Abstract
In recent years, credit risk has become the most important risk borne by banks and other credit institutions. Consequently, credit risk analysis and management methods have generated considerable interest among academics, practitioners, and regulators. In addition, in the aftermath of the last financial crises, the control and monitoring of counterparty risk (distinct from credit risk) has also become a key factor in the performance, and sometimes survival, of these institutions. This chapter addresses the analysis and valuation of securities subject to credit and/or counterparty risk. Section 28.1 focuses on empirical analysis and evaluation tools, while Sect. 28.2 presents the main valuation models and some applications.
We thank Riadh Belhaj and Andras Fulop for their helpful comments on this chapter.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example, data analysis, such as Main Component Analysis, Discriminant Analysis or Factor Analysis, or processing historical data relating to the issuer/borrower behavior according to age, revenues, various solvency ratios, and so on.
- 2.
The original Z ratio was a linear combination of 5 ratios: Working capital/Total assets; Retained Earnings/Total assets; EBIT/Total assets; Sales/Total assets; and Market value of equity/Book value of total liabilities.
- 3.
According to surveys performed by the IMF or the EBA (European Banking authority) for not only significant credit institutions but also less significant players, credit risk represents more than two thirds of the overall risk; the remaining third corresponds to operational risk and market risks (interest rates and FX rates).
- 4.
This rate is obtained by holding the security until maturity in absence of issuer default. One may come up with a higher rate through the sale of this security above the par (following a drop the interest rate and/or credit spread) before it matures.
- 5.
For market players (trading CDS) and rating agencies, the “default” on a corporate debt issuer is triggered by one of the following events: bankruptcy, failure to pay (one of more cash flows), repudiation (e.g., the issuer does not recognize the debt anymore), debt (modified) restructuring. In Europe, current developments regarding “Resolution” may also affect this definition.
- 6.
This risk is called Credit Deterioration and must be distinguished from Default.
- 7.
The rmax - E(R) component is sometimes referred to as the default premium, which must again be distinguished from the risk premium π.
- 8.
The spread curve for credit derivatives corresponding to a given rating, which should theoretically be close to the above cash spread curve for the same rating, differs from it for reasons explained in Chap. 30; in particular, the spread curve for credit derivatives does not always increase with maturity.
- 9.
A near-perfect situation can only get worse; in a very serious situation, the “imminent” default is likely, but if the crisis is overcome, the chances of recovery increase.
- 10.
It follows that the rating is a Markovian process, because, at any given date, the probabilities of transition pij from one rating to another do not depend on past events. The matrix M then represents a Markov chain. Unfortunately, the stability over time of transition probabilities is not empirically verified.
- 11.
This is not the case in our examples, columns 2, 3, and 4 of Table 28.1 being ad hoc.
- 12.
These averages vary over time and across sectors. In addition, these are historical probabilities. For valuation, for which the RN probabilities are relevant, and for the stripping operations (extraction of successive default probabilities from the CDS spread curve) described below, practitioners often use a 40% recovery rate as a market convention.
- 13.
Recall that forward-neutral probabilities are those that make forward asset prices martingales, i.e., spot prices expressed using the zero-coupon bond as the numeraire (see Chap. 11 (Sect. 11.2.6), 16, and 19). Recall also that the probabilities FN and RN are identical if interest rates are assumed to be constant or deterministic. More generally, if the instantaneous rate r(t) is not correlated with the risky payoff X, the FN expectation E* involved in the discounting relationship (V0 = E*(X)\( {e}^{\hbox{--} \theta {r}_{\theta }} \)) is also equal to the RN expectation. In this case, expectations RN and FN are identical because V0 = ERN[X \( {e}^{\int_0^{\theta }-r(u) du} \)] = ERN[X]ERN[\( {e}^{\int_0^{\theta }-r(u) du} \)] = ERN(X)\( {e}^{\hbox{--} \theta {r}_{\theta }} \) = E*(X)\( {e}^{\hbox{--} \theta {r}_{\theta }} \).
- 14.
Note that a constant conditional probability implies a decreasing unconditional probability.
- 15.
Such an assumption is reasonable if the instrument in question does not represent a significant part of the issuer’s balance sheet.
- 16.
Poisson processes were briefly introduced in Chap. 18 dedicated to stochastic calculus (Sect. 18.6).
- 17.
The process is then characterized as meeting the conditions: N(0) = 0, independent increments, Proba {dN = 1} = λ dt and Proba {dN > 1} = 0.
- 18.
When J(t) and dN(t) are correlated, this statement is true only for Et (conditional expectation on date t).
- 19.
That is, calculated under the probabilities FN Qj.
- 20.
Duffie and Singleton (1999) proposed several models for the evolution of the intensity λ(t) inspired by interest rate models (mean-reverting process, etc.).
- 21.
This is because, in general, some debts and most of the company’s assets are not marked to market.
- 22.
In terms of options, limited liability can be analyzed as an American call that shareholders have no interest in exercising early if the underlying asset does not pay a coupon.
- 23.
That is, whose value depends not only on the terminal value of the underlying but also on its trajectory.
- 24.
By introducing uncertainty into the assessment of the initial value of assets (linked in particular to imprecision or arbitrariness in accounting rules), we can recover realistic credit spreads on short-term securities. This is because, due to this initial uncertainty, the probability to be on the eve of a default date is positive (see Duffie and Lando (2001)).
- 25.
This monotonic transformation yields acceptable results because the rankings of the theoretical default probabilities produced by Merton’s model, the RN default probabilities and the historical default probabilities are the same.
- 26.
If m denotes the number of convertible bonds, the conversion rate is defined by q ≡ n/m.
- 27.
Namely: \( \frac{\partial B}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial B}{\partial r}{\mu}_r(.)+\frac{\partial B}{\partial S} rS+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2B}{\partial {S}^2}{\sigma}_S^2{S}^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2B}{\partial {r}^2}{\sigma}_r{(.)}^2+\frac{\partial^2B}{\partial S\partial r}{\sigma}_{rS}(.)S= rB \); this expression depends on μr(.) and σr(.), hence on the interest rate model adopted.
- 28.
This is not the only possible calibration, nor necessarily the most efficient.
- 29.
It was suggested, particularly by Duffie and Singleton, to choose Φ(S) = constant/S.
- 30.
The reader may verify that with the proposed calibration uidi + 1 = diui + 1, even when l or r depends on time, an up followed by a down and a down followed by an up lead to the same value of S(ti + 1) when starting from a given S(ti − 1). This ensures the recombining character of the tree governing the value of S(t) (A(t)).
- 31.
This is in fact a questionable assumption, as the time value of the option may be higher than the value of the difference between the dividend and coupon rates. One way to incorporate a rational decision to early exercise an American option into a Monte Carlo simulation is to estimate the option continuation value by regression and compare it to its intrinsic value, as explained in Chap. 26, Sect. 26.4.5.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Books
**Brigo, D., & Mercurio, F. (2007). Interest models - Theory and practice, with smile, inflation and credit (2nd ed.). Springer Finance.
Duffie, D. (2011). Measuring corporate default risk. Oxford University Press.
Duffie, D., & Singleton, K. (2003). Credit risk: Pricing, measurement and management. Princeton University Press.
Hull, J. (2018a). Options, futures and other derivatives (10th ed.). Prentice Hall Pearson Education.
Hull, J. (2018b). Risk management and financial institutions (5th ed.). Prentice Hall Pearson Education.
**Schönbucher, P. (2003). Credit derivative pricing models: Models, pricing and implementation. Wiley Finance.
Articles
Altman, E. I. (1989). Measuring corporate bond mortality and performance. Journal of Finance, 44, 902–922.
Ammann, A., Kind, A., & Wilde, C. (2003). Are convertible bonds underpriced? An analysis of the French market. Journal of Banking and Finance, 27(4), 635–753.
Attaoui, S., & Poncet, P. (2013). Capital structure and debt priority. Financial Management, 2013, 737–775.
Attaoui, S., & Poncet, P. (2015). Write-down bonds and capital and debt structures. Journal of Corporate Finance, 35, 97–119.
Black, F., & Cox, J. (1976). Valuing corporate securities: Some effects of bonds indentures provisions. Journal of Finance, 31, 351–367.
Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637–659.
Brennan, M. J., & Schwartz, E. S. (1980). Analyzing convertible bonds. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 15(4), 907–929.
Collin-Dufresne, P., Goldstein, R., & Martin, S. (2001). The determinants of credit spread changes. Journal of Finance, 56, 2177–2207.
Duffie, D., & Lando, D. (2001). Term structure of credit spreads with incomplete accounting information. Econometrica, 69, 633–644.
Duffie, D., & Singleton, K. (1999). Modelling term structure of defaultable bonds. Review of Financial Studies, 12(4), 687–720.
Elton, E., Gruber, M., Agarwal, D., & Man, C. (2001). Explaining the rate spread on corporate bonds. Journal of Finance, 56(1), 247–277.
Jarrow, R., & Turnbull, S. (1995). Pricing derivatives on financial securities subject to credit risk. Journal of Finance, 50(1), 53–86.
Kealhofer, S. (2003a). Quantifying default risk I: Default prediction. Financial Analysts Journal, 59(1), 30–44.
Kealhofer, S. (2003b). Quantifying default risk II: Debt valuation. Financial Analysts Journal, 3, 78–92.
Leland, H. (1994). Corporate debt value, bond covenants, and optimal capital structure. Journal of Finance, 49(4), 1213–1252.
Leland, H., & Toft, K. (1996). Optimal capital structure, endogeneous bankruptcy and the term structure of credit spreads. Journal of Finance, 51, 987–1019.
Litterman, R., & Iben, T. (1991). Corporate bond valuation and the term structure of credit spreads. Journal of Portfolio Management, 1991, 52–64.
Madan, D., & Unal, D. (2000). A two factor model for pricing risky debt and the term structure of credit spreads. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 35, 43–65.
Merton, R. (1974). On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. Journal of Finance, 29, 449–470.
Toft, K., & Prucyk, B. (1997). Options on leveraged equity: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Finance, 52, 1151–1180.
Zhou, R. (1997). A jump-diffusion approach for modelling credit risk and valuing defaultable securities,. Working Paper.
Website
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Notation and calculation rules for jumps and default events in intensity models.
Basic Definitions
N(t) = number of jumps between 0 and t; τ = date of the first jump or default date.
Events
Probabilities
Proba{dN = 1} = λ(t) dt (= Proba{dN = 1 | N(t) = n} for all n).
Proba{Ν(t) = 0} = Proba{τ > t} = γ(t) = probability of survival at time t;
γ(t) = \( {e}^{\int_0^t-\lambda (u) du} \) = e–t Λt; if λ(t) = λ = constant: γ(t) = e–λt .
Proba{τ ≤ t} = 1 − γ(t) (distribution law of τ) = ϕt;
Proba{τ ∈ [t, t + dt]} = γ(t) λ(t) dt = − dγ.
Proba {τ ∈ [t, t + dt] | τ > t} = λ(t) dt (hence λ(t) = hazard rate).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Poncet, P., Portait, R. (2022). Modeling Credit Risk (1): Credit Risk Assessment and Empirical Analysis. In: Capital Market Finance. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84600-8_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84600-8_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84598-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84600-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)