Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the impact of macroeconomic news surprises on Treasury-bond returns

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Annals of Finance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of surprises associated with monthly macroeconomic news releases on Treasury-bond returns, by paying particular attention to the moment at which the information is published in the month. Implementing an event study on intraday data, we show that (1) the main bond market movers are based on economic activity and inflation indicators, (2) long-maturity bonds are slightly more impacted by surprises than short-maturity ones, and (3) the bond market is more sensitive to negative surprises than to positive ones. Finally, we find evidence of an empirical monotonic relationship between the surprises’ impact and their corresponding news’ publication date and/or their sign.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, among others, Ederington and Lee (1993), Bollerslev et al. (2000), Balduzzi et al. (2001), Nikkinen and Sahlstrom (2001), Graham et al. (2005), Lobo et al. (2006), Rigobon and Sack (2006), Lee and Mykland (2008), Birz and Lott (2011), Lahaye et al. (2011), Erdemlioglu et al. (2012) and Ludwig and Zimper (2013).

  2. See Ball and Brown (1968), Fama et al. (1969), Fama and Schwert (1977) and the literature surveys by Fama (1970, 1991).

  3. See e.g. Schwert (1981), Mitchell and Mulherin (1994) and the literature review by Fama (1991).

  4. See, e.g. Jain (1988), Becker et al. (1995), Funke and Matsuda (2006), and Rigobon and Sack (2006).

  5. See Ederington and Lee (1993), Balduzzi et al. (2001), Andersen et al. (2007) and Dungey et al. (2007) among others.

  6. Especially for important news, such as those related to consumer price index, durable goods orders, GDP, personal spending and retail sales.

  7. See also Dungey et al. (2007) who show that U.S. Treasuries tend to co-jump across maturities, with more unique jumps at both ends of the term curve, providing some support for both liquidity and preferred habitat hypotheses.

  8. Other interesting references are Boyd et al. (2005) and Andersen et al. (2007).

  9. It should be noticed that the well-known issue of simultaneous announcements encountered in any event study is not a problem in the present analysis. Indeed, our data are not dummy variables, but surprises, i.e. figures. Consequently, if an abnormal variation in returns is detected, the relevant corresponding announcement can be precisely identified.

  10. Also called “consensus” data, i.e. the median of individual forecasts of the announcement i made each month by professional forecasters working mostly in banks, brokerages or forecast agencies. It should be noticed that the horizon of the expectations does not intervene in the analysis, due to the procedure followed by Bloomberg for constructing its consensus data. The procedure can be summarized as follows (see also Sect. 3.1). Around 1 month prior to the news release, Bloomberg sends out surveys to various analysts—including academicians and practitioners—to provide their forecasts of the upcoming announcements. The horizon is thus the same for all participants and expectations. During the week prior to the scheduled announcement, Bloomberg compiles all requested up-to-date expectations and publishes the median forecasts of upcoming announcements.

  11. Returns are calculated as the first log-difference of mid prices defined as the average of the bid and ask prices being quoted. While yield is mainly a measure of income—ignoring the possibility of changes in market value that result in capital gains and losses—return is a more inclusive measure of investment performance, which can be either positive or negative (in contrast to yield, which must be positive). In addition, considering price returns allows us to deal with the potential unit root issue by working on stationary series (results of unit root tests are available upon request to the authors).

  12. Due to a limited access to high frequency data for the U.S., we consider a 15-min frequency for this country. Note however that this allows us to deal with microstructure noise issues (see Lee and Mykland (2008)), although the U.S. market is obviously more liquid than the others.

  13. See the references in Sect. 1.

  14. Results of unit root tests are available upon request to the authors.

  15. China exhibits a different pattern because news are published mid-month.

  16. All detailed results are available upon request to the authors.

  17. Computed as the mean between bid and ask prices.

  18. The values of the \(R^{2}\), as well as those of the estimated coefficients (while being significant), may be viewed as quite low at the first sight. However, they are consistent with those obtained in the related literature (see, e.g., Balduzzi et al. 2001; Vrugt 2010). These values obviously depend on the considered frequency. For instance, when dealing with high frequency data, macroeconomic announcements occur infrequently and thus the corresponding regressions have a low \(R^{2}\). When the frequency decreases, the \(R^{2}\) augments. In our case, the \(R^{2}\) values range in intervals that are consistent with previous studies dealing with intraday data.

  19. According to Laurencelle (2009), it has indeed two advantages over the other tests (such as Spearman, Pearson, Gamma-based tests\(\ldots \)): it transcends the metric of measured variables and removes the need for a parametric model, making it a truly non-parametric index, suitable for categorical ordinal variables [see also Agresti (1976) and Khamis (2008)].

  20. Descriptive statistics for the data used in our analysis are reported in Tables 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in “Appendix”.

  21. Only significant results are reported (the Kendall \(\tau _b\) statistic is not significant for the 10-year maturity U.K. bond, nor for China).

  22. These different results obtained for the U.K. and U.S. can be linked to the type and cyclical nature of significant announcements. Indeed, as shown by the results displayed in Table 2, the U.S. 2-year bonds are particularly sensitive to news related to pro-cyclical indicators, such as non-farm payrolls, U.S. consumer confidence index or new home sales, while the U.K. 2-year bonds are less reactive to these indicators. As recalled by Andritzky et al. (2007), positive surprises in such pro-cyclical indicators tend to have a strong—negative—impact on the bond market, consistent with our findings. However, more than the sign itself, it is the number of surprises that matters here, in the sense that the largest number of surprises reflects a stronger effect for large unexpected shocks.

References

  • Agresti, A.: The effect of category choice on some ordinal measures of association. J Am Stat Assoc 71(353), 49-55 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, T.G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F.X., Vega, C.: Micro effects of macro announcements: real-time price discovery in foreign exchange. Am Econ Rev 93(1), 38-62 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, T.G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F.X., Vega, C.: Real-time price discovery in global stock, bond and foreign exchange markets. J Int Econ 73(2), 251-277 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andritzky, J.R., Bannister, G.J., Tamirisa, N.T.: The impact of macroeconomic announcements on emerging market bonds. Emerg Mark Rev 8(1), 20-37 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balduzzi, P., Elton, E.J., Green, T.C.: Economic news and bond prices: evidence from the US Treasury market. J Financ Quant Anal 36(4), 523-543 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, R., Brown, P.: An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. J Account Res 6, 159-178 (1968)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beber, A., Brandt, M.W.: When it cannot get better or worse: the asymmetric impact of good and bad news on bond returns in expansions and recessions. Rev Finance 14, 119-155 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K.G., Finnerty, J.E., Friedman, J.: Economic news and equity market linkages between the US and UK. J Bank Finance 19(7), 1191-1210 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birz, G., Lott Jr, J.R.: The effect of macroeconomic news on stock returns: new evidence from newspaper coverage. J Bank Finance 35(11), 2791-2800 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollerslev, T., Cai, J., Song, F.M.: Intraday periodicity, long memory volatility, and macroeconomic announcement effects in the US Treasury bond market. J Empir Finance 7(1), 37-55 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, J.H., Hu, J., Jagannathan, R.: The stock market’s reaction to unemployment news: why bad news is usually good for stocks. J Finance 60(2), 649-672 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L.H., Jiang, G.J., Wang, Q.: Market reaction to information shocks. Does the bloomberg and briefing.com survey matter? J Futures Mark 33(10), 939-964 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dungey, M., McKenzie, M., Smith, V.: Empirical evidence on jumps in the term structure of the US Treasury market. CAMA Working Papers 2007-25, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University (2007)

  • Ederington, L.H., Lee, J.H.: How markets process information: news releases and volatility. J Finance 48(4), 1161-1191 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdemlioglu, D., Laurent, S., Neely, C.J.: Econometric modeling of exchange rate volatility and jumps. Working Papers 2012-008, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2012)

  • Fama, E.F.: Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. J Finance 25(2), 383-417 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F.: Efficient capital markets: II. J Finance 46(5), 1575-1617 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., Fisher, L., Jensen, M., Roll, R.: The adjustment of stock prices to new information. Int Econ Rev 10(1), 1-21 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., Schwert, G.W.: Asset returns and inflation. J Financ Econ 5(2), 115-146 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, M.J., Remolona, E.M.: Price formation and liquidity in the US Treasury market: the response to public information. J Finance 54(5), 1901-1915 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funke, N., Matsuda, A.: Macroeconomic news and stock returns in the United States and Germany. Ger Econ Rev 7(2), 189-210 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R., Rajgopal, S.: The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. J Account Econ 40(13), 3-73 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürkaynak, R.S., Sack, B., Swanson, E.: The sensitivity of long-term interest rates to economic news: evidence and implications for macroeconomic models. Am Econ Rev 95(1), 425-436 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, P.C.: Response of hourly stock prices and trading volume to economic news. J Bus 61(2), 219-231 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, G.J., Lo, I., Verdelhan, A.: Information shocks, liquidity shocks, jumps, and price discovery: evidence from the US Treasury market. J Financ Quant Anal 46(02), 527-551 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C.M., Lamont, O., Lumsdaine, R.L.: Macroeconomic news and bond market volatility. J Financ Econ 47(3), 315-337 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khamis, H.J.: Measures of association: how to choose? J Diagn Med Sonogr 24(3), 155-162 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laakkonen, H.: The impact of macroeconomic news on exchange rate volatility. Finn Econ Pap 20(1), 23-40 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahaye, J., Laurent, S., Neely, C.J.: Jumps, cojumps and macro announcements. J Appl Econom 26(6), 893-921 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurencelle, L.: Le tau et le tau-b de kendall pour la corrélation de variables ordinales simples ou catégorielles. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 5(2), 51-58 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.S., Mykland, P.A.: Jumps in financial markets: a new nonparametric test and jump dynamics. Rev Financ Stud 21(6), 2535-2563 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobo, B.J., Darrat, A.F., Ramchander, S.: The asymmetric impact of monetary policy on currency markets. Financ Rev 41(2), 289-303 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, A., Zimper, A.: A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news. Ann Finance 9(4), 625-665 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M., Mulherin, H.: The impact of public information on the stock market. J Finance 49(3), 923-950 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikkinen, J., Sahlstrom, P.: Impact of scheduled US macroeconomic news on stock market uncertainty: a multinational perspective. Multinatl Finance J 5(2), 129 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noel, E.A.: An empirical examination of bloomberg’s macroeconomic forecasts of the G-7 nations. PhD thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada (2000)

  • Pearce, D.K., Roley, V.V.: Stock prices and economic news. NBER Working Papers 1296, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc (1985)

  • Rigobon, R., Sack, B.: Noisy macroeconomic announcements, monetary policy, and asset prices. Working Paper 12420, National Bureau of Economic Research (2006)

  • Schwert, G.W.: The adjustment of stock prices to information about inflation. J Finance 36(1), 15-29 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, J., Iqbal, A.: Ranking professional forecasters in an unbalanced panel: a new approach. J Bus Forecast 31(3), 29-32 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Veronesi, P.: Stock market overreaction to bad news in good times: a rational expectations equilibrium model. Rev Financ Stud 12(5), 975-1007 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrugt, E.B.: Asymmetries in the reaction of Treasury bond futures returns to macroeconomic news. Technical Report, Working Paper (2010)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EconomiX-CNRS, University of Paris Ouest, Paris, France

    Imane El Ouadghiri & Valérie Mignon

  2. CEPII, Paris, France

    Valérie Mignon

  3. MarketScience, Orléans, France

    Nicolas Boitout

Authors
  1. Imane El Ouadghiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valérie Mignon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas Boitout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valérie Mignon.

Additional information

We would like to thank Aymen Belgacem and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

Table 7 United States (U.S.)—macroeconomic news announcements description
Full size table
Table 8 United Kingdom (U.K.)—macroeconomic news announcements description
Full size table
Table 9 China (CN)—macroeconomic news announcements description
Full size table
Table 10 Germany (DE)—macroeconomic news announcements description
Full size table
Table 11 Japan (JP)—macroeconomic news announcements description
Full size table
Table 12 Panel U.S.—descriptive statistics on macroeconomic surprises
Full size table
Table 13 Panel U.K.—descriptive statistics on macroeconomic surprises
Full size table
Table 14 Panel China—descriptive statistics on macroeconomic surprises
Full size table
Table 15 Panel Germany—descriptive statistics on macroeconomic surprises
Full size table
Table 16 Panel Japan—descriptive statistics on macroeconomic surprises
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El Ouadghiri, I., Mignon, V. & Boitout, N. On the impact of macroeconomic news surprises on Treasury-bond returns. Ann Finance 12, 29–53 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10436-015-0271-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10436-015-0271-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation