Short 01 · 2026-05-11 · LW-NSS

Why naive Nelson-Siegel underprices the Polish belly — and what to do about it

Equal-weight Nelson-Siegel-Svensson leaves a 1.6 bp / day mean fit MAE on the table over twenty-one years of Polish sovereign data. A weight matrix derived from BondSpot turnover and outstanding amounts cuts that almost in half. Information-matrix derivation included.

The Nelson-Siegel-Svensson (NSS) parametric form is the workhorse fit for sovereign yield curves wherever the bond panel is too sparse or too noisy for a non-parametric spline. It is also the form most banks and central banks use for daily mark-to-model curves on PLN, CZK, HUF, RON and other Central-European sovereigns. The standard implementation runs ordinary least squares on bond yield-to-maturity residuals, treating every bond on the curve identically.

This is wrong on a less-liquid market, and the mistake is not small. The Polish BondSpot panel carries roughly twenty actively-quoted ISINs at any one point in time, with turnover concentrated in three or four benchmark maturities. The remaining bonds trade thin, with bid-ask spreads ten to thirty times wider than benchmarks and quote intervals measured in hours rather than seconds. Treating a 25 bp wide quote on a barely-traded 2030 bond as identical observation noise to a 1 bp wide quote on the on-the-run 5-year benchmark biases the fitted curve toward the noisier observations and inflates the residual.

The fix is a single line of derivation. The Cramér-Rao bound on the NSS parameter vector is governed by the Fisher information matrix of the residual covariance. Under the assumption that quote noise is proportional to the inverse of trading activity, the optimal weight on each bond in the OLS step is exactly its share of prior-month BondSpot turnover, scaled by a soft-floor adjustment for inventory risk on the long end. The full derivation runs five lines of algebra and gives a closed-form weight matrix that drops directly into any existing NSS fitter.

Figure · Mean fit MAE, equal-weight NSS vs LW-NSS, 2005-2026

0 1 2 3 MAE (bp) short 3.0 1.6 belly 2.3 0.9 long 2.8 1.4 pooled 2.5 1.2 equal-weight NSS LW-NSS

Mean fit MAE in basis points, computed as the daily cross-sectional mean absolute residual on the BondSpot panel, averaged over 5,322 trading days from 2005-01-07 to 2026-04-21. Short = TTM ≤ 1.5y, belly = 1.5–7y, long = 7–15y. Pooled is the cross-segment average. The LW-NSS column uses the prior-month turnover plus outstanding-amount weight matrix; the equal-weight column uses the standard OLS specification.

SpecificationMean MAE (bp)p95 MAE (bp)Stable τ₁ > 1y?β₂ blow-ups
Equal-weight NSS (PhD baseline)2.55.6no17 dates
Equal-weight NSS + τ₁ floor 1.02.45.4yes9 dates
LW-NSS (turnover weights, no floor)1.43.2partial6 dates
LW-NSS + τ₁ floor 1.0 + β₂ ridge (preferred)1.22.7yes0 dates

Three things are worth noting about the gain. First, the mean MAE is more than halved on the belly, the part of the curve where mark-to-model risk on coupon bonds is largest. Second, the long-end gain is similar in absolute terms, which matters for term-premium estimation downstream because the ACM model loads heavily on the 7y-to-10y residual variance. Third, the β₂ curvature factor stops blowing up on dates with thin short-end coverage once the τ₁ floor is added; this removes a class of artefact in the fitted-forward chart that previously required manual curation.

Compared to the alternative — running a non-parametric spline on the same panel — LW-NSS preserves the four-factor structure that makes the fit interpretable for monetary-policy and risk-management applications and that is required for ACM term-premium decomposition downstream.

What this means for practitioners
If you fit Nelson-Siegel-Svensson on a less-liquid sovereign curve and you are not weighting bonds by trading activity, you are probably leaving 1 bp / day of fit error on the table and biasing your downstream term-premium and risk numbers. The weight derivation runs five lines and the daily cost is essentially zero.
Underlying paper: Dec, M. (2021). Parsimonious Yield Curve Modeling in Less-Liquid Markets. FAME|GRAPE Working Paper, currently under review at SNDE. See references for the full bibliography of methods cited.

Comments

Comments are GitHub Discussions on the public yieldcartography/yield-cartography_site repo. Sign in with GitHub to post.