When should I stop using modified duration and switch to effective duration?
I understand the formula for modified duration, but I am not confident about the trigger that tells me it is no longer the right measure.
Switch to effective duration when a rate move can change expected cash flows, not just discount rates.
Modified duration works best when promised cash flows stay fixed. That is usually fine for a plain corporate bond. It becomes unreliable for callable bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and other structures where falling or rising rates change prepayment or call behavior.
Example:
- Plain bond issued by Alder Port Logistics: use modified duration for small yield moves.
- Callable bond issued by Alder Port Logistics: use effective duration because the issuer may refinance if rates fall.
The exam signal is usually in the instrument description:
- callable
- putable
- mortgage-backed
- prepayment-sensitive
- option-embedded
If those words appear, ask whether expected cash flows move with rates. If yes, effective duration is the safer framework.
Master Part I / Part II bridge with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
Why is DV01 so much smaller than dollar duration if both are supposed to measure rate risk?
How should I think about the relationship between Macaulay duration and modified duration instead of memorizing two separate definitions?
Why do hedge calculations often use dollar duration or DV01 instead of just modified duration?
When should I prefer historical simulation VaR over delta-normal VaR?
Why can expected shortfall move a lot even when VaR barely changes?
Related Articles
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.