Credit contingent interest rate swap pricing.

Mathematics-in-industry case studies Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-10-03 DOI:10.1186/s40929-017-0015-x
Haohan Huang, Huaxiong Huang, Eugene Wang, Hongmei Zhu
{"title":"Credit contingent interest rate swap pricing.","authors":"Haohan Huang,&nbsp;Huaxiong Huang,&nbsp;Eugene Wang,&nbsp;Hongmei Zhu","doi":"10.1186/s40929-017-0015-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Credit value adjustment (CVA) is an adjustment to an existing trading price based on the counterparty-risk premium. Currently, CVA is computed with an implicit assumption that the replacement contract is default-free after the original counterparty defaults, with the assumption that those trades will not re-assigned. In the actual counterparty default settlement, it is the norm that trades will be re-assigned, especially on the buy side. Since the counterparty of the replacement contract could also default within the lifetime of an existing contract, ignoring the possibility of counterparty defaults of replacement contracts will either under or over estimate the cost of the risk. An important practical question is, therefore, how to estimate under/over pricing of CVA under current practice. In this paper, we considered the pricing of credit contingent interest rate swap (CCIRS) or credit contingent default swap (CCDS), which is considered the CVA hedge for interest rate swaps (IRS). We derived partial differential Eqs. (PDEs) satisfied by the approximated CVA with the assumption that the replacement contracts do not default. For comparison purposes, we also derived the PDEs for the cost of CVA by relaxing the assumption of default-free replacement contracts with a finite number of counterparty defaults. It shows that the no-default and two default cases can be derived within the same analytical solution framework, similar to the Funding Valuation Adjustment (FVA) problem where continuous funding is a reasonable assumption. The finite number of default case is non-trivial. The PDE for the two default case is derived in this paper. We calibrate our model based on market data and carry out extensive computations for the purpose of comparing these three CVAs. Our basic finding is that the values of the two CVAs are close for top rated counterparties. On the other hand, for counterparties with lower credit ratings, the difference among the two CVAs can be significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":91926,"journal":{"name":"Mathematics-in-industry case studies","volume":"8 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40929-017-0015-x","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mathematics-in-industry case studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40929-017-0015-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Credit value adjustment (CVA) is an adjustment to an existing trading price based on the counterparty-risk premium. Currently, CVA is computed with an implicit assumption that the replacement contract is default-free after the original counterparty defaults, with the assumption that those trades will not re-assigned. In the actual counterparty default settlement, it is the norm that trades will be re-assigned, especially on the buy side. Since the counterparty of the replacement contract could also default within the lifetime of an existing contract, ignoring the possibility of counterparty defaults of replacement contracts will either under or over estimate the cost of the risk. An important practical question is, therefore, how to estimate under/over pricing of CVA under current practice. In this paper, we considered the pricing of credit contingent interest rate swap (CCIRS) or credit contingent default swap (CCDS), which is considered the CVA hedge for interest rate swaps (IRS). We derived partial differential Eqs. (PDEs) satisfied by the approximated CVA with the assumption that the replacement contracts do not default. For comparison purposes, we also derived the PDEs for the cost of CVA by relaxing the assumption of default-free replacement contracts with a finite number of counterparty defaults. It shows that the no-default and two default cases can be derived within the same analytical solution framework, similar to the Funding Valuation Adjustment (FVA) problem where continuous funding is a reasonable assumption. The finite number of default case is non-trivial. The PDE for the two default case is derived in this paper. We calibrate our model based on market data and carry out extensive computations for the purpose of comparing these three CVAs. Our basic finding is that the values of the two CVAs are close for top rated counterparties. On the other hand, for counterparties with lower credit ratings, the difference among the two CVAs can be significant.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

信贷或有利率掉期定价。
信用价值调整(CVA)是基于交易对手风险溢价对现有交易价格的调整。目前,CVA的计算有一个隐含的假设,即在原始交易对手违约后,替代合同不会违约,并且假设这些交易不会重新分配。在实际的交易对手违约结算中,交易将被重新分配是一种常态,尤其是在买方。由于替代合同的对手方也可能在现有合同的有效期内违约,因此忽略替代合同的对手方违约的可能性将低估或高估风险成本。因此,一个重要的实际问题是,在目前的实践中,如何估计CVA的定价过低/过高。本文考虑了信用或有利率掉期(cirs)或信用或有违约掉期(CCDS)的定价问题,这被认为是利率掉期(IRS)的CVA对冲。我们推导了偏微分方程。(pde)在假设替代合约不违约的情况下,由近似CVA满足。为了便于比较,我们还通过放宽具有有限数量的交易对手违约的无违约替代合同的假设,推导出了CVA成本的偏微分方程。结果表明,不违约和两种违约情况可以在相同的解析解框架内推导出来,类似于融资估值调整(FVA)问题,其中持续融资是一个合理的假设。默认情况的有限数量是非平凡的。本文推导了两种默认情况下的偏微分方程。我们根据市场数据校准我们的模型,并进行大量的计算,以比较这三种cva。我们的基本发现是,对于评级最高的交易对手,这两个cva的价值接近。另一方面,对于信用评级较低的交易对手,两种cva之间的差异可能是显著的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信