 12.9% (10.0%) and
19.4% (14.1%) depending on the account classification. The interest rate risks for the 10-
year portfolios are significantly lower than for the other portfolios, which are caused by
the optimal 10-year portfolios allocating a large weight to the 1-week STIBOR. A more
interesting insight is the observed trend in the interest rate risk estimates for the different
portfolios. Analogous to the interest rate risk estimates of the EVM, the interest rate risk for
the RPM is higher for TA and private clients than for SA and corporate clients respectively.
Overall, the different interest rate risk estimates for the different portfolios, account, and
client types are expected given the varying portfolio allocations presented in Table 6.7-6.9.
This observed variability in the interest rate risk estimates highlights a disadvantage of the
RPM, i.e. its sensitivity to the choice of securities included in the portfolio. Consequently,
this implies that a bank using the RPM to assess the interest rate risk in demand deposits
should be cautious when interpreting the obtained estimates.
57
7 Discussion
The purpose of this section is to put the results and analysis from section 6 into the con-
text of this study’s research questions. The first sub-section answers to the first research
question:
♦ RQ1: How does the modeling of demand deposit rates and volumes differ between
account and client categories?
This is followed by the sub-section dedicated to the second research question:
♦ RQ2: How do the interest rate risk estimations from the EVM compare to those of the
RPM?
Finally, a discussion regarding the sustainability aspect of this study is held.
7.1 Model differences: Account and Client Categories
With regards to RQ1, the results from this study show that there are indeed a few differences
between the account and client categories when it comes to modeling of the deposit rate and
volume. The deposit rate models are quite similar across the categories, where the included
components in the models are identical: the lag 1 AR component and the lag 0 market
interest rate. This essentially means that the deposit rate can be sufficiently explained by
the current market interest rate and the deposit rate of last month. The only differences
between categories are the coefficients of the components, mainly for the market interest
rate, which suggest that deposit rates of SA follow the market interest rate closer than those
of TA. This is in line with the results of Hutchison and Pennacchi (1996) and O’Brien (2000).
Moreover, the same dynamics can be seen on a client level, where deposit rates for corporate
accounts follow the market interest rate closer than private accounts. This could be due
to corporate clients having dedicated finance divisions continously monitoring the interest
rates, prompting banks to pay deposit rates that are more in line with the market interest
rate in order to retain the clients. Private clients may lack the knowledge or resources to
closely monitor their finances, thus allowing banks to eke out larger spreads.
The model differences between account and client categories are more prominent in the
deposit volume models. The volumes of TA react faster to changes in the spread between
the market interest rate and the deposit rate compared to the volumes of SA. The nature
and purpose of the two account types could be a possible explanation to this discrepancy
58
in reaction time. SA are intended for saving purposes and their volumes have historically
been more stable than TA. It can thus be interpreted that SA require spread changes over
a longer period of time before they start to have an effect on the volumes. Furthermore,
the volumes of corporate accounts are also quicker to react to the interest rate spread than
private accounts. This can be explained by the same line of reasoning as with the deposit
rates, where corporations are more likely to continuously monitor their finances.
The distinctions between the SA and TA are more pronounced for private clients than for
corporate. The volumes of corporate accounts are negatively correlated to changes in the
spread regardless of being SA or TA. This suggests that corporate clients will withdraw
money during increasing market interest rates and deposit money during declining market
interest rates. This is reasonable since financing via debt typically gets more expensive
in environments with high market interest rates, thus prompting corporations to use their
cash reserves rather than taking expensive loans. On the other hand, the results indicate
that private clients deposit money (which may originate partly from their TA) in their
SA during increasing market interest rates. This contrast to corporate clients could be
due to private clients’ lack of better alternatives or lack of knowledge/time to pursue said
alternatives.
Another interesting point is that all categories show strong signs of seasonality in the deposit
volumes. The periodicity of the seasonality is 1 year which is seen in the lag 12 AR com-
ponent in every volume model. This is something that no previous research have accounted
for, but makes sense since specific events that could affect demand deposits volumes occur
every year, such as tax refunds, holiday season shopping and summer vacation.
The distinctive volume of corporate SA is important to discuss. As explained in section
6.2.2, the peculiar development of the historical corporate SA volume results in an increased
uncertainty in the forecasted volume. This is visible in Figure 6.7, where the forecasted
future volumes have a much wider spread between the upper and lower 95% confidence
intervals. Because the lower 95% forecast scenario seem highly unlikely when compared
to the other account and client categories, the actual forecasted volume is used in the
interest rate risk calculations in the EVM (recall that RPM does not take volumes into
consideration). This could lead to the interest rate risk for corporate SA being relatively
high in comparison to the other categories. Still, the growth of the actual forecasted volume
for corporate SA is still very modest in relation to even the lower 95% volumes of the other
categories. If anything, this suggests that the interest rate risk for corporate SA is estimated
rather conservatively.
Finally, none of the macroeconomic variables (GDP, Unemployment, and Monetary aggre-
59
gate) are found to significantly improve the deposit volume models, whilst neither market
competition nor the asymmetry variable improve the deposit rate models. The largest im-
provement can be seen in the deposit volume model for corporate TA, where including all
three macroeconomic variables improves the AIC score and the standard error by 4.2% each.
This is a relatively small improvement considering the addition of three extra variables that
has to be modeled on their own as well, which in turn increases the uncertainty of the
forecasts.
One likely explanation to why the exogenous variables do not improve the models is that
some of the variables are linearly interpolated to monthly data. Since the model fitting
method is based on the cross-correlations between the dependent variable and the input
variables, the interpolated data could give misleading signals. The asymmetry variable,
which intends to capture banks’ alleged asymmetric behavior when setting deposit rates,
may be more significant if daily market interest rate/deposit rate data is used instead.
The difference in the time it takes for banks to raise/lower deposit rates in response to
increasing/declining market interest rates could possibly be a matter of days as opposed
to months. Furthermore, most of the aforementioned variables included in this study are
based on results or suggestions from previous studies (see e.g. market concentration from
Hannan and Prager, 2006). The vast majority of these previous studies are done in the
U.S. market, whose banking sector may differ from the Swedish market. The banking sector
in Sweden is dominated by four major banks, whilst having a relatively lack of smaller
boutique firms (Swedish Bankers’ Association, 2015). This difference in market compositions
is a possible explanation to why the variables did not prove to be as significant as in the
previous studies.
7.2 Interest Rate Risk Comparison of EVM and RPM
In view of RQ2, the impact on the interest rate risk estimates based on the choice of modeling
framework is investigated. As displayed in Table 6.6 and Table 6.10, the magnitude of the
interest rate risk varies depending on the selected framework and time horizon. The interest
rate risks from the RPM vary to a greater extent between time horizons compared to those
from the EVM. In line with the findings of Kalkbrener and Willing (2004), the obtained
results shows that the interest rate risks from the RPM vary significantly depending on the
securities included in the portfolios.
For the 20- and 15-year horizons, the RPM consistently yields higher interest rate risk
estimates than the EVM regardless of the account and client categories. The discrepancy
in the interest rate risk estimates between the EVM and the RPM are more pronounced
60
for SA than TA. This pattern is the most distinct for corporate SA in the 20-year horizon
where the RPM estimates the interest rate risk, to a 100 bps market interest rate change,
to be almost 166% larger than the EVM. The observed discrepancy is slightly reduced for
the 15-year horizon. In contrast, the interest rate risk estimates for the 10-year horizon
differ from the aforementioned pattern. In this case, the EVM yields higher interest rate
risk estimates than the RPM with the discrepancy now being more distinct for TA than
SA.
Despite the differences in magnitude of the obtained interest rate risk estimates from the
EVM and the RPM, the observed pattern in terms of which account and client category
are consistent in both frameworks. Regardless of the choice of framework, TA are found to
be riskier than SA. These results are in line with the findings of Hutchison and Pennacchi
(1996) and O’Brien (2000). Analogously, private accounts are found to be more exposed to
interest rate risk than corporate accounts. The aforementioned results are to be expected
since the deposit rates of SA and corporate accounts follow the market rate closer than their
counterparts (recall the more detailed analysis in section 6.2.3).
The variability in the interest rate risk estimates between the EVM and RPM are likely due
to the choice of interest rate risk measure in respective framework. In the EVM, the interest
rate risk is derived from the deposit liability which is a bank’s net liability after the rents
are deducted from the deposit volume. This is a direct method of estimating the interest
rate risk since the actual deposited capital is used to determine how the deposit liability
changes with respect to changes in the market interest rate. In contrast, the RPM estimates
the interest rate risk based on the duration of a portfolio, consisting of market interest rate
securities, that replicates the demand deposit behavior as closely as possible. This may
be seen as an indirect method since the replicating portfolio and not the deposit volume
is used to assess the interest rate risk. The reason as to why the RPM generates higher
interest rate risk estimates for the 15- and 20-year horizons is due to the large portfolio
weight allocated in the security with the longest maturity in the replicating portfolio (Table
6.7-6.9). Analogously, the reason why the RPM yields lower interest rate risk estimates for
the 10-year horizon than the EVM is due to the large portfolio allocation in short term
securities (see Table 6.7-6.9).
Since the RPM estimates the interest rate risk based on a replicating portfolio, the inter-
est rate risk is sensitive to the choice of market interest rate securities used and how the
portfolio is constructed. This may explain the obtained differences in the interest rate risk
estimates between the EVM and RPM. Since the RPM aims to mimic the deposit behavior,
the maturity and the portfolio weight of each security indicate the time the deposited capital
is expected to remain at the bank. To clarify the chain of thought, recall that the optimal
61
portfolio for TA on an aggregate level allocates 94.88% to the security with the 20-year
maturity (Table 6.7). Consequently, this means the RPM predicts that 94.88% of the de-
posited capital is expected to remain at the bank for 20 years. However, the expected time
the demand deposits are projected to stay at the bank is dependent on the selected market
interest rate securities. For instance, for the 20-year portfolio in this study, the three securi-
ties with the longest maturities are the 10-year, 15-year and 20-year swap rates. Therefore,
this implies that the RPM predicts the deposited capital is withdrawn every 5 years, i.e.
after 10, 15 and 20 years respectively. This simplifying assumption is a shortcoming with
the RPM as demand deposits are in practice typically withdrawn more continuously than
the RPM implies. While this may be mitigated by including more market interest rate se-
curities with different maturities, this solution is also associated with additional complexity.
In contrast, the EVM is able to compute the in- and outflow of the deposit volumes on a
monthly basis, which should improve the interest risk estimates.
Another limitation of the RPM that is important to mention is the duration based measure
used for assessing the interest rate risk. Despite it being a commonly used measure, it
is only an approximate measure of the interest rate risk for small changes in the market
interest rate. This may explain why the discrepancy in the interest rate risk estimates from
the EVM and the RPM is amplified for larger shifts in the market interest rate.
Still, the EVM in this particular study faces a similar problem as the RPM, namely that
the interest rate risk varies for the different choices of time horizons, albeit not as much as
for the RPM. For the EVM, it is theoretically possible to find a time horizon large enough
where the cumulative present value of future deposit rents converges to a fix value, as long
as the rents’ growth rate is less than the market interest rate. But because of the nature
of the data used in this study, it is difficult to arrive at this convergence. First of all,
the downward trend in the historical 1-month STIBOR leads to a relatively low long term
mean in the forecasted market interest rates. Meanwhile, the case bank enjoyed strong
growth in deposit volume during the last decade. As a result, the forecasted deposit rents
show continued growth as they are a function of the deposit volume, even when the deposit
volume used to calculate rents are chosen as the lower 95% confidence interval limit. With
higher market interest rates and slower deposit volume growth, convergence may well be
reached, thus making the EVM approach more favorable as the number of assumptions can
be further reduced.
62
7.3 Sustainability
In light of the 2008 financial crisis, regulatory authorities have implemented several measures
to assert the sustainability of financial markets. One of the most prominent actions is
the enactment of stricter capital requirements to account for the unexpected risks banks
may face. Despite the employment of stricter regulations, no explicit guidelines regarding
the interest rate risk management of demand deposits have been implemented. From a
sustainability perspective, the absence of explicit guidelines is worrying since one of banks’
primary functions is to facilitate saving and lending in the society (Swedish National Bank,
2014). Banks commonly perform this function by transforming demand deposits from parties
with abundant capital to credits for parties in need of capital. The lack of guidelines for
managing the interest rate risk in demand deposits is one of the reasons that motivated
this study. The findings of this study may contribute to the sustainable development of
financial industries in two ways: first, it highlights the magnitude of the inherent interest
rate risk in demand deposit and the importance to account for it. Second, this study provides
two modeling frameworks which allow banks to measure the interest rate risk of demand
deposits. By adequately capturing the risks in demand deposits, banks may in extension
perform their societal role as financial intermediaries more efficiently and solidify themselves
in times of economic recessions.
63
8 Conclusion
Since the future volumes and deposit rates of demand deposits are unknown, correctly in-
corporating demand deposits into capital and funding planning poses a significant challenge
as it requires a clear understanding of the underlying risks. As a result, the purpose of
this study is to empirically evaluate the modeling of the valuation and interest rate risk in
demand deposits, with the main goal of this study being the following:
♦ How can demand deposit rates, volumes, and interest rate risk be modeled?
This study is hereby concluded by putting the two research questions in relation to this
goal. The demand deposits are first separated into different categories: savings accounts
(SA), transaction accounts (TA), private accounts, and corporate accounts. The two most
prominent frameworks for modeling demand deposits in existing literature are then exam-
ined. These frameworks are the Economic Value Model (EVM) and the Replicating Portfolio
Model (RPM).
The main findings of this study show that the deposit rates and volumes can be sufficiently
modeled with the widely-used time series framework SARIMAX. The deposit rates can be
explained by their own lagged values and the market interest rate, while market concen-
tration and asymmetric deposit rate policy are not explanatory. The deposit volumes can
be explained by the spread between the market interest rate and the deposit rate, together
with lagged values of itself and moving-average terms. The macroeconomic variables GDP,
Unemployment, and Monetary aggregate are not explanatory for the deposit volumes.
The results show that there are differences within the different types of demand deposits
when it comes to the modeling of deposit rates and volumes. The deposit rates of SA
and corporate accounts follow the market interest rate closer than their counterparts, while
taking higher values as well. Furthermore, the deposit volumes of TA and corporate accounts
are found to be more reactive to changes in the interest rate spread than their counterparts.
As a result, the interest rate risks, which are dependent on the deposit rates and volumes, are
also different between categories. In both the EVM and RPM, SA and corporate accounts
are observed to have a lower exposure to interest rate risk than their counterparts. These
differences suggest that it may be wise to separate demand deposits into various categories
when modeling their dynamics.
The comparison between the EVM and the RPM shows that the RPM arrives at higher
interest rate risks for the 15- and 20-year horizons, and vice versa for the 10-year horizon.
The differences in the interest rate risks produced by the two frameworks are reduced for
64
smaller changes in the market interest rate. Both frameworks yield interest rate risks that
are dependent on assumptions regarding the time horizon, although it can theoretically be
made independent in the case of EVM which is an advantage of the EVM.
There a few delimitations and limitations of the study which affects the generalizability
of the findings. The first delimitation is the sole focus on the Swedish demand deposit
market. Consequently, the findings are subject to Swedish regulations which may differs from
other jurisdictions. Therefore, it is left to future research to evaluate the generalizability
of the constructed models in other demand deposits markets. Another delimitation of this
study is the focus on the interest rate risk in demand deposits. Since demand deposits are
also exposed to liquidity risk, future research could seek to develop a more comprehensive
modeling framework by extending the models of this study to also capture the liquidity risk
in demand deposits.
A limitation of the results is the difficulty to model future market interest rate. While this
study implemented the commonly used Vasicek model (see e.g. Hutchison and Pennacchi,
1996), the presence of a negative trend in historical Swedish market rates resulted in a rela-
tively low long-term interest rate. With this in mind, an interesting area for future research
would be to extend this study by considering alternative interest rate modeling frameworks
such as the Heath-Jarrow-Morton framework. Nevertheless, the findings of this study pro-
vide banks valuable tools for implementing a prudent interest rate risk management.
65
References
Bank of Japan (2014). Survey on Core Deposit Modeling in Japan: Toward Enhancing
Asset and Liability Management, Bank of Japan Report and Research Paper.
Bardehewer, M. (2007). Modeling Non-maturity products. In: Matz, L. and Neu, P. eds.
Liquidity Risk Measurement and Management. Wiley, pp. 220-256.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2004). Principles for the Management and Su-
pervision of Interest Rate Risk.
Bodie, Z., Kane, A. and Marcus, A.J. (2014). Investments. Tenth Edition. McGraw-Hill
Education, New York, USA.
Brockwell, P.J. and Davis, R.A. (2002). Introduction to Time Series and Forecasting. Sec-
ond Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
Carmona, G. (2007). Bank Failures Caused by Large Withdrawals: An Explanation Based
Purely on Liquidity. Journal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 43.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2014). Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate
and postgraduate students. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan, London, England.
Cox, J.C., Ingersoll J.E. and Ross S.A. (1985). A Theory of the Term Structure of Interest
Rates, Econometrica, vol. 53.
Dermine, J. (2015). Basel III leverage ratio requirements and the probability of bank runs,
Journal of Banking and Finance, vol. 53.
Dewachter, H., Lyrio. M. and Maes, K. (2006). A Multi-Factor Model for the Valuation and
Risk Management of Demand Deposits, working paper, National Bank of Belgium.
Eriksson, G. (2008). Numeriska Algoritmer med MATLAB. Royal Institute of Technology
Data Science department, Stockholm, Sweden.
Finansinspektionen (2014). FI:s metoder for bedomning av enskilda risktyper inom pelare
2.
Fraundorfer, K. and Schurle, M. (2003). Management of non-maturing deposits by multi-
stage stochastic programming, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 151.
66
Goldstein, I. and Pauzner, A. (2005). Demand Deposit Contracts and the Probability of
Bank Runs, Journal of Finance, vol. 60.
Hagin, R.L. and Khan, R.N (1990). What Practitioners Need to Know about Backtesting,
Financial Analyst Journal, vol. 46.
Hannan, T. H. and Prager, R. A. (2006). Multimarket bank pricing: An empirical investi-
gation of deposit interest rates. Journal of Economics and Business, vol. 58.
Harder, D.W. (2005). Topic 6.4: Extrapolation.
https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/ dwharder/NumericalAnalysis/06LeastSquares/extrapolation/complete.html
Accessed: 2015-05-04.
Hull, J.C. (2009). Options, Futures and Other Derivatives. Seventh Edition. Pearson
Education, New Jersey, USA.
Hutchison, D. and Pennacchi, G.G. (1996). Measuring Rents and Interest Rate Risk in
Imperfect Financial Markets: The Case of Retail Bank Deposits. The Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, vol. 31.
Jarrow, R. A. and van Deventer, D. R. (1998). The arbitrage-free valuation and hedging of
demand deposits and credit card loans. Journal of Banking & Finance, vol. 22.
Kalkbrener, M. and Willing, J. (2004). Risk management of non-maturing liabilities. Jour-
nal of Banking & Finance, vol. 28.
Maes, K. and Timmermans, T. (2005). Measuring the interest rate risk of Belgian regulated
saving deposits, National Bank of Belgium, Financial Stability Review.
Neumark, D. and Sharpe, S. A. (1992). Market Structure and the Nature of Price Rigidity:
Evidence from the Market for Consumer Deposits. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
vol. 107.
Nystrom, K. (2008). On deposit volumes and the valuation of non-maturing liabilities.
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 32.
O’Brien, J. M. (2000). Estimating the Value and Interest Rate Risk of Interest-Bearing
Transaction Deposits. Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors, Federal
Reserve System.
67
O’Brien, J. M., Orphanides, A. and Small, D. (1994). Estimating the Interest Rate Sen-
sitivity of Liquid Retail Deposits. Proceedings of a Conference on Bank Structure and
Competition, Chicago Federal Reserve Bank.
Rosen, R. J. (2007). Banking market conditions and deposit interest rates. Journal of
Banking & Finance, vol. 31.
Statistics Sweden (2010). Quaterly National Accounts Inventory: Sources and methods for
Swedish National Accounts.
Statistics Sweden (2014). Begrepp och Definitioner AKU.
Statistics Sweden (2014). Finansmarknadsstatistik december 2014.
Swedish National Bank (2014). Den svenska finansmarknaden.
Vasicek, O. (1977). An Equilibrium Characterization of the Term Structure. Journal of
Financial Economics, vol. 5.
Wooldridge, J.M. (2013). Introductory to Econometrics: A modern approach. Fifth Edition.
South-Western, Ohio, USA.
Zeytun, S. and Gupta, A. (2007). A Comparative Study of the Vasicek and the CIR model
of the Short Rate. Published reports, Fraunhofer Institut Techno- und Wirtschaftsmathe-
matik.
68
Appendix
Appendix A - Complementing Data
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8·105
Year
MSEK
Figure A.1: The deposit volume (in MSEK) placed in pri-vate SA from 2004 to 2014.
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
·104
Year
MSEK
Figure A.2: The deposit volume (in MSEK) placed in cor-porate SA from 2004 to 2014.
69
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6·105
Year
MSEK
Figure A.3: The deposit volume (in MSEK) placed in pri-vate TA from 2004 to 2014.
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8·104
Year
MSEK
Figure A.4: The deposit volume (in MSEK) placed in cor-porate TA from 2004 to 2014.
70
2006 2008 2010 2012 20145
6
7
8
9
10
Year
%
Figure A.5: The unemployment rate in Sweden between 2004 and 2014. Datasource: Statistics Sweden (2015).
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05·106
Year
MSEK
Figure A.6: The nominal gross domestic product (GDP) in MSEK between 2004and 2014. Data source: Statistics Sweden (2015).
71
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05·105
Year
MSEK
Figure A.7: The monetary aggregate supply (M0) in Sweden between 2004 and2014. Data source: Statistics Sweden (2015).
2006 2008 2010 2012 20140.16
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
Year
Figure A.8: Market concentration (HHI) between 2004 and 2014. The HHItakes values between 0 and 1, where 0 indicate a perfectly competitive marketand 1 a monopoly. Data source: Swedish Bankers’ Association (2015).
72
Appendix B - Model Parameter Diagnostics
Table B.1: Displays the p-values of HHI and assymetry term fordifferent deposit rate model combinations for all account and clientcategories. The variables are defined as: x = HHI and I = As-symetry term. The leftmost column displays the variables includedin the model. The lag of the variable is stated in the parenthesis.For instance, the first model combination under SA Aggregate whichonly says x(o) means that this deposit rate model only include themacroeconomic variable HHI and it has lag 0. Analogously x(2) andI(0)means the model include the HHI with lag 0 and the assymetryterm with lag 0. Note that the higher the p-value the less significantis the variable.
x I
SA Aggregate
x (0) 0.4613
I (0) 0.3994
x (0), I (0) 0.4702 0.4070
TA Aggregate
x (0) 0.6673
I (0) 0.6150
x (0), I (0) 0.6628 0.6117
SA Private
x (0) 0.4689
I (0) 0.4639
x (0), I (0) 0.4770 0.4720
SA Corporate
x (0) 0.3603
I (0) 0.2466
x (0), I (0) 0.3702 0.2533
TA Private
x (0) 0.8588
I (0) 0.5662
x (0), I (0) 0.8673 0.5698
TA Corporate
x (0) 0.2940
I (0) 0.9535
x (0), I (0) 0.2955 0.9431
73
Table B.2: Displays the p-values of the macroeconomic variables for different deposit volume modelcombinations for all account and client categories. The variables are defined as: G = GDP, U =Unemployment Rate and M = Monetary Aggregate. The leftmost column displays the macroeco-nomic variables included in the model. The lag of the variable is stated in the parenthesis. Forinstance, the first model combination under SA Aggregate which only says G(2) means that thisdeposit volume model only include the macroeconomic variable GDP and it has lag 2. AnalogouslyG(2), U(0) and M(1) means the model include the GDP with lag 2, the unemployment rate withlag 0 and monetary aggregate with lag 1. Note that the higher the p-value the less significant is thevariable.
G U M
SA Aggregate
G (2) 0.0441
U (0) 0.3258
M (1) 0.5659
G (2), U (0) 0.0158 0.0951
G (2), M (1) 0.0268 0.3190
U (0), M (1) 0.2887 0.4986
G (2), U (0), M (1) 0.0061 0.0532 0.1941
SA Private
G (2) 0.0807
U (0) 0.3576
M (0) 0.8909
G (2) , U (0) 0.0420 0.1528
G (2), M (0) 0.0794 0.7987
U (0), M (0) 0.3049 0.7043
G (2), U (0), M (0) 0.0341 0.0944 0.4770
SA Corporate
G (1) 0.4670
U (5) 0.9142
M (1) 0.8364
G (1), U (5) 0.4912 0.9384
G (1), M (1) 0.4495 0.7347
U (5), M (1) 0.8563 0.7975
G (1), U (5), M (1) 0.4712 0.8461 0.7037
G U M
TA Aggregate
G (0) 0.0118
U (0) 0.9381
M (2) 0.0685
G (0), U (0) 0.0097 0.5749
G (0), M (2) 0.0026 0.0120
U (0), M (2) 0.7041 0.0609
G (0), U (0), M (2) 0.0029 0.9888 0.0146
TA Private
G (2) 0.3960
U (0) 0.6327
M (2) 0.1161
G (2), U (0) 0.4109 0.6621
G (2), M (2) 0.7820 0.1798
U (0), M (2) 0.9283 0.1351
G (2), U (0), M (2) 0.7773 0.9142 0.2050
TA Corporate
G (0) <0.0001
U (6) 0.5111
M (0) 0.0564
G (0), U (6) <0.0001 0.3499
G (0), M (0) <0.0001 0.6314
U (6), M (0) 0.9210 0.0890
G (0), U (6), M (0) <0.0001 0.4333 0.9739
74
Appendix C - Model Residual Correlation Plots
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.9: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Volume model for SAAggregate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.10: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Volume model for TAAggregate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
75
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.11: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Volume model for SAPrivate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.12: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Volume model for SACorporate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
76
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.13: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Volume model for TAPrivate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.14: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Volume model for TACorporate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
77
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.15: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Rate model for SA Aggre-gate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.16: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Rate model for TA Aggre-gate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
78
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.17: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Rate model for SA Private.The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.18: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Rate model for SA Corpo-rate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
79
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.19: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Rate model for TA Private.The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(a) The ACF plot.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
Lag
Correlation
(b) The PACF plot.
Figure C.20: The ACF plot (left) and PACF plot (right) for the Deposit Rate model for TA Corpo-rate. The blue dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence interval. The PACF plotsuggests that there is a significant correlation at lag 3. By adding the AR term with lag 3 to themodel, the model scores an AIC of -1524.10 and Std Err of 0.000712. This is a negligible changefrom the final model which has an AIC of -1512.55 and Std Err of 0.000747. This is the reason whythe lag 3 AR term is excluded from the final model, even though the ACF and PACF plots suggestthe opposite.
80