Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:27:41.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A New Linear Programming Approach to Bond Portfolio Management: A Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Abstract

An analysis of the dual problem described by Ronn (1987) reveals that it provides a powerful and easily interpretable test for the hypothesis of a single class of marginal investors, including models of equilibrium based on a “representative tax bracket.” When Ronn's empirical tests are interpreted via the dual, they lend additional support to his conclusions in providing a strong rejection of the representative tax bracket hypothesis. A valid dual LP used to test the hypothesis can be obtained with fewer assumptions than Ronn's primal; in addition, a minor error in Ronn's presentation of the dual is corrected.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1989

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

Hodges, S. D., and Schaefer, S. M.. “A Model for Bond Portfolio Improvement.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 12 (06 1977), 243260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J. V.Tax Effects in Term Structure Estimation.” Journal of Finance, 39 (06 1984), 393406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litzenberger, R. H., and Rolfo, J.. “An International Study of Tax Effects on Government Bonds.” Journal of Finance, 39 (03 1984), 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, J. H.The Tax-Adjusted Yield Curve.” Journal of Finance, 30 (06 1975), 811830.Google Scholar
Ronn, E. I.A New Linear Programming Approach to Bond Portfolio Management.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 22 (12 1987), 439466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, S. M.Tax Induced Clientele Effects in the Market for British Government Securities.” Journal of Financial Economics, 10 (07 1982), 121159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar