Disadvantages of classical immunization?

since its risk minimizing it doesnt earn excess return like contingent which is a return maximizing strategy
 
hmm..maybe:
[1]duration matching without convexity matching means the immunised position only good for small parallel shifts in the yield curve.
[2]for classical immunisation, the target value sets a floor for the portfolio.For non-parallel shifts, the portfolio value may dip below the target value.
[3]compared to cash flow matching : if perfect matching is impossible , Cf-matching has less risk of not meeting the liability than immunisation , though the latter has lower costs…
…??
 
The biggest disadvantage of classical immunization is that it only hedges against parallel shifts in yield curves, which is an unrealistic occurrance. This is because classical immunization is implemented by matching durations, and duration as a measure of interest rate risk is only limited to parallel shifts in interest rates.
Another disadvantage is that classical immunization applies to small changes in interest rates, not large ones. This disadvantage can be reduced by properly aligning convexities between assets and liabilities, but I’m not sure if classical immunization technically includes the convexity adjustment.
 
Only valid for a one-time parallel shift. After the shift it must be re-immunized. Also must be adjusted as time passes (I think). Ignores yield curve shape. Assumes zero defaults (not sure if that is a disadvantage though)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top