Uncovering the greenium: Investigating the yield spread between green and conventional bonds

Paola Fandella, Valentina Cociancich
{"title":"Uncovering the greenium: Investigating the yield spread between green and conventional bonds","authors":"Paola Fandella, Valentina Cociancich","doi":"10.21511/imfi.21(2).2024.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Green bonds are an increasingly used instrument to catalyze cash flows towards a low-carbon economy. Nonetheless, the existence of an actual price advantage is still uncertain. This research paper aims to assess whether there is a green bond premium (“greenium”) for green bonds relative to conventional bonds with similar characteristics, and how liquidity may affect the determination of a price advantage. It analyzes the yield differentials between green and conventional bonds using three different methods. First, a Nelson-Siegel-Svensson method is executed, estimating the premium both as the yield spreads and as the differentials in Z-spreads. Using a matching method and creating a sample of green and synthetic conventional bonds, the second methodology consists in calculating the distances between each categories’ yield for the same duration. Finally, a fixed-effect regression is performed to better control the liquidity bias. In the first case, a positive premium emerges when analyzing the yield spreads (+37.89 basis points) and the Z-spreads (+10.62 basis points). The second method mitigates the liquidity risk by creating a sample of synthetic bonds and reveals a yield spread of –15.89 basis points. Lastly, the regression method shows a negative greenium equal to –17.1487 basis points. Thus, a greenium emerges from all the three different methods, but its nature, sign, and real determinants are still uncertain. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude a definite price advantage for issuers of green bonds.","PeriodicalId":507796,"journal":{"name":"Investment Management and Financial Innovations","volume":"43 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investment Management and Financial Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.21(2).2024.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Green bonds are an increasingly used instrument to catalyze cash flows towards a low-carbon economy. Nonetheless, the existence of an actual price advantage is still uncertain. This research paper aims to assess whether there is a green bond premium (“greenium”) for green bonds relative to conventional bonds with similar characteristics, and how liquidity may affect the determination of a price advantage. It analyzes the yield differentials between green and conventional bonds using three different methods. First, a Nelson-Siegel-Svensson method is executed, estimating the premium both as the yield spreads and as the differentials in Z-spreads. Using a matching method and creating a sample of green and synthetic conventional bonds, the second methodology consists in calculating the distances between each categories’ yield for the same duration. Finally, a fixed-effect regression is performed to better control the liquidity bias. In the first case, a positive premium emerges when analyzing the yield spreads (+37.89 basis points) and the Z-spreads (+10.62 basis points). The second method mitigates the liquidity risk by creating a sample of synthetic bonds and reveals a yield spread of –15.89 basis points. Lastly, the regression method shows a negative greenium equal to –17.1487 basis points. Thus, a greenium emerges from all the three different methods, but its nature, sign, and real determinants are still uncertain. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude a definite price advantage for issuers of green bonds.
揭开绿色债券的面纱:调查绿色债券与传统债券之间的收益差
绿色债券是一种越来越常用的催化现金流的工具,以实现低碳经济。然而,实际价格优势是否存在仍不确定。本文旨在评估绿色债券相对于具有类似特征的传统债券是否存在绿色债券溢价("greenium"),以及流动性如何影响价格优势的确定。本文采用三种不同的方法分析了绿色债券与传统债券之间的收益率差异。首先,采用 Nelson-Siegel-Svensson 方法,以收益率差和 Zpreads 差估算溢价。第二种方法采用匹配法,创建绿色债券和合成常规债券样本,计算相同期限内各类债券收益率之间的距离。最后,进行固定效应回归,以更好地控制流动性偏差。在第一种情况下,分析收益率利差(+37.89 个基点)和 Z 价差(+10.62 个基点)时出现了正溢价。第二种方法通过创建合成债券样本来降低流动性风险,结果显示收益率差为-15.89 个基点。最后,回归法显示出负绿值,等于-17.1487 个基点。因此,三种不同的方法都出现了一个绿值,但其性质、符号和真正的决定因素仍不确定。因此,不可能得出绿色债券发行者具有明确价格优势的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信