Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:40:07.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Yen is Not a Yen: TIBOR/LIBOR and the Determinants of the Japan Premium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Vicentiu Covrig
Affiliation:
[email protected], School of Business and Economics, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330;
Buen Sin Low
Affiliation:
[email protected], Division of Banking and Finance, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore;
Michael Melvin
Affiliation:
mmelvin@asu. edu, Department of Economics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.

Abstract

Pricing in the euroyen market is based on LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate, set at 11:00AM London time or TIBOR, the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate, set at 11:00AM Tokyo time. The changing TIBOR-LIBOR spread reflects the credit risk associated with Japanese banks or the “Japan premium”. The spread is modeled as a function of determinants of bank default and firm value. Systematic variation in the spread can be explained by interest rate and stock price effects along with public information flows of good and bad news regarding Japanese banking, with a separate role for bank credit downgrades and upgrades.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 2004

Access options

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

References

J., Batten, and Covrig, V.. “Credit Arbitrage in the Yen Euromarket between Asia and London”. Journal of the Asia-Pacific Economy, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Collin-Dufresne, P.; Goldstein, R. S.; and Martin, J. S.. “The Determinants of Credit Spread Changes”. Journal of Finance, 56 (2001), 21772208.Google Scholar
Duffee, , R., G.“The Relationship between Treasury Yields and Corporate Bond Yield Spreads”. Journal of Finance, 53 (1998), 22252241.Google Scholar
Eom, Y. H.; Subrahmanyam, M. G.; and Uno, J.. “Credit Risk and the Yen Interest Rate Swap Market”. Working Paper, New York Univ. (2000).Google Scholar
Gencay, R.; Dacorogna, M.; Muller, U.; Olsen, R.; and Pictet, O.. An Introduction to High Frequency Finance. New York, NY: Academic Press (2000).Google Scholar
Hanajiri, T. “Three Japan Premiums in Autumn 1997 and Autumn 1998: Why Did Premiums Differ between Markets?” Financial Markets Department Working Paper Series 99-E-1, Bank of Japan (1999).Google Scholar
Ito, T., and Harada, K.. “Japan Premium and Stock Prices: Two Mirrors of Japanese Banking Crises”. NBER Working Paper #7997 (Nov. 2000)Google Scholar
Ito, T., and Melvin, M.. “Japan's Big Bang and the Transformation of Financial Markets”. In Japan's New Economy: Continuity and Change in the Twenty-First Century, Blomstrom, , Gangnes, , and Croix, La, eds. Oxford, England: Oxford Univ. Press (2001).Google Scholar
Kanaya, A., and Woo, D.. “The Japanese Banking Crisis of the 1990s: Sources and Lessons”. Working Paper 00/7, International Monetary Fund (2000).Google Scholar
Leland, H. E.“Optimal Capital Structure, Endogenous Bankruptcy, and the Term Structure of Credit Spreads”. Journal of Finance, 49 (1994), 12131252.Google Scholar
Longstaff, F. A., and Schwartz, E. S.. “A Simple Approach to Valuing Risky Fixed and Floating Rate Debt”. Journal of Finance, 50 (1995), 789819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. C. “On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates”. Journal of Finance, 29 (1974), 449470.Google Scholar
Packer, F. “Credit Risk in Japan's Corporate Bond Market”. Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 5 (1999), 16.Google Scholar
Peek, J., and Rosengren, E. S.. “Determinants of the Japan Premium: Actions Speak Louder than Words”. Journal of International Economics, 53 (2001), 283305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiegel, M.. “The Return of the ‘Japan Premium’: Trouble Ahead for Japanese Banks?” FRBSF Economic Letter, No. 2001–06 (2001).Google Scholar