Review of Derivatives Research, 2, 99–120 (1998) c 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Manufactured in The Netherlands.
On Cox Processes and Credit Risky Securities
DAVID LANDO [email protected] Department of Operations Research, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø. Denmark
Abstract. A framework is presented for modeling defaultable securities and credit derivatives which allows for dependence between market risk factors and credit risk. The framework reduces the technical issues of modeling credit risk to the same issues faced when modeling the ordinary term structure of interest rates. It is shown how to generalize a model of Jarrow, Lando and Turnbull (1997) to allow for stochastic transition intensities between rating categories and into default. This generalization can handle contracts with payments explicitly linked to ratings. It is also shown how to obtain a term structure model for all different rating categories simultaneously and how to obtain an affine-like structure. An implementation is given in a simple one factor model in which the affine structure gives closed form solutions.
Keywords: credit risk, Cox process, credit derivatives, ratings.
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to illustrate how Cox processes—also known as doubly stochastic Poisson processes—provide a useful framework for modeling prices of financial instruments in which credit risk is a significant factor. Both the case where credit risk enters because of the risk of counterparty default and the case where some measure of credit risk such as a credit spread is used as an underlying variable in a derivative contract can be analyzed within our framework. The key contribution of the approach is the simplicity by which it allows credit risk modeling when there is dependence between the default-free term structure and the default characteristics of firms. As an illustration of the method we present a generalized version of a Markovian model presented in Jarrow, Lando and Turnbull (1997). This generalization allows the intensities which control the default intensities and the transitions between ratings to depend on state variables which simultaneously govern the evolution of the term structure and possibly other economic variables of interest. This model can be used to analyze a variety of contracts in which credit ratings and default are part of the contractual setup. Two important examples are default protection contracts which provide insurance against default of a firm and so-called ‘credit triggers’ in swap contracts which typically demand the settlement of a contract in the event of downgrading of one of the parties to the contract. By imposing some additional structure on the model we derive a new class of models which in a special setup become ‘sums of affine term structure models.’ These models simultaneously model term structures for different ratings and allow spreads to fluctuate randomly even in periods where the rating of the defaultable firm does not change. Such models are useful for managers of corporate bond portfolios (and risky government debt) who are constrained by credit lines setting upper limits on the amount of bonds held below a certain rating category. 100 DAVID LANDO
Given such lines the event of a downgrading may force the manager to either sell off part of the position or try to off-load some credit exposure in credit derivatives markets. The modeling framework is similar to that of Jarrow and Turnbull (1995), Jarrow, Lando and Turnbull (1997), Lando (1994), Madan and Unal (1995), Artzner and Delbaen (1995), Duffie and Singleton (1996, 1997), and Duffie, Schroder and Skiadas (1996) in that default is modeled through a random intensity of the default time. However, this paper dispenses with the independence assumption employed in Jarrow and Turnbull (1995), Jarrow, Lando and Turnbull (1997), Madan and Unal (1995). In this respect our approach resembles that of the works of Duffie and Singleton (1996, 1997), and Duffie, Schroder and Skiadas (1996). The approach in this paper is not based on the recursive methods employed there. This sacrifices some generality but the structure of Cox processes produces a class of models which are simple to derive yet seems rich enough to handle important applications when only one-sided credit risk is considered. For an analysis of two sided default risk in an intensity-based framework, see Duffie and Huang (1996). The pros and cons of modeling default in an intensity-based framework as opposed to using the classical approach originating in Black and Scholes (1973) and Merton (1974) are discussed elsewhere, see for example Duffie and Singleton (1996, 1997), and the review papers by Cooper and Martin (1996) and Lando (1997). Here we simply note that this paper and the work by Duffie and Singleton (1996) point to one important advantage of the intensity-based framework, namely the fact that the intensity based framework is capable of reducing the technical difficulties of modeling defaultable claims to the same one faced when modeling the term structure of non-defaultable bonds and related derivatives. The structure of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we outline the basic construction of a Cox process, concentrating on the first jump time of such a process. Knowing how to construct a process means knowing how to simulate it. Hence this section is important if one wants to implement the models. Furthermore, the explicit construction gives the key to proving the results later on by—essentially—using properties of conditional expectations. Section 3 then shows how to calculate prices of three ‘building blocks’ from which credit risky bonds and derivatives can be constructed. Several examples of claims are given which are constructed from these building blocks. Within this framework we have great flexibility in how we specify the behavior of the state variables which simultaneously determine the default free term structure and the likelihood of default. When diffusions are used as state variables, the Feynman-Kac framework handles pricing of credit risky derivative securities in virtually the same way as it handles derivatives in which credit risk is not present. That particular setup is one of ‘diffusion with killing’—a special case of the general framework. We also outline how the notion of fractional recovery, as introduced in Duffie and Singleton (1996), may be viewed in terms of thinning of a point process. Sections 4 and 5 present applications of the methodology. It is shown how a Markovian model proposed by Jarrow, Lando and Turnbull (1997) may be generalized to include transi- tion rates between credit ratings which depend on the state variables. One important aspect of this generalization is that credit spreads are allowed to fluctuate randomly even between ratings transitions. Section 6 gives a concrete implementation of the generalized Markovian model by considering an affine model for both the interest rate and the transition intensities. It is shown how one can calibrate the model across all credit classes simultaneously to fit ON COX PROCESSES 101
initial spot rate spreads and the sensitivities of these spreads to changes in the short treasury rate. Section 7 concludes.
2. Construction of a Cox Process
Before setting up our model of credit risky bonds and derivatives, we give both an intuitive and a formal description of how the default process is modeled. The formal description is extremely useful when performing calculations and simulations of the model, whereas the intuitive description is helpful when the economic content of the models are to be understood. Recall that an inhomogeneous Poisson process N with (non-negative) intensity function l( ) satisfies R t k Z ( ) t s l u du P(Nt Ns = k) = exp l(u)du k = 0, 1,.... k! s
In particular, assuming N0 = 0, we have Z t P(Nt = 0) = exp l(u)du . 0
A way of simulating the first jump of N is to let E1 be a unit exponential random variable and define Z t = inf t : l(u)du E1 (2.1) 0 A Cox process is a generalization of the Poisson process in which the intensity is allowed to be random but in such a way that if we condition on a particular realization l( ,ω) of the intensity, the jump process becomes an inhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity l(s,ω). In this paper we will write the random intensity on the form
l(s,ω)= (Xs ) where X is an Rd valued stochastic process and : Rd → [0, ∞) is a non-negative, continuous function. The assumption that the intensity is a function of the current level of the state variables, and not the whole history, is convenient in applications, but it is not necessary from a mathematical point of view. The state variables will include interest rates on riskless debt and may include time, stock prices, credit ratings and other variables deemed relevant for predicting the likelihood of default. Intuitively, given that a firm has survived up to time t, and given the history of X up to time t, the probability of defaulting within the next small time interval 1t is equal to (Xt )1t + o(1t). Formally, we have a probability space ( , F, P) large enough to support an Rd valued stochastic process X ={Xt :0 t Tf } which is right-continuous with left limits and a 102 DAVID LANDO
unit exponential random variable E1 which is independent of X. Given also is a function : Rd → R which we assume is non-negative and continuous. From these two ingredients we define the default time as follows: Z t = inf t : (Xs )ds E1 . (2.2) 0 This default time can be thought of as the first jump time of a Cox process with intensity process (Xs ). Note that this is an exact analogue to equation (2.1) with a random intensity replacing the deterministic intensity function. When (Xs ) is large, the integrated hazard grows faster and reaches the level of the independent exponential variable faster, and therefore the probability that is small becomes higher. Sample paths for which the integral of the intensity is infinite over the interval [0, Tf ] are paths for which default always occurs. From the definition we get the following key relationships: Z t ( > | ( ) = ( ) ∈ , P t Xs 0 s t exp Xs ds t [0 Tf ] (2.3) 0Z t P ( >t) = E exp (Xs ) ds t ∈ [0, Tf ] (2.4) 0 What we have modeled above, is only the first jump of a Cox process. When modeling a Cox process past the first jump—something we will need in Section 4—one has to insure that the integrated intensity stays finite on finite intervals if explosions are to be avoided. One then proceeds as follows: Given a probability space ( , F, P) large enough to support a standard unit rate Poisson process N with N0 = 0 and a non-negative stochastic process (t) which is independent of N and assumed to be right-continuous and integrable on finite intervals, i.e. Z t 3(t) := (s)ds < ∞ t ∈ [0, T ] 0 Then 3(0) = 0 and 3 has non-decreasing realizations. Now defining ˜ Nt := N (3 (t)) we have a Cox process with intensity measure 3. For the technical conditions we need to check to see that this definition makes sense, see Grandell (1976, pp. 9–16). This approach is also relevant when extending the models presented in this paper to cases of repeated defaults by the same firm.
3. Three Basic Building Blocks
The model for the default-free term structure of interest rates is given by a spot rate process, a money market account and an equivalent martingale measure to which all expectations in ON COX PROCESSES 103
this paper refer: Z t B(t) = exp rs ds 0 B(t) p(t, T ) = E Ft B(T ) The default time is modeled using the framework described in the previous section. The intensity process is denoted . Hence we may write the information at time t as
Ft = Gt ∨ Ht where processes relevant in determining values of the spot rate and the hazard rate of default are adapted to G and
Ht = {1{ s} :0 s t} holds the information of whether there has been a default at time t. Most applications will be built around a state variable process X, in which case we write R(Xt ) for the spot rate rt at time t and the informational setup may be stated as
Gt = {Xs :0 s t}
Ht = {1{ s} :0 s t}
Ft = Gt ∨ Ht
Ft then corresponds to knowing the evolution of the state variables up to time t and whether default has occurred or not. Apart from the default characteristics and the default-free term structure of interest rates what we need to know to price a defaultable contingent claim are its promised payments and its payment in the event of default (i.e. its recovery). The basic building blocks in constructing such claims are
1. X1{ >T }: A payment X ∈ GT at a fixed date which occurs if there has been no default before time T . As an example think of a vulnerable European option, i.e. an option whose issuer may default before the option’s expiration. A possible partial recovery can be captured in two ways: Let T be a GT -measurable random variable, and think of partial recovery either as a recovery at the time of maturity of the form T 1{ T } = T T 1{ >T }, which consists of a non-defaultable claim and our first basic building block, or a recovery at the time of default as in the third building block below.
2. Ys 1{ >s}: A stream of payments at a rate specified by the Gt -adapted process Y which stops when default occurs. This may be used to model idealized swaps in which we think of payments taking place continually in time. A possible recovery is captured by the next building block.
3. A recovery payment at the time of default of the form Z where Z is a Gt -adapted stochastic process and where Z = Z (ω)(ω). For a contingent claim expiring at date T , think of Z as being 0 after time T . This building block models a resettlement payment at the time of default. 104 DAVID LANDO
Note that the random variable X and the process Y can be thought of as promised payments, whereas the payment captured by Z is an actual payment at the time of default. The key advantage of the setup is that the calculation of prices becomes similar to ordinary term structure modeling:
Proposition 3.1 Assume that the expectations Z T E exp rs ds |X| Z t Z T s E |Ys | exp rudu ds and Zt t Z T s E |Zs s | exp (ru + u)du ds t t are all finite. The following identities hold for the three claims listed above: Z T E exp rs ds X1{ >T } Ft t Z T = 1{ >t} E exp (rs + s ) ds X Gt (3.1) t Z Z T s E Ys 1{ >s} exp rudu ds Ft t Z t Z T s = 1{ >t} E Ys exp (ru + u)du ds Gt (3.2) t t Z E exp rs ds Z Ft t Z Z T s = 1{ >t} E Zs s exp (ru + u)du ds Gt (3.3) t t
Proof: First we show that Z T E 1{ T } GT ∨ Ht = 1{ >t} exp s ds (3.4) t In the following computations we use the fact that the conditional expectation is clearly 0 on the set { t} and that the set { >t} is an atom of Ht . Therefore E 1{ T }|GT ∨ Ht = 1{ >t} E 1{ T }|GT ∨ Ht
P ({ T }∩{ >t} |GT ) = 1{ >t} P ( >t|GT ) P ( T |GT ) = 1{ >t} P ( >t|GT ) ON COX PROCESSES 105