Lecture5 2016
Lecture5 2016
Andrew Lesniewski
Baruch College
New York
Fall 2016
Outline
Jump processes
Jump processes
1 X Z t ∂ 2 f (s, X (s− )) X
+ dXic (s) dXjc (s) + ∆f (sk , X (sk )),
2 0 ∂Xi ∂Xj s ≤t
1≤i,j≤n k
where the last (finite) sum extends over all jump times sk of the process.
1 X ∂ 2 f (t, X (t− ))
+ dXic (t) dXjc (t) + ∆f (t, X (t))dN (t) ,
2 ∂Xi ∂Xj
1≤i,j≤n
The methodology used to model CMDS contracts can easily be extended to any
European style payoff function u (x) of the par spread at expiration: we just set
g (x) = f (x) u (x) in the formulas derived in Lecture Notes #4.
Clearly, the swaption replication method continues to hold, and we can price an
option whose payoff is any function of the par CDS spread.
This does not include exotic options whose payoffs depend on the term structure
of spreads. Such options include barrier options and Bermudan options.
Modeling such options requires dynamic intensity models, very much like exotic
interest rate options require term structure models.
Let us consider a Cox process intensity with a single factor risk neutral diffusion
dynamics given by:
For simplicity, we assume that interest rates are deterministic, and consider a
credit risky derivative V (t, λ (t)).
By R(t) = R(t, λ (t)) we denote the recovery amount associated with the claim
V (t).
Applying Ito’s lemma with jumps yields
∂V ∂V 1 ∂2V ∂V
dV = +µ + σ2 dt + σ dW + (R − V )dN (t) ,
∂t ∂λ 2 ∂λ2 ∂λ
∂V ∂V 1 ∂2V
E[dV (t)] = +µ + σ2 dt + λ(R − V )dt,
∂t ∂λ 2 ∂λ2
where we have used the fact that, for a counting process, E[dN (t)] = λ (t) dt.
In the risk neutral measure, this expectation is equal to r (t) V (t) dt.
As a consequence, we have obtain the following PDE for V = V (t, λ (t)):
∂V ∂V 1 ∂2V
+µ + σ2 + λR = (r + λ)V .
∂t ∂λ 2 ∂λ2
Note the following differences with the standard backward Kolmogorov equations
of option pricing:
(i) The right hand side contains the factor r + λ rather than r .
(ii) The left hand side contains the term λR(t, λ) without partial derivatives.
Terminal boundary conditions in the PDE can be specified as function q(λ), i.e.
V (T , λ) = q(λ).
In practice, the boundary conditions arising in pricing applications are written in
terms of the survival probabilities S(t, s) depending on a range of s.
This raises the question, under what conditions can S(t, s) (where t ≤ s) be
expressed as a function of λ (t).
We say that the model admits a reconstitution formula, if the entire survival curve
S(t, s) depends on the intensity process only through λ (t).
An example of such a model is the Gaussian Hull-White model for λ (t) which we
discussed in Lecture Notes #2, namely
This is an affine model (as is the Hull-White model) in the sense that the survival
probability is of the form
dA (t)
− κ (t) θ (t) C (t) = 0,
dt
dC (t) 1
− κ (t) C (t) − σ (t)2 C (t)2 + 1 = 0,
dt 2
These ODEs can be solved for all t and T using standard numerical algorithms,
such as the Runge-Kutta method.
As a result, if we need to impose a terminal condition in terms of S(T , s), we set
The same is true for various intermediate boundary conditions required for exotic
options.
Very importantly, the existence of the reconstitution formula allows us, for given
σ (t) and κ (t), to calibrate the function θ (t) to match exactly the initial risky zero
coupon curve P(0, T ), for all T .
The same is, of course, true for the Hull-White model.
σ (t) is calibrated to match the market prices of CDS swaptions.
Recovery modeling
Recovery modeling
We will now show how to extend the reduced form modeling framework to
include the stochastic nature of the recovery rate.
We thus assume that the recovery process R (t) is adapted with respect to Gt .
The time 0 price P0rec (T ) of a nonzero recovery risky zero coupon bond is given
by
h RT Rτ i
P0rec (T ) = EQ e− 0 1τ ≥T + e−
r (s)ds 0 r (s)ds
1τ ≤T R(τ )
h RT i Z T h Rt i
= EQ e− 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds + EQ e− 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds R (t) λ (t) dt
0
Z T
− 0t (r (s)+λ(s))ds
h R i
Q
= P0 (T ) + E e R (t) λ (t) dt.
0
Recovery modeling
Recovery of treasury
R (t) = xPt (T )
RT
= xe− t r (s)ds
,
Recovery of treasury
In other words, the price of an RT zero coupon bond is the sum of x units of a
riskless zero coupon bond and 1 − x units of a zero recovery zero coupon bond.
The same result holds for a coupon bearing bond B:
Recovery of treasury
Under the recovery of market value (RMV) model, the defaulted zero coupon
bond pays a fraction of its market value preceding the default:
R (t) = xPtrec
−
(T ) ,
where Ptrec
−
(T ) denotes the price of the bond just prior to the default.
We shall now show that, explicitly,
h RT i
P0rec (T ) = EQ e− 0 (r (s)+(1−x)λ(s))ds .
h RT Z T Ru i
= 1t≤τ EQ e− t (r (s)+λ(s))ds + x e− t (r (s)+λ(s))ds V (u) λ (u) du | Ft .
t
h RT Z T Ru i
M (t) = EQ e− 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds + x e− 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds
V (u) λ (u) du | Ft .
0
Rt Z t Ru
V (t) = e 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds M (t) − x e− 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds V (u) λ (u) du .
0
Recovery of par
Under the recovery of par (RP) model, the defaulted bond pays a fraction of its
par value, R (t) = x, for all t ≥ 0.
The idea of the RP model is a liquidation under a bankruptcy court supervision.
Typically, the court distributes the proceeds in proportion to the claims filed.
For the zero coupon case, the RP model yields
Z T h Rt i
P0rec (T ) = P0 (T ) + x EQ e− 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds λ (t) dt.
0
In general, the value of a claim under RP is the sum of the claim under zero
Rt
recovery and x 0T EQ e− 0 (r (s)+λ(s))ds V (t) λ (t) dt, where V (t) is the value of
R
the claim at time t.
We have been assuming so far that the value of the recovery fraction x is a
constant. This simplifies the calculations but ignores the recovery risk.
Recovery risk may have a significant impact on the prices of credit sensitive
instruments.
In order to model this risk we assume that x is drawn from a probability
distribution, x ∼ F .
The prices of bonds under the recovery models discussed above are thus given
in terms of expected values under the joint distribution Q and F .
1
f (x) = x p−1 (1 − x)q−1 ,
B(p, q)
respectively.
References