Why is DV01 so much smaller than dollar duration if both are supposed to measure rate risk?
I keep seeing both numbers in fixed-income notes and it feels like one of them must be redundant. If dollar duration is already the sensitivity measure, why do desks still talk in DV01?
DV01 is not a different risk from dollar duration. It is the same first-order rate exposure shown on a practical basis-point scale.
Suppose Lakeshore Transit Finance 2032 has:
- full price
98.50 - modified duration
4.4
Dollar duration per 100 par is:
98.50 x 4.4 = 433.40
That means the bond changes by about 433.40 currency units for a full 1.00 change in yield. Because traders usually think in basis points, they divide by 10,000:
DV01 = 433.40 / 10,000 = 0.04334
So DV01 looks smaller only because the shock size is smaller.
On an exam, if the question asks for the one-basis-point P&L impact or hedge ratio, DV01 is usually the cleaner answer.
Master Part I / Part II bridge with our FRM Course
64 lessons · 120+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
When should I stop using modified duration and switch to effective duration?
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.