1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING %
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{color}
7: % Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
8: %\usepackage{iopams}
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title[Moody's Correlated Binomial Default Distribution]
12: {
13: Moody's Correlated Binomial Default Distributions for
14: Inhomogeneous Portfolios
15: }
16:
17: \author{S.Mori \dag
18: \footnote[1]{mori@sci.kitasato-u.ac.jp},
19: K. Kitsukawa \ddag \footnote[2]{
20: kenji.kitsukawa@daiwasmbc.co.jp}
21: and M. Hisakado
22: \P \footnote[3]{
23: masato\_hisakado@standardandpoors.com
24: }
25: }
26:
27: \address{\dag\ Department of Physics, School of Science,
28: Kitasato University, Kitasato 1-15-1 , Sagamihara, Kanagawa 228-8555, Japan}
29:
30: \address{\P\
31: Daiwa Securities SMBC,
32: Marunouchi 1-9-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-6753, Japan}
33:
34: \address{\ddag\
35: Standard \& Poor's, Marunouchi 1-6-5, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005, Japan}
36:
37:
38:
39:
40:
41: \vspace*{4.5cm}
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: This paper generalizes Moody's
45: correlated binomial default distribution for homogeneous (exchangeable)
46: credit portfolio, which is introduced by
47: Witt, to the case of
48: inhomogeneous portfolios.
49: As inhomogeneous portfolios, we consider two cases.
50: In the first case, we treat a portfolio whose assets have
51: uniform default correlation and non-uniform
52: default probabilities. We obtain the default probability
53: distribution and study the effect of the
54: inhomogeneity on it.
55: The second case corresponds to a portfolio with inhomogeneous
56: default correlation. Assets are categorized in several different
57: sectors and the inter-sector and intra-sector correlations are not the
58: same. We construct the joint default probabilities and
59: obtain the default probability distribution. We show that as the
60: number of assets in each sector decreases, inter-sector
61: correlation becomes more important than intra-sector correlation.
62: We study the maximum values of the inter-sector
63: default correlation.
64: Our generalization method can
65: be applied to any correlated binomial default distribution model which has
66: explicit relations to the conditional default probabilities or conditional
67: default correlations, e.g. Credit Risk${}^{+}$,
68: implied default distributions.
69: We also compare
70: some popular CDO pricing models from the viewpoint
71: of the range of the implied tranche correlation.
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74:
75: %Uncomment for PACS numbers title message
76: %\pacs{C02:Mathematical methods, C16:Specific Distribution}
77: % Uncomment for Submitted to journal title message
78: \submitto{Quantitative Finance: Revised}
79:
80: % Comment out if separate title page not required
81: \maketitle
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84:
85: The modeling of portfolio
86: credit risk and default correlation are hot topics and pose entirely
87: new problems \cite{Fabozzi,Schonbucher,Duffie2,Hull,Finger2}.
88: CDOs are
89: financial innovations to securitize portfolios of defaultable assets.
90: Many probabilistic models
91: have been studied in order to price CDO tranches
92: \cite{Cifuentes,Martin,
93: Finger,Duffie,Li,Vasicek,Schonbucher2,Duffie2,Andersen,Davis,Zhou}.
94: Most of them are implemented with Monte Carlo simulations and
95: as the number of names in a portfolio increases, the computational
96: time increases. The Factor approach uses a small number of latent
97: factors that induce the default dependency \cite{Vasicek}.
98: Conditionally on the
99: latent variables values, default events are independent. It becomes easy
100: to calculate the loss (default) distribution function. Along this line,
101: some semi-explicit expressions of most relevant quantities
102: were obtained \cite{Laurent}.
103:
104: On the other hand, correlated binomial models were also
105: proposed to describe the default dependency structures.
106: The first one is a one-factor exchangeable version of CreditRisk
107: ${}^{+}$ \cite{CR,Frey1,Frey2}. The aggregate loss distribution function
108: is given by the beta-binomial distribution (BBD).
109: The second one is Moody's correlated binomial default distribution
110: model, which was introduced by Witt \cite{Witt}.( hereafter the
111: MCB model)
112: The authors also consider the applicability of the long-range Ising
113: model \cite{Molins,Mori}.
114: These models use Bernoulli random variables.
115: Differences stem from different definitions of the
116: conditional correlations \cite{Hisakado}.
117: In the MCB model \cite{Witt},
118: the conditional default correlation
119: between assets is set to be constant
120: irrespective of the number of defaults.
121: Those of BBD decay with an increase in default.
122: We are able to adapt a suitable form for the conditional correlations.
123: Recently
124: it has become possible to
125: calibrate $\rho_{n}$ from implied default distributions \cite{Mori2}.
126: By using the ``implied correlated'' binomial model,
127: whose conditional correlations are those of the implied distribution,
128: it may become easy to estimate
129: hedge ratios and so forth.
130:
131:
132:
133:
134: The advantage of
135: these correlated binomial
136: models come from the fact that
137: they are easier to evaluate than other more refined models.
138: If a probabilistic model is implemented by a Monte Carlo
139: simulation,
140: the evaluation of the price of these derivatives consumes much computer
141: time and the inverse process to obtain the model parameters becomes
142: tedious work. With the above correlated binomial
143: models, one can estimate
144: the model parameters from the CDO
145: premiums more easily.
146: However, these models
147: are formulated only for homogeneous portfolios,
148: where the assets are
149: exchangeable and they have the same default
150: probability $p$ and default correlation $\rho$.
151: Generalization to more realistic inhomogeneous
152: portfolios where assets have different default probabilities
153: and different default correlations should be done.
154:
155:
156:
157: In this paper, we show how to generalize Moody's correlated
158: binomial default distribution (MCB) model to two types of
159: inhomogeneous portfolios.
160: Our generalization method can be applied
161: to other correlated binomial models, including implied
162: correlated binomial distributions,
163: by changing the condition on $\rho_{n}$.
164: We obtain the default probability function
165: $P_{N}(n)$ and examine the dependence of the expected loss
166: rates of the tranches on the inhomogeneities.
167: With the proposed model, we also estimate the implied
168: values of the default correlation.
169: Comparison of the range of the tranche
170: correlations with those of the Gaussian copula model and BBD model
171: are also performed.
172:
173:
174: About the organization in this paper, we start with a short review of
175: Moody's correlated binomial default distribution (MCB) model
176: in \Sref{MCB}.
177: The dependence of $\rho_n$
178: on the number of defaults $n$
179: is compared with the BBD and Gaussian copula.
180: \Sref{model} is the main part of the
181: paper. We show how to couple multiple MCB models as a portfolios
182: credit risk model for inhomogeneous portfolio.
183: In the first subsection, we couple two Bernoulli
184: random
185: variables $X,Y$
186: and recall on the limit of the correlation
187: $\rho_{xy}$ between them.
188: In the next subsection,
189: we couple an MCB model of $N$ assets $X_{1},X_{2},\cdots, X_{N}$
190: with a random variable $Y$ and we study
191: the maximum value of the correlation between
192: $X_{i}$ and $Y$.
193: Then we couple two MCB models with $N$ and $M$ assets.
194: Choosing the model parameters properly,
195: we construct an MCB model for an inhomogeneous
196: default probability case and obtain the default distribution
197: function.
198: The last subsection is devoted to an inhomogeneous default correlation
199: case. Assets are categorized in different sectors and
200: inter-sector
201: and intra-sector default correlations are not the same.
202: We consider a portfolio with $K$ sectors
203: and $k-$th sector contains
204: $N_{k}$ assets. Within each sector, the portfolio is homogeneous
205: and it has parameters as $p_{k}$ and $\rho_{k}$.
206: The inter-sector default
207: correlations are not the same and they depend on the choice of sector
208: pairs. We construct the joint default probabilities and the
209: default probability function $P_{N}(n)$
210: for the portfolio explicitly.
211: In \Sref{implied_c}, using the above results,
212: we estimate the implied
213: default correlation for each tranche from a
214: CDO's market quotes ( iTraxx-CJ Series 2).
215: We compare the range of the correlations of MCBs, BBD and the Gaussian
216: copula model.
217: We conclude with some remarks and future problems.
218:
219:
220: \section{Moody's correlated binomial default distribution}
221: \label{MCB}
222:
223:
224: \begin{figure}[htbp]
225: \begin{center}
226: \includegraphics[width=4.0cm]{single.eps}
227: \caption{Homogeneous portfolio with $N$ assets.
228: The assets are exchangeable and
229: the default probability is $p$ and the
230: default correlation is $\rho.$
231: The state of i-th asset is described by
232: a Bernoulli random variable $X_{i}.$ }
233: \label{single}
234: \end{center}
235: \end{figure}
236:
237: We review the definitions and some properties of Moody's correlated binomial
238: default distribution (MCB) model.
239: We consider a homogeneous portfolio, which is
240: composed of
241: exchangeable
242: $N$ assets. Here the term ``homogeneous'' means that
243: the constituent
244: assets are exchangeable and
245: their default
246: probabilities and default correlations
247: are uniform. We denote
248: them as $p$ and $\rho$. Bernoulli
249: random variables $X_{i}$ show the
250: states of the $i$-th assets. $X_{i}=1$ means that the asset is defaulted
251: and the non-default state is represented as $X_{i}=0$.
252: The joint default probabilities are denoted as
253: \begin{equation}
254: P(x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{N})=\mbox{Prob}(X_{1}=x_{1},X_{2}=x_{2},
255: \cdots,X_{N}=x_{N}).
256: \end{equation}
257: In order to determine $P(x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{N})$, we need $2^{N}-1$
258: conditions for them. Here $2^{N}$ corresponds to the number of possible
259: configurations and $-1$ comes from the overall normalization condition for the
260: joint probabilities.
261: From the assumption of the homogeneity for the
262: portfolio, the number of degrees of freedom of the
263: joint probabilities are reduced. The probability
264: for $n$ defaults and $N-n$ non-defaults is the same for any configuration
265: $(x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{N})$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}=n$.
266: The number of defaults $n$ is ranged from $0$ to $N$
267: and considering the overall
268: normalization condition, remaining degrees of freedom are $N$.
269:
270: In the MCB model, the conditional default probabilities are
271: introduced. We denote $p_{n}$ as the default probability for any assets
272: under the condition that any other $n$ assets of the portfolio are
273: defaulted. To exemplify the situation concretely, we take the $n$ assets
274: as the first $n$ of $N$ assets, we denote them with $n^{'}$ as $n^{'}
275: =1,2,\cdots,n$. The condition that they are defaulted is written
276: concisely as $\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1$. The conditional
277: default probability for $n+1$-th assets under the condition of $n$
278: defaults can then be written as
279: \begin{equation}
280: p_{n}=<X_{n+1}|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1>.
281: \end{equation}
282: Here, $<A | C >$ means the expected value of random variable $A$
283: under condition $C$ is satisfied.
284: $X_{n}$ takes $1$ for $n$-th asset default,
285: $<X_{n}| C>$ corresponds to its default probability under condition $C$.
286: Of course, any asset from $k=n+1,\cdots,N$ can be
287: chosen in the evaluation
288: of the expected value for $p_{n}$ under the condition that
289: $\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1$.
290: $p_{0}$ is nothing but the default probability $p$.
291:
292: $N$ independent conditional default probabilities
293: $p_{n} (i=0,\cdots,N-1)$ are determined by the following condition on
294: the default correlations.
295: \begin{equation}
296: \mbox{Cor}(X_{n+1},X_{n+2}|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1)=\rho .
297: \label{corr_MCB}
298: \end{equation}
299: Here, $\mbox{Cor}(X,Y | C)$ is defined as
300: \begin{equation}
301: \mbox{Cor}(X,Y | C)=\frac{
302: <XY |C>-<X|C><Y|C>}{\sqrt{<X|C>(1-<X|C>)<Y|C>(1-<Y|C>)})}.
303: \end{equation}
304: The conditions on the default correlations give us the following recursion
305: relations for $p_{n}$ as
306: \begin{equation}
307: p_{n+1}=p_{n}+(1-p_{n})\rho .
308: \end{equation}
309: These recursion relations can be solved to give $p_{n}$ as
310: \begin{equation}
311: p_{n}=1-(1-p)(1-\rho)^{n}.
312: \end{equation}
313: $p_{n}$ increases with $n$ and $p_{n}\to
314: 1$ as $n \to \infty$ for $\rho > 0$.
315:
316: From these conditional default probabilities $p_{n} (n=0,\cdots,N-1)$,
317: the joint default probabilities for the configuration
318: $\vec{x}=(x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{N})$
319: are given as
320: \begin{equation}
321: P(\vec{x})=P(x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{N})
322: =<\prod_{n=1}^{N}X_{n}^{x_{n}}(1-X_{n})^{1-x_{n}}> .
323: \end{equation}
324: The normalization condition for $P(\vec{x})$ is guaranteed by the
325: following decomposition of unity.
326: \begin{equation}
327: 1=<1>=<\prod_{n=1}^{N} \{ X_{n}+ (1-X_{n}) \} >=
328: \prod_{j=1}^{N}\big[\sum_{x_{j}=0}^{1}\big]
329: <\prod_{n=1}^{N}X_{n}^{x_{n}}(1-X_{n})^{1-x_{n}}>
330: \end{equation}
331: The probability for $n$ defaults is
332: \begin{eqnarray}
333: P_{N}(n)&=
334: {}_{N}C_{n}\times P(1,1,\cdots,1,0,\cdots,0)=
335: {}_{N}C_{n}<\prod_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}
336: \prod_{i=n+1}^{N}(1-X_{i})> \nonumber \\
337: &=
338: {}_{N}C_{n}
339: \sum_{k=0}^{N-n}{}_{N-n}C_{k}
340: (-1)^{k}
341: (\prod_{n'=0}^{n+k-1}p_{n'}). \label{P_{N}(n)}
342: \end{eqnarray}
343:
344:
345:
346: We modify the above MCB model as follows. In the MCB model, the
347: default correlation is set to be constant irrespective of the number of
348: default (see\eref{corr_MCB}). We change the condition as
349: \begin{equation}
350: \mbox{Cor}(X_{n+1},X_{n+2}|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1)=\rho
351: \exp(-n \lambda). \label{decay}
352: \end{equation}
353: Here, we introduce a parameter $\lambda >0$ and the default correlation
354: under $n$ defaults decay as $\exp (-n \lambda)$. If we set $\lambda=0$,
355: the modified model reduces to the original MCB model.
356:
357: There are two motivations for the modification.
358: The first one is that
359: it is mathematically necessary to couple multiple MCB models.
360: We discuss the mechanism in greater detail
361: in the next section. Here, we only comment on the limit value of
362: $p_{n}$ as $n \to \infty$.
363: The modification changes the recursive relation for $p_{n}$
364: to
365: \begin{equation}
366: p_{n+1}=p_{n}+(1-p_{n}) \rho \exp (-n \lambda) \label{recursive}.
367: \end{equation}
368: $p_{n}$ is
369: calculated as
370: \begin{equation}
371: p_{n}=1-(1-p)\prod_{n'=0}^{n-1}(1-\rho_{n'}) \label{solution} .
372: \end{equation}
373: Here $\rho_{n}$ is defined as
374: $\rho_{n}=\rho \exp (-n \lambda)$.
375:
376:
377: $p_{n}$ increases with $n$,
378: however the increase is reduced by
379: the decay of the correlation with $n$. The limit
380: value of $p_{n}$ with
381: $n \to \infty$ is roughly estimated as
382: \begin{equation}
383: p_{\infty}=\lim_{n\to \infty}p_{n}=1-(1-p)(1-\rho)
384: \exp (-\rho \frac{e^{-\lambda}}{1-e^{-\lambda}}) . \label{p_infty_th}
385: \end{equation}
386: For
387: $\lambda=0$, $p_{\infty}=1$ and $p_{\infty}=
388: p+(1-p)\rho=p_{1}$ for $\lambda=\infty$.
389: In \Fref{p_infty}, we show the enumerated data for $p_{\infty}$
390: and the results from eq.\eref{p_infty_th}. As $\lambda$ increases,
391: $p_{\infty}$ decreases and the $\lambda$ dependence is well described by
392: eq.\eref{p_infty_th}.
393:
394:
395: \begin{figure}[htbp]
396: \begin{center}
397: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{p_infty_compare.eps}
398: \caption{$p_{\infty}$ for $0 \le \lambda \le 0.3$ with $p=\rho=0.1$.
399: The solid line comes from eq.\eref{p_infty_th}. The numerically
400: enumerated data are shown with + symbol.}
401: \label{p_infty}
402: \end{center}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405:
406:
407: The second motivation is that
408: popular CDO pricing models have decaying correlation with $n$.
409: The BBD model's $\rho_n$ is given as \cite{Hisakado}
410: \begin{equation}
411: \rho_{n}=\frac{\rho}{1+n\rho}. \label{BBD}
412: \end{equation}
413: In the Gaussian copula model, we do not have
414: the explicit form for $\rho_{n}$. From its aggregate loss distribution
415: function, it is possible to estimate them.
416: In \Fref{rho_n_compare},
417: we show $\rho_n$ for the MCB, BBD and Gaussian copula models.
418: We set $p=\rho=0.1$ and $N=30$.
419: The Gaussian copula's $\rho_n$ does not show monotonic dependence on
420: $n$. After a small peak,. it decays to zero. In order to
421: mimic the Gaussian copula model within the framework of
422: a correlated binomial model, such a dependence should be
423: incorporated in the assumption on $\rho_{n}$.
424:
425: \Fref{p_n_compare} depicts $p_{n}$ in the same setting.
426: With the same $p$ and $\rho$, all $p_{n}$ curves pass through
427: $p_{0}=p$ at $n=0$ and $p_{1}=p+(1-p)\rho$ at $n=1$.
428: After $n >1$, the behaviors of
429: $p_{n}$ depend on the models' definitions on $\rho_{n}$.
430: $p_{n}$ saturate to about $0.4$ for MCB$(\lambda=0.3)$, which means
431: that a large scale avalanche does not occur and the loss distribution
432: function has a short tail. In MCB with
433: $\lambda=0.0$ and
434: Gaussian copula models, their $p_{n}$ saturate to 1.
435: The behaviors are reflected in the fat and long tails in their
436: loss distribution.
437:
438:
439:
440:
441:
442:
443:
444:
445:
446: \begin{figure}[htbp]
447: \begin{center}
448: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{rho_n_compare.eps}
449: \caption{$\rho_n$ for MCB (solid, dotted), BBD (+) and Gaussian copula
450: models ($\times$).
451: We set $p=\rho=0.1$ and $N=50$.}
452: \label{rho_n_compare}
453: \end{center}
454: \end{figure}
455:
456: \begin{figure}[htbp]
457: \begin{center}
458: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{p_n_compare.eps}
459: \caption{$p_n$ for MCB (solid, dotted), BBD (+) and Gaussian copula
460: models ($\times$).
461: We set $p=\rho=0.1$ and $N=50$.}
462: \label{p_n_compare}
463: \end{center}
464: \end{figure}
465:
466:
467:
468:
469: \Fref{Dist} shows the semi-log plot of
470: $P_{30}(n)$ for the MCB, BBD and
471: Gaussian copula models.
472: We also plot the binomial distribution Bin$(30,0.1)$. The default
473: correlation shifts the peak of the binomial distribution
474: to $n=0$ and $P_{30}(n)$
475: comes to have a long tail.
476: MCB, BBD and Gaussian copula have almost the same bulk shape.
477: In particular, in MCB, even if we change $\lambda$,
478: $P_{30}(n)$ has almost the same shape for $n \le 15$.
479: The bulk shape of
480: $P_{N}(n)$ is mainly determined by $p_{n}$ with small $n$.
481: $p_{n}$s with large $n$ comes from very rare events
482: $\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1$ and
483: contains information
484: about the tails of the distributions.
485: They do not
486: affect the bulk part significantly .
487:
488:
489: There are differences in their tails.
490: One sorts the models in the order of thinnest tail to fattest tail,
491: we have
492: \[
493: \mbox{MCB}(\lambda=0.3) < \mbox{BBD} < \mbox{Gaussian copula} <
494: \mbox{MCB}(\lambda=0.0) .
495: \]
496: MCB($\lambda=0$) has almost the same shape as the Gaussian copula.
497: However,
498: it has a bigger tail than the gaussian coupla at $n=30$.
499: The tail of MCB$(\lambda=0.3)$ is short
500: compared with other models.
501: We can understand this behavior from the behavior of $p_{n}$.
502:
503:
504: \begin{figure}[htbp]
505: \begin{center}
506: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm,angle=0]{Dist_30_01_01.eps}
507: \caption{Loss Distribution $P_{30}(n)$ for $p=0.1$ and $\rho=0.1$.
508: $\lambda=0.0,0.3$ and $p=\rho=0.1$.
509: We also plot the profile for the binomial distribution.}
510: \label{Dist}
511: \end{center}
512: \end{figure}
513:
514:
515:
516: We also note another role of the damping parameter $\lambda$.
517: In the calculation $P_{N}(n)$, there are many cancellations
518: $\sum_{k=0}^{N-n}{}_{N-n}C_{k}(-1)^{k}$
519: in \eref{P_{N}(n)} from the decomposition of
520: $\prod_{i=n+1}^{N}(1-X_{i})$ .
521: This causes numerical errors in the evaluation
522: and it is difficult to get $P_{N}(n)$ for $N \ge 40$, even
523: if we use long double precision variables in the numerical implementation.
524: When we set $\lambda=0.3$, the numerical error diminishes greatly and we can
525: obtain $P_{N}(n)$ even for $N=100$. This point is
526: important when one uses the MCB model for analysis of the actual CDOs
527: that have at least 50 assets.
528: In addition, with $\lambda>0$, we can take
529: $\rho$ to be negatively large enough. In S\&P's data,
530: a negative default correlation of $0.1\%$ or so has been reported
531: \cite{SP}.
532: We think that
533: this point is also an advantage of the modified model.
534:
535:
536:
537:
538:
539:
540:
541: Hereafter, we mainly focus on the generalization of the MCB model.
542: However, the same method and reasoning should be applicable to
543: other correlated binomial models with any assumption on $\rho_{n}$.
544: If we set $\rho_{n}$ as in \eref{BBD}, we have Beta-Binomial
545: default distribution models for inhomogeneous portfolios.
546:
547:
548:
549:
550:
551:
552: \section{Generalization to Inhomogeneous Portfolios}
553: \label{model}
554:
555: In this section we couple multiple MCB models and construct
556: the joint default probabilities and $P_{N}(n)$ for inhomogeneous portfolios.
557: In addition, we show that the inter-sector default correlation
558: can be set to be large enough by choosing $\lambda$ and other parameters.
559: We think that it is possible to use the model
560: as a model for portfolio credit risk.
561:
562:
563: \subsection{Coupling of $X$ and $Y$: 1+1 MCB model}
564: \label{1+1}
565:
566: Before proceeding to the coupling of multiple MCB models,
567: we recall some results for the coupling of
568: two random variables $X$ and $Y$. The default probability is $p_{x}$
569: ($p_{y}$) for $X$ (respectively for $Y$) and the default correlation
570: between them is $\rho_{xy}$,
571: \begin{equation}
572: \mbox{Corr}(X,Y)=\rho_{xy}.
573: \end{equation}
574: As in the MCB model, we introduce the conditional default
575: probabilities as
576: \begin{eqnarray}
577: &p_{0}=p_{x}=<X> \hspace*{0.3cm}\mbox{and}\hspace*{0.3cm}
578: p_{1}=<X|Y=1>. \nonumber \\
579: &q_{0}=p_{y}=<Y>
580: \hspace*{0.3cm}\mbox{and}\hspace*{0.3cm} q_{1}=<Y|X=1>.
581: \end{eqnarray}
582: From the default correlation $\rho_{xy}$,
583: $p_{1}$ and $q_{1}$ are calculated as
584: \begin{eqnarray}
585: &p_{1}=p_{0}+(1-p_{0})\sqrt{\frac{p_{0}(1-q_{0})}{(1-p_{0})q_{0}}}
586: \rho_{xy} \nonumber \\
587: & q_{1}=q_{0}+(1-q_{0})
588: \sqrt{\frac{q_{0}(1-p_{0})}{(1-q_{0})p_{0}}}\rho_{xy}.
589: \end{eqnarray}
590: In the symmetric (homogeneous) case $p_{x}=p_{y}$,
591: the equality $p_{1}=q_{1}$ holds
592: and they are given as
593: \[
594: p_{1}=q_{1}=p_{x}+(1-p_{x})\rho_{xy}.
595: \]
596: The correlation $\rho_{xy}$ can be set to be $1$ and in the limit
597: $p_{1}=q_{1} \to 1$. The maximum value of $\rho_{xy}$ is 1 in the
598: symmetric case. Conversely in the asymmetric case ($p_{x}\neq
599: p_{y}$), $\rho_{xy}$ cannot set to be $1$. The maximum value of
600: $\rho_{xy}$ is determined by the condition that $p_{1} \le 1$ and
601: $q_{1}\le 1$. From these conditions, we derive the following conditions
602: \cite{Lucas}
603: on $\rho_{xy}$ as
604: \begin{equation}
605: \rho_{xy} \le \sqrt{\frac{q_{0}(1-p_{0})}{(1-q_{0})p_{0}}}
606: \hspace*{0.3cm}\mbox{and}\hspace*{0.3cm}
607: \rho_{xy}\le \sqrt{\frac{p_{0}(1-q_{0})}{(1-p_{0})q_{0}}}.
608: \end{equation}
609: We introduce an asymmetric parameter $r$ as
610: \begin{equation}
611: r=\frac{p_{y}}{p_{x}}
612: \end{equation}
613: and a function $f(r,p)$ as
614: \begin{equation}
615: f(r,p)=\sqrt{\frac{(1-p)r}{1-rm}}.
616: \end{equation}
617: The maximum value of $\rho_{xy}$ is then given as
618: \begin{equation}
619: \mbox{Max}(\rho_{xy})=\mbox{Min}(f(r,p_{0}),f(r,p_{0})^{-1}). \label{Max}
620: \end{equation}
621: Here Max$(\rho_{xy})$ represents the maximum value of $\rho_{xy}$ and
622: Min$(A,B)$ means that the smaller value of $A$ and $B$ is taken.
623: \begin{figure}[htbp]
624: \begin{center}
625: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm,angle=0]{Max_rho_xy_r.eps}
626: \caption{
627: Max$(\rho_{xy})$ for $p_{x}=0.1$(solid line), $0.5$(dotted line) and $0.2 \le r \le 5.0$.
628: }
629: \label{Max_rho_xy}
630: \end{center}
631: \end{figure}
632: \Fref{Max_rho_xy} shows Max$(\rho_{xy})$ as a function of the
633: asymmetric (inhomogeneity) parameter $r$. We show two curves, the solid
634: one for $p_{x}=0.1$ and the dotted one for $p_{x}=0.5$.
635: As the inhomogeneity $r$ increases, that is $r$ departs from $r=1$,
636: Max$(\rho_{xy})$ decreases.
637: For fixed $r$, as $p_{x}$ becomes large, Max$(\rho_{xy})$
638: becomes small. The reason is that the condition $p_{1}\leq 1$ becomes
639: more difficult to satisfy
640: as $p_{x}=p_{0}$ increase. $p_{1}$ is a monotonous increasing function
641: of $p_{0}$.
642: In the previous section, the conditional default probability
643: $p_{n}$ becomes smaller as we set $\lambda$ larger.
644: When we set a large $\lambda$, we show that it is possible to couple
645: multiple MCB models with strong default correlation.
646:
647: \subsection{$N+1$ MCB model}
648:
649:
650: For the second step, we couple an $N$ assets
651: MCB model with one two-valued random variable $Y$.
652: We introduce $N$ random variables $X_{n} (n=1,\cdots,N)$ and
653: the default probability and the default correlation for them is
654: $<X_{n}>=p_{x}$ and $\rho$. The default probability for $Y$ is $<Y>=p_{y}$
655: and the default correlation between $Y$ and $X_{n}$ is written as
656: $\rho_{xy}$.
657: We assume homogeneity for the $N$ assets MCB model and the default correlation
658: between $X_{n}$ and $Y$ is independent of the asset index
659: $n$.
660: As in the previous cases, we introduce conditional
661: default probabilities as
662: \begin{eqnarray}
663: &p_{n,0}=<X_{n+1}|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1>
664: \hspace*{0.2cm}\mbox{and} \hspace*{0.2cm}
665: p_{n,1}=<X_{n+1}|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}\times Y=1>
666: \nonumber \\
667: &q_{n}=<Y|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1>.
668: \end{eqnarray}
669: The joint default probabilities $P(\vec{x},y)=P(\vec{X}=\vec{x},y)$
670: are calculated by decomposing the following expression with
671: these conditional
672: default probabilities
673: \begin{equation}
674: P(\vec{x},y)
675: =<\prod_{n=1}^{N}X_{n}^{x_{n}}(1-X_{n})^{1-x_{n}}\times Y^{y}(1-Y)^{1-y}>
676: \end{equation}
677: The joint default probabilities with the condition $Y=1$ are
678: \begin{equation}
679: P(\vec{x}|Y=1)
680: =<\prod_{n=1}^{N}X_{n}^{x_{n}}(1-X_{n})^{1-x_{n}}>/p_{y}.
681: \end{equation}
682: The joint probabilities with the condition $Y=0$ are obtained by
683: the following relations.
684: \begin{equation}
685: P(\vec{x}|Y=0)(1-p_{y})+P(\vec{x}|Y=1)p_{y}=
686: P(\vec{x})
687: =<\prod_{n=1}^{N}X_{n}^{x_{n}}(1-X_{n})^{1-x_{n}}>
688: \end{equation}
689: The explicit form for $P(\vec{x}|y=0)$ is
690: \begin{equation}
691: P(\vec{x}|Y=0)=\frac{P(\vec{x})-P(\vec{x}|Y=1)p_{y}}{1-p_{y}}.
692: \end{equation}
693: The probability for $n$ defaults is
694: given as in eq.\eref{P_{N}(n)}
695: \begin{equation}
696: P_{N}(n)={}_{N}C_{n}\sum_{k=0}^{N-n}{}_{N-n}C_{k}
697: (-1)^{k}
698: (\prod_{n'=0}^{n+k-1}p_{n',0}).
699: \end{equation}
700: The probability for $n$ defaults with $Y=1$ is
701: \begin{equation}
702: P_{N}(n|Y=1)={}_{N}C_{n}\sum_{k=0}^{N-n}{}_{N-n}C_{k}
703: (-1)^{k}
704: (\prod_{n'=0}^{n+k-1}p_{n',1}).
705: \end{equation}
706: Using the same argument as for the joint probabilities with $Y=0$,
707: $P_{N}(n|Y=0)$ is written as
708: \begin{equation}
709: P_{N}(n|Y=0)=\frac{P_{N}(n)-P_{N}(n|1)p_{y}}{1-p_{y}}.
710: \end{equation}
711:
712: About the conditional default probabilities
713: $p_{n,0}$, we impose the same conditions
714: as with the homogeneous $N$ assets MCB model.
715: \begin{equation}
716: \mbox{Cor}(X_{n+1},X_{n+2}|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}}=1)=
717: \rho e^{-n \lambda}
718: \end{equation}
719: The same recursive relation \eref{recursive} for $p_{n,0}$ is obtained
720: and the $p_{n,0}$ is given by
721: \begin{equation}
722: p_{n,0}=1-(1-p_{x})\prod_{n'=0}^{n-1}(1-\rho_{n'}) \label{solution2} .
723: \end{equation}
724: Here $\rho_{n}$ is defined as before.
725: Fot the conditions on $p_{n,1}$ and $q_{n}$, there are two possible ways to realize a strong correlation.
726: The only way to realize a strong correlation $\rho_{xy}$
727: between $X_{n+1}$ and $Y$ is
728: \begin{equation}
729: \mbox{Corr}(X_{n+1},Y|\prod_{n^{'}=1}^{n}X_{n^{'}})=
730: \rho_{xy} e^{-n \lambda} \label{N+1}.
731: \end{equation}
732: In this case, the relations for $p_{n,1}$ and $q_{n}$ are
733: \begin{equation}
734: p_{n,1}q_{n}=q_{n+1}p_{n,0}=p_{n,0}q_{n}+\rho_{xy}
735: \sqrt{p_{n,0}(1-p_{n,0})q_{n}(1-q_{n})}
736: e^{-n \lambda}.
737: \end{equation}
738: The recursive relations are
739: \begin{eqnarray}
740: p_{n,1}&=p_{n,0}+\rho_{xy}e^{-n \lambda}(1-p_{n,0})
741: \sqrt{\frac{p_{n,0}(1-q_{n})}{(1-p_{n,0})q_{n}}}
742: \\
743: q_{n+1}&=q_{n}+\rho_{xy}e^{-n \lambda}(1-q_{n})
744: \sqrt{\frac{(1-p_{n,0})q_{n}}{p_{n,0}(1-q_{n})}}.
745: \end{eqnarray}
746: If we set $p_{y}=p_{x}$ and $\rho_{xy}=\rho$, these relations
747: reduce to $p_{n,1}=p_{n+1,0}$ and $q_{n}=p_{n,0}$ and this coupled
748: model is nothing but the $(N+1)$ assets MCB model.
749:
750:
751: \begin{figure}[h]
752: \begin{center}
753: \includegraphics[width=12.0cm,angle=0,clip]{Max_rho_xy_30_01_01.eps}
754: \caption{
755: Max($\rho_{xy}$)/$\rho$ vs $r=\frac{p_{y}}{p_{x}}$.
756: $N=30$, $\rho=0.1$, $p_{x}=0.1$. The solid line $\lambda=0.0$
757: and the dotted line $\lambda=0.3$}
758: \label{max_N1}
759: \end{center}
760: \end{figure}
761:
762:
763: We write the ratio $\frac{q_{n}}{p_{n,0}}$ as $r_{n}$ and the
764: conditions that $p_{n,1}\le 1$ and $q_{n+1}\le 1$ are summarized as
765: \begin{eqnarray}
766: \rho_{xy} \le e^{n \lambda} \times
767: \mbox{Min}
768: (f(r_{n},p_{n,0})
769: ,f(r_{n},p_{n,0})^{-1}). \label{Max2}
770: \end{eqnarray}
771: Min$(f(r_{n},p_{n,0}),f(r_{n},p_{n,0})^{-1})$
772: is nothing but the condition
773: for Max$(\rho_{xy})$ of the two random variables $X,Y$ with
774: default probabilities $(p_{x},p_{y})=(p_{n,0},r_{n}p_{n,0})$ (see
775: eq.\eref{Max}). As explained above,
776: Min$(f(r_{n},p_{n}),f(r_{n},p_{n})^{-1})$ takes maximum value $1$
777: at $r_{n}=1$ for any value of $p_{n}$.
778: It also decrease with the increase of $p_{n}$
779: for fixed $r_{n}$.
780:
781:
782: The necessary condition for the model to be self-consistent is that
783: $p_{n,1}\le 1$ and $q_{n}\le 1$ for all $n$. We discuss $\lambda=0$
784: and $\lambda>0$ cases separately.
785: \begin{itemize}
786: \item $\lambda=0.0$: $p_{n,0}$ increases with $n$
787: and $p_{n,0} \to 1$ as $n \to \infty$.
788: The range of $p_{n,0}$ is $[p_{x},p_{N-1}] \simeq [p_{x},1]$
789: and it is difficult
790: to choose $p_{y}$ such that $r_{n} \simeq 1$ for all $n$.
791: If $r_{n}$ departs much from 1 for some $n$,
792: Max$(\rho_{xy})$ decreases. The choice $p_{x}=p_{y}$ and
793: $\rho_{xy}=\rho$ is possible, we anticipate that
794: Max$(\rho_{xy})$ decreases from
795: $\rho$ as $p_{y}$ departs from $p_{x}$.
796:
797: \item $\lambda >0$: The limit value of $p_{n}$
798: becomes small (see eq.\eref{p_infty_th}) and
799: the range of $p_{n}$ is narrow as compared with the $\lambda=0.0$ case.
800: It may be possible to choose $p_{y}$ such that
801: the asymmetric parameter $r_{n}$ is small for small $n$.
802: In addition, for large $n$, it is easy to satisfy the
803: condition \eref{Max2} because
804: of the prefactor $\exp(n \lambda )$. We think
805: that Max$(\rho_{xy})$ is large in this case.
806: \end{itemize}
807:
808:
809:
810:
811:
812: We have checked numerically the values of the joint probabilities for
813: all configurations $(\vec{x},y)$ with $N=30$ and $p_{x}=\rho=0.1$.
814: In \fref{max_N1}, we show the data of Max$(\rho_{xy})/\rho$ for the
815: case $\lambda=0.0$ (solid line) and $\lambda=0.3$ (dotted line).
816: In the $\lambda=0.0$ case,
817: Max$(\rho_{xy}) \simeq \rho$ near $r=1$ and as $r$ departs from
818: 1, Max$(\rho_{xy})$ decreases from $\rho$.
819: The data for $\lambda=0.3$ case show that it is possible
820: to set a large Max$(\rho_{xy})$ if we use a large $r$.
821: We can set $\rho_{xy}$ as strong as several times of $\rho$.
822:
823: We also point out that the above $N+1$ MCB model can be used to
824: describe a credit portfolio where one obligor has great exposure.
825: Such an obligor is described by $Y$ and other obligors are
826: by $X_{n}$. If $p_{y}$ is quite different from $p_{x}$, we
827: can couple $Y$ and $X_{n}$ with strong $\rho_{xy} \simeq \rho_{x}$
828: by setting a sufficiently large $\lambda$.
829:
830:
831:
832:
833: \subsection{$N+M$ MCB Model : Coupled MCB model}
834:
835:
836: \begin{figure}[htbp]
837: \begin{center}
838: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm,angle=0,clip]{two.eps}
839: \caption{
840: Portfolio of $N+M$ MCB model. The first (second) sector has
841: parameters $N (M)$,$p_{x}$ $(p_{y})$ and $\rho_{x} (\rho_{y})$.
842: The inter-sector default correlation is $\rho_{xy}$
843: }
844: \label{two}
845: \end{center}
846: \end{figure}
847:
848: Next we consider a portfolio with two sectors. The first sector has $N$
849: assets and the second has $M$ assets. To construct the joint default
850: probabilities for the portfolio, we try to couple two MCB models.
851: The former model's $N$ assets are
852: described by $X_{n}(n=1,\cdots,N)$ and the states of the latter model's assets
853: are described by $Y_{m} (m=1,\cdots,M)$.
854: The default probability and the default correlation in each sector are
855: ($p_{x},\rho_{x}$) and ($p_{y},\rho_{y}$).
856: The default correlation between the assets in different sectors
857: is denoted as $\rho_{xy}$ (see \Fref{two}).
858:
859:
860: Introducing the conditional default probabilities
861: $p_{n,m}$ and $q_{n,m} $as
862: \begin{eqnarray}
863: p_{n,m}&=&<X_{n+1}|\prod_{n'=1}^{n}X_{n'}
864: \prod_{m'=1}^{m}Y_{m'}=1>, \hspace*{0.5cm} p_{0,0}=p_{x} \\
865: q_{n,m}&=&<Y_{m+1}|\prod_{n'=1}^{n}X_{n'}\prod_{m'=1}^{m}Y_{m'}=1>,
866: \hspace*{0.5cm} q_{0,0}=p_{y},
867: \end{eqnarray}
868: we impose the following conditions on $p_{n,0}$ and $q_{0,m}$
869: \begin{eqnarray}
870: &&\mbox{Cor}(X_{n+1}X_{n+2}|\prod_{n'=1}^{n}X_{n'}=1)=\rho_{x}
871: \exp(-n\lambda_{x}) \label{rhox} \\
872: &&\mbox{Cor}(Y_{m+1}Y_{m+2}|\prod_{m'=1}^{m}Y_{m'}=1)=\rho_{y}
873: \exp(-m\lambda_{y}). \label{rhoy}
874: \end{eqnarray}
875: The recursive relations for $p_{n,0}$ and $q_{0,m}$ are
876: \begin{eqnarray}
877: &&p_{n+1,0}=p_{n,0}+\rho_{x}
878: \exp(-n\lambda_{x}) (1-p_{n,0}) \\
879: &&q_{0,m+1}=q_{0,n}+\rho_{y}
880: \exp(-m\lambda_{y}) (1-q_{0,m}).
881: \end{eqnarray}
882: Their solutions are, by denoting
883: $\rho_{x,n}=\rho_{x} \exp (-n \lambda_{x})$
884: and $\rho_{y,m}=\rho_{y} \exp (-m \lambda_{y})$,
885: \begin{eqnarray}
886: &&p_{n,0}=1-(1-p_{x})\prod_{n'=0}^{n-1}(1-\rho_{x,n'}) \\
887: &&q_{0,m}=1-(1-p_{y})\prod_{m'=0}^{m-1}(1-\rho_{y,m'}).
888: \end{eqnarray}
889: For the inter-sector correlation, we impose the next conditions
890: on $p_{n,m}$ and $q_{n,m}$, which is a natural generalization of $N+1$
891: case (see eq.\eref{N+1}).
892: \begin{equation}
893: \mbox{Cor}(X_{n+1}Y_{m+1}|
894: \prod_{n'=1}^{n}X_{n'}\prod_{m'=1}^{m}Y_{m'}=1)
895: =\rho_{xy} e^{- (n \lambda_{x}+m\lambda_{y})}.
896: \label{corr_2}
897: \end{equation}
898: We obtain the following recursive relations,
899: \begin{eqnarray}
900: &p_{n,m+1}q_{n,m}=q_{n+1,m}p_{n,m} \nonumber \\
901: &=p_{n,m}q_{n,m}+\rho_{xy}
902: e^{-(n_{x}\lambda_{x}+m\lambda_{y})}
903: \sqrt{p_{n,m}(1-p_{n,m})q_{n,m}(1-q_{n,m})}. \label{sc_2}
904: \end{eqnarray}
905: Using these relations, we are able to calculate
906: $p_{n,m}$ and $q_{n,m}$
907: iteratively starting from $p_{n,0}$ and $q_{0,m}$.
908:
909:
910: The joint default probability for the portfolio
911: configuration $(\vec{x},\vec{y})$
912: is calculated by decomposing the following expression with $p_{n,m}$
913: and $q_{n,m}$
914: \begin{eqnarray}
915: & P(\vec{x},\vec{y})=P(x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{N},
916: y_{1},y_{2},\cdots,y_{M}) \nonumber \\
917: & =<\prod_{n=1}^{N}X_{n}^{x_{n}}(1-X_{n})^{1-x_{n}}
918: \prod_{m=1}^{M}Y_{m}^{y_{m}}(1-Y_{m})^{1-y_{m}}>.
919: \end{eqnarray}
920: In particular, the probability for $n,m$ defaults in each sector,
921: which is denoted as $P_{N,M}(n,m)$, is
922: \begin{eqnarray}
923: &P_{N,M}(n,m)=
924: {}_{N}C_{m}\times {}_{M}C_{m}\times
925: P(
926: 1,1,\cdots,1,0,\cdots,0,
927: 1,1,\cdots,1,0,\cdots,0
928: ) \nonumber \\
929: &=
930: {}_{N}C_{m}\times {}_{M}C_{m}\times
931: <\prod_{n'=1}^{n}X_{n'}
932: \prod_{k=n+1}^{N}(1-X_{k})
933: \prod_{m'=1}^{m}Y_{m'}
934: \prod_{l=m+1}^{M}(1-Y_{l}) >
935: \nonumber
936: \\
937: &=
938: {}_{N}C_{m}\times {}_{M}C_{m}
939: \times
940: \sum_{k=0}^{N-n}\sum_{l=0}^{M-m}
941: (-1)^{k+l}
942: {}_{N-n}C_{k} \times
943: {}_{M-m}C_{l} \nonumber \\
944: &\times < \prod_{n'=1}^{n+k}X_{n'}\prod_{m'=1}^{m+l}Y_{m'} >.
945: \end{eqnarray}
946: $P_{N+M}(n)$ is easily calculated from $P_{N,M}(n,m)$ as
947: \begin{equation}
948: P_{N+M}(n)=\sum_{n'=0}^{n}P_{N,M}(n',n-n').
949: \end{equation}
950: In decomposing $< \prod_{n=1}^{k}X_{n}\prod_{m=1}^{l}Y_{m} >$
951: , one can do it in any order.
952: The independence of the order of the decomposition of
953: $< \prod_{n=1}^{k}X_{n}\prod_{m=1}^{l}Y_{m} >$
954: is guaranteed by \eref{corr_2} and \eref{sc_2}.
955: We decompose it as
956: \begin{equation}
957: < \prod_{n=1}^{k}X_{n}\prod_{m=1}^{l}Y_{m} >
958: =\prod_{n=0}^{k-1}p_{n,0}\times \prod_{m=0}^{l-1}q_{k,m}.
959: \end{equation}
960:
961: For the maximum value of $\rho_{xy}$, it is necessary to
962: check all values of the joint probabilities. However, $N+M$
963: model is reduced to $N+1$ or $1+M$ model by choosing $M=1$ or $N=1$
964: respectively. From the discussions and the results
965: in the previous subsection for
966: the $N+1$ model, we can anticipate as follows.
967: \begin{enumerate}
968: \item
969: $\lambda_{x}=\lambda_{y}=0$: If $p_{x}=p_{y}$ and $\rho_{x}=\rho_{y}$,
970: two MCB models are the same and we can set $\rho_{xy}=\rho_{x}=\rho_{y}$.
971: Two models merge completely and we have a $(N+M)$ assets
972: MCB model.
973: As the asymmetry between the two models
974: becomes large ($p_{x}\neq p_{y}$ or $\rho_{x}\neq \rho_{y}$)
975: , Max$(\rho_{xy})$ decreases from $\rho_{x},\rho_{y}$.
976:
977: \item
978: $\lambda_{x},\lambda_{y}>0$: As
979: $\lambda_{x},\lambda_{y}$ increase, Max$(\rho_{xy})$
980: becomes large. The asymmetry in $p_{x},p_{y}$ and $\rho_{x},\rho_{y}$
981: diminishes Max$(\rho_{xy})$.
982: \end{enumerate}
983:
984:
985:
986: \begin{figure}[htbp]
987: \begin{center}
988: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm,angle=0,clip]{dP_Nd_dis_20_003_003.eps}
989: \caption{$\Delta P(n)$ vs $n$. We set
990: $N=20$, $p=0.03$, $\rho=0.03$ and $\lambda_{x}=\lambda_{y}=0.3$.
991: MCB in solid and dotted lines, and BBD in + and $\times$ symbols.}
992: \label{disorder}
993: \end{center}
994: \end{figure}
995:
996:
997: Using the above coupled $N+M$ MCB model,
998: we study the effect of the dispersion
999: of the default probability on $P_{N}(n)$
1000: and on the evaluation of tranches.
1001: More complete analysis about the
1002: difference between the usage of individual spreads and
1003: of portfolio average spreads in CDO pricing
1004: has been performed in \cite{Finger2}.
1005: There, the usage of the average spread results in the lower estimation
1006: of the equity tranche.
1007: We consider a portfolio
1008: with $N+N$ assets. The assets in each sector have default probabilities
1009: $p \pm \Delta P_{d}$ and an intra-sector default correlation $\rho$.
1010: We set the inter-sector default correlation $\rho_{xy}$ also as $\rho$.
1011: The inhomogeneity in the default probability is controlled by $\Delta
1012: P_{d}$. If we set $\Delta P_{d}=0$, the two sector are completely
1013: merged to one sector and we have a homogeneous $2N$ MCB model with
1014: $p$ and $\rho$.
1015: In \fref{disorder}, we shows the default probability difference $\Delta
1016: P(n)$ between the inhomogeneous case $P_{N+N}(n)$ with $\Delta P_{d}
1017: \neq 0$ and homogeneous case $P_{2N}(n)$.
1018: $\Delta P(n)$ is defined as
1019: \begin{equation}
1020: \Delta P(n)=P_{N+N}(n)-P_{2N}(n).
1021: \end{equation}
1022: We set $N=20$, $p=\rho=0.03$ and $\lambda=0.3$.
1023: The solid curve represents the data
1024: for $\Delta P_{d}=0.01$ and the dotted curve stands for the case
1025: $\Delta P_{d}=0.02$.
1026: We see that $\Delta P(n)$ is large only for small $n$.
1027: We also plot the results for the $N+M$ BBD
1028: model. To construct the loss distribution function, it is necessary to
1029: change \eref{rhox} and \eref{rhoy} to
1030: \begin{eqnarray}
1031: &&\mbox{Cor}(X_{n+1}X_{n+2}|\prod_{n'=1}^{n}X_{n'}=1)=\rho /(1+n\rho) \\
1032: &&\mbox{Cor}(Y_{m+1}Y_{m+2}|\prod_{m'=1}^{m}Y_{m'}=1)=\rho /(1+m\rho ) .
1033: \end{eqnarray}
1034: Eq.(\ref{corr_2}) is also changed as
1035: \begin{equation}
1036: \mbox{Cor}(X_{n+1}Y_{m+1}|
1037: \prod_{n'=1}^{n}X_{n'}\prod_{m'=1}^{m}Y_{m'}=1)
1038: =\rho /(1+(n+m)\rho).
1039: \end{equation}
1040: The recursive relations are also changed, but the remaining procedures
1041: are the same as for the $N+M$ MCB model.
1042: As we have shown in the previous section, the bulk shapes of the loss
1043: distribution of MCB and BBD models are almost the same, and the effects of
1044: $\Delta P_{d}$ on them are also similar.
1045:
1046:
1047: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1048: \begin{center}
1049: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm,angle=0,clip]{dD_dp_20_003_003.eps}
1050: \caption{Plots of $\Delta D(i)/D(i)$ vs $\Delta P_{d}$ and
1051: $\Delta D(i)$ vs $\Delta P_{d}$. $N=20$,$p=\rho=0.03$ and $\Delta P_{d}=0.01$.
1052: We plot for $1\le n \le 15$.}
1053: \label{disorder2}
1054: \end{center}
1055: \end{figure}
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059: To see the effect of $\Delta P_{d}$ on the evaluations of tranches,
1060: we need to study the
1061: change in the cumulative distribution functions $D(i)$. $D(i)$ is
1062: defined as
1063: \begin{equation}
1064: D(i)=\sum_{n=i}^{N}P_{N}(n).
1065: \end{equation}
1066: $D(i)$ represents the expected loss rate of the $i-$th tranche,
1067: which is damaged if more than $i$ assets default\cite{Mori}.
1068: One of the important properties of $D(i)$ is
1069: \begin{equation}
1070: \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}D(i)=p.
1071: \end{equation}
1072: This identity means that the tranches distribute the portfolio credit risk
1073: between them. Another important property of $D(i)$ is that the
1074: expected loss rate $D[i,j]$ of the layer protection with attachment
1075: point $i$ and detachment point $j$ can be built up from $D(i)$ as
1076: \begin{equation}
1077: D[i,j]=\frac{1}{j-i+1}\sum_{n=i}^{j}D(i).
1078: \end{equation}
1079:
1080:
1081: \Fref{disorder2} shows the plots of $\Delta D(i)$ and of the ratio
1082: $\Delta D(i)/D(i)$ vs $i$.
1083: We see that the lower tranches'$(i\le 2)$ expected losses increase by $\Delta
1084: P_{d}$, which is reasonable. The default probability of
1085: half the assets of the portfolio increases $p\to p+\Delta P_{d}$
1086: and the expected losses of the subordinated tranches increase.
1087: For the senior tranches, the absolute value of $\Delta D(i)$
1088: decreases with $i$, however this does not mean that $\Delta P_{d}$
1089: does not have a small effect on them.
1090: The absolute value of $D(i)$ also decreases with $i$.
1091: From \Fref{disorder2}, we see that the ratio $\Delta D(i)/D(i)$
1092: does not necessarily
1093: decrease with $i$.
1094:
1095:
1096: \subsection{Multi Sector Case}
1097:
1098: To couple two or more MCB models,
1099: we consider a portfolio with $N$ assets, which are categorized in
1100: $K$ different sectors. \Fref{multi} sketches the structure of the portfolio.
1101: The $k$-th sector contains
1102: $N_{k}$ assets and the relation $\sum_{k=1}^{K}N_{k}=N$ holds.
1103: The states of the assets in the $k$-th sector is described by
1104: $X^{k}_{n_{k}} (n_{k}=1,\cdots,N_{k})$ and
1105: the default rate and default correlation are denoted as
1106: $p_{k}$ and $\rho_{k}$.
1107: For the inter-sector default correlation, we denote this as
1108: $\rho_{ij}$ for the default correlation between the $i-$th and $j-$th
1109: sector. The intra-sector default
1110: correlation and inter-sector default correlation are
1111: different and the former is larger than the latter in general
1112: \cite{Jobst}.
1113:
1114:
1115: \begin{figure}[h]
1116: \begin{center}
1117: \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0,clip]{cdo_port.eps}
1118: \caption{Structure of the portfolio.
1119: There are $K$ sectors and $k$-th sector contains $N_{k}$
1120: assets. The default probability and default correlation for
1121: the assets in the $k$-th sector is $p_{k},\rho_{k}$.
1122: The inter-sector default correlation between the $i-$th
1123: and $j$-th sector is $\rho_{ij}$.}
1124: \label{multi}
1125: \end{center}
1126: \end{figure}
1127:
1128:
1129: We have not yet succeeded in
1130: the coupling of three or more MCB models by generalizing the
1131: result for the coupled $N+M$ MCB model.
1132: The reason is that the self-consistency relations are very rigid
1133: restrictions on the MCB model. These relations, for which the two-sectors version
1134: is given by \eref{sc_2}, assure the
1135: independence of the order of the decomposition in the estimation
1136: of the expected values of the product of random variables.
1137: It is difficult to impose any simple relations on the conditional
1138: default probabilities that satisfy the self-consistency relations.
1139:
1140: In order to construct the joint default probabilities
1141: for the assets states $(\vec{x}^{1},\vec{x}^{2},\cdots,\vec{x}^{K})$,
1142: we do not glue together $K$ MCB models directly.
1143: Instead, as depicted in \fref{multi_2}, we glue multiple MCB models
1144: through one random variable $Y$. More concretely, we prepare
1145: $K$ sets of $N_{k}+1$ MCB models.
1146: $N_{k}+1$ MCB model is the $N_{k}$ MCB model
1147: coupled with $Y$. The probability of $P(Y=1)$ is written as $p_{y}$.
1148: We Introduce the following conditional default probabilities
1149: \begin{eqnarray}
1150: &p^{k}_{n_{k},0}=<X^{k}_{n_{k}+1}|
1151: \prod_{n_{k}^{'}=1}^{n_{k}}X^{k}_{n_{k}^{'}}=1>
1152: \hspace*{0.2cm}\mbox{and} \hspace*{0.2cm}
1153: p^{k}_{n_{k},1}=<X^{k}_{n_{k}+1}|
1154: \prod_{n_{k}^{'}=1}^{n_{k}}X^{k}_{n_{k}^{'}}\times Y=1>
1155: \nonumber \\
1156: &q^{k}_{n_{k}}=<Y|\prod_{n_{k}^{'}=1}^{n_{k}}X^{k}_{n_{k}^{'}}=1>.
1157: \end{eqnarray}
1158: We also impose the following conditions on
1159: $p^{k}_{n_{k},0},p^{k}_{n_{k},1}$ and
1160: $q^{k}_{n_{k}}$ as
1161: \begin{eqnarray}
1162: \mbox{Cor}(X^{k}_{n_{k}+1},X^{k}_{n_{k}+2}
1163: |\prod_{n_{k}^{'}=1}^{n_{k}}X^{k}_{n_{k}^{'}}=1)=
1164: \rho_{k}\exp(-n_{k} \lambda) \\
1165: \mbox{Corr}(X^{k}_{n_{k}+1},Y|
1166: \prod_{n_{k}^{'}=1}^{n_{k}}X^{k}_{n_{k}^{'}})=
1167: \rho_{ky}\exp(-n_{k} \lambda).
1168: \end{eqnarray}
1169: The joint default probabilities $P(\vec{x}^{k},y)$ and the conditional
1170: joint default probabilities $P^{k}(\vec{x}^{k}|y)$ are constructed
1171: as before.
1172: \begin{eqnarray}
1173: &&P(\vec{x}^{k},y)
1174: =<\prod_{n_{k}=1}^{N_{k}} (X^{k}_{n_{k}})^{x^{k}_{n_{k}}}
1175: (1-X^{k}_{n_{k}})^{1-x^{k}_{n_{k}}}\times Y^{y}(1-Y)^{1-y}>
1176: \\
1177: &&P(\vec{x}^{k},y)=P^{k}(\vec{x}^{k}|y)P(y).
1178: \end{eqnarray}
1179: Packing these conditional default probabilities $P^{k}(\vec{x}^{k}|y)$
1180: into a bundle, we construct the joint default probabilities for the
1181: total portfolio as
1182: \begin{equation}
1183: P(\vec{x}^{1},\vec{x}^{2},\cdots,\vec{x}^{K})=
1184: \sum_{y=0,1} p(y)\times
1185: \prod_{k=1}^{K}P(x^{k}_{1},x^{k}_{2},\cdots,x^{k}_{N_{k}}|y).
1186: \end{equation}
1187: We also obtain the default probability function
1188: $P_{N}(n_{1},n_{2},\cdots,n_{K})$ for
1189: $n_{k}$ default in the $k$-th sector as
1190: \begin{equation}
1191: P_{N}(n_{1},n_{2},\cdots,n_{K})=
1192: \sum_{y=0,1} p(y)\times \prod_{k=1}^{K}P_{N_{k}}(n_{k}|y)
1193: \end{equation}
1194: From the expression, it it easy to calculate the probability
1195: for $n$ defaults and we write it as $P_{N}(n)$.
1196:
1197: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1198: \begin{center}
1199: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{multi.eps}
1200: \caption{Gluing multiple MCB models with $Y$.
1201: The correlation between $X^{k}_{n_{k}}$ and $Y$ is $\rho_{ky}$.
1202: The default correlation between $X^{i}_{n_{i}}$ and $X^{j}_{n_{j}}$
1203: is given as $\rho_{ij}=\rho_{iy}\times \rho_{jy}$.
1204: }
1205: \label{multi_2}
1206: \end{center}
1207: \end{figure}
1208:
1209: For the default correlation between the different sectors, we can show the
1210: next relations.
1211: \begin{equation}
1212: \rho_{ij}=\rho_{iy}\times \rho_{jy}. \label{inter-sector}
1213: \end{equation}
1214: More generally, the conditional inter-sector default correlations obey
1215: the following relations.
1216: \begin{equation}
1217: \mbox{Cor}(X^{i}_{n_{i}+1},X^{j}_{n_{j}+1}|
1218: \prod_{n_{i}'=1}^{n_{i}}X^{i}_{n_{i}'}
1219: \prod_{n_{j}'=1}^{n_{j}}X^{j}_{n_{j}'}=1
1220: )=\rho_{ij}\exp(-(n_{i}+n_{j})
1221: \lambda) \label{inter-sector2}
1222: \end{equation}
1223: These relations mean that our construction procedure is natural
1224: from the viewpoint of the original MCB model. In particular, in the $K=2$ case,
1225: these relations are completely equivalent with those of the $N+M$ coupled
1226: MCB model. See \eref{corr_2} and
1227: \eref{inter-sector2}. The conditional default probabilities obey the
1228: same conditions.
1229:
1230: Furthermore, from the results on Max($\rho_{xy}$) of the $N+1$ MCB model,
1231: we see that the model can induce a realistic magnitude of
1232: the inter-sector default correlation.
1233: By choosing $\lambda$ and $p_{y}$ properly, it is possible to set
1234: $\rho_{ky}$ as large as several times of $\rho_{k}$.
1235:
1236:
1237:
1238: \begin{figure}[h]
1239: \begin{center}
1240: \includegraphics[width=12.0cm,angle=0,clip]{Max_rho_xy_vs_rho_30_003_03.eps}
1241: \caption{
1242: Plot of Max($\rho_{xy}$) vs $\rho$.
1243: $N=30$,$p_{x}=0.03$ and $\lambda=0.3$. }
1244: \label{max_rho_xy_vs_rho}
1245: \end{center}
1246: \end{figure}
1247:
1248: \Fref{max_rho_xy_vs_rho} plots Max$(\rho_{xy})$=Max($\rho_{ky}$)
1249: as functions of $\rho=\rho_{k}$. We set parameters as depicted in the
1250: figure. The solid line depicts the data for
1251: $r=\frac{p_{y}}{p_{x}}=3.0$. The other two curves correspond to
1252: $r=1.0$ ($+$) and $r=15.0$ ($\times$). We see that by setting $r=3.0$.
1253: it is possible to set $\rho_{ky}$ as large as several times of
1254: $\rho_{k}$. If the intra-sector correlation $\rho_{i}=\rho_{j}$ is $10\%$,
1255: we can set $\rho_{iy}=\rho_{jy}=20 \%$. The inter-sector correlations is
1256: then $\rho_{ij}=\rho_{iy}\times \rho_{jy}=4 \%$. In general,
1257: $\rho_{inter}$ is smaller that $\rho_{intra}$, we think that
1258: the present model can incorporate a strong enough inter-sector default
1259: correlation.
1260:
1261:
1262:
1263:
1264: To prove the relations
1265: \eref{inter-sector} and \eref{inter-sector2},
1266: in order to calculate the correlation, we need to estimate the
1267: next expression.
1268: \begin{equation}
1269: <X^{i}_{n_{i}+1}X^{j}_{n_{j}+1}|\prod_{i'=1}^{n_{i}}X^{i}_{i'}\prod_{j'=1}^{n_{j}}X^{j}_{j'}=1>.
1270: \end{equation}
1271: If we fix the random variable $Y$, $X^{i}_{n_{i}}$ and $X^{j}_{n_{j}}$
1272: are independent. They are coupled by $Y$ and the above equation
1273: is estimated by the average over $Y=0$ and $Y=1$ as
1274: \begin{eqnarray}
1275: &&
1276: <X^{i}_{n_{i}+1}X^{j}_{n_{j}+1}|
1277: \prod_{i'=1}^{n_{i}}X^{i}_{i'}\prod_{j'=1}^{n_{j}}X^{j}_{j'}=1>
1278: \nonumber \\
1279: &&=
1280: <X^{i}_{n_{i}+1}|\prod_{i'=1}^{n_{i}}X^{i}_{i'}=1,Y=1>
1281: <X^{j}_{n_{j}+1}|\prod_{j'=1}^{n_{j}}X^{j}_{j'}=1,Y=1>p_{y}
1282: \nonumber \\
1283: &&+
1284: <X^{i}_{n_{i}+1}|\prod_{i'=1}^{n_{i}}X^{i}_{i'}=1,Y=0>
1285: <X^{j}_{n_{j}+1}|\prod_{j'=1}^{n_{j}}X^{j}_{j'}=1,Y=0>(1-p_{y})
1286: \nonumber \\
1287: &&=p^{i}_{n_{i},1}p^{j}_{n_{j},1}
1288: p_{y}+\tilde{p}^{i}_{n_{i},0}\tilde{p}^{j}_{n_{j},0}(1-p_{y}). \label{corr_p}
1289: \end{eqnarray}
1290: Here, we denote the conditional default probabilities with the
1291: condition $Y=0$
1292: as $\tilde{p}^{i}_{n_{i},0}$,
1293: \begin{equation}
1294: \tilde{p}^{i}_{n_{i},0}=<X^{i}_{n_{i}+1}|
1295: \prod_{n_{i}^{'}=1}^{n_{i}}X^{i}_{n_{i}^{'}}\times (1-Y)=1>.
1296: \end{equation}
1297: Between $p^{i}_{n_{i},0}$ and $\tilde{p}^{i}_{n_{i},0}$, the next
1298: relation holds.
1299: \begin{equation}
1300: p^{i}_{n_{i},0}
1301: =p^{i}_{n_{i},1}p_{y}+\tilde{p}^{i}_{n_{i},0}(1-p_{y}).
1302: \end{equation}
1303: In addition, from the correlation between $X^{i}_{n_{i}}$ and $Y$,
1304: we also have the next relations.
1305: \begin{equation}
1306: p^{i}_{n_{i},1}p_{y}=p_{i,0}p_{y}+\rho_{xy}
1307: \sqrt{p_{i,0}(1-p_{i,0})p_{y}(1-p_{y})}
1308: \end{equation}
1309: Putting these relations into \eref{corr_p}, we can prove the next equations.
1310: \begin{eqnarray}
1311: &<X^{i}_{n_{i}+1}X^{j}_{n_{j}+1}
1312: |\prod_{i'=1}^{n_{i}}X^{i}_{i'}\prod_{j'=1}^{n_{j}}X^{j}_{j'}=1>
1313: \nonumber \\
1314: &=p^{i}_{n_{i},0}p^{j}_{n_{j},0}
1315: +\rho_{iy}\times \rho_{jy} \sqrt{p^{i}_{n_{i},0}(1-p^{i}_{n_{i},0})
1316: p^{j}_{n_{j},0}(1-p^{j}_{n_{j},0})} \times e^{-\lambda (n_{i}+n_{j})}
1317: \end{eqnarray}
1318: Using these relations, we calculate the
1319: inter-sector correlation and prove (\ref{inter-sector2}).
1320:
1321:
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1326: \begin{center}
1327: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{dP_compare_N1N_003_003_001_03.eps}
1328: \caption{Comparison of Two sector MCB model: Directly Coupled
1329: Model vs Coupled by Y Model $(p_{y}=0.5)$.
1330: Plot of $\Delta P(n)=P_{2N}(n)-P_{N+N}(n)$ vs $n/(2N))$.
1331: $N=5,10,20$,$p=\rho=0.03$ and $\lambda=0.3$.
1332: Upper three curves have $\rho_{xy}=0.01$
1333: and the bottom line with $\times$ symbol has $\rho_{xy}=0.02$. }
1334: \label{match}
1335: \end{center}
1336: \end{figure}
1337:
1338:
1339:
1340: Next we need to check the validity of the above gluing process.
1341: We consider the two sector case $K=2$ and their intra-sector parameters
1342: are set to be the same as $N$, $p$ and $\rho$ in each sector.
1343: For the inter-sector default
1344: correlation $\rho_{12}$, we set $\rho_{1y}^{2}=\rho_{2y}^{2}=\rho_{12}$
1345: in the above multi-sector model.
1346: If the glueing process of the multi-sector model works well,
1347: $P_{2N}(n)$ should coincide with $P_{N+N}(n)$ of the coupled
1348: $N+N$ MCB model in the
1349: previous subsection. \Fref{match} shows
1350: $\Delta P(n)=P_{2N}(n)-P_{N+N}(n)$ with $N=5,10,20$ and $\lambda=0.3$.
1351: We set $p=\rho=0.03$ and $\rho_{12}=0.01$.
1352: In addition we also plot the data for $\rho_{12}=0.02$ and $N=20$.
1353: As the system size $N$ becomes large, the discrepancy $\Delta P(n)$
1354: increases. With the same system size $N=20$, as the inter-sector
1355: correlation increases, the discrepancy also increases.
1356: As we have stated previously, these models obey the same
1357: conditions on the conditional default probabilities, however
1358: the default probability profile does not coincide. The glueing process by
1359: the auxiliary random variable $Y$ may cause changes to the joint
1360: probabilities. We have not yet fully understood this point.
1361:
1362:
1363:
1364: With the present model, we study the effects of the inhomogeneous
1365: default correlation $\rho_{inter}\neq \rho_{intra}$
1366: on the default distribution function
1367: $P_{N}(n)$ and the loss rates $D(i)$. We consider ideal portfolios
1368: which have the same default probability $p_{k}=p$ and default correlation
1369: $\rho_{k}=\rho$. The inter-sector default correlations are also set to
1370: be the same value as $\rho_{ij}=\rho_{inter}$. $N_{k}$ are also
1371: set to be the same $N_{k}=N_s$. We fix the total number of assets as $N
1372: $ and compare $P_{N}(n)$ and $D(i)$ between the portfolios with
1373: different number of sectors $K$. Of course, between $K$ and $N_{s}$ the relation
1374: $N=N_{s}\times K$ holds. We set $\rho_{inter} < \rho$.
1375: As the number $K$ increases, the average default correlation
1376: is governed by the inter-sector correlation $\rho_{inter}$ and becomes weak.
1377:
1378: At the extreme limit $K=N$ case, each sector contains
1379: only one asset. In the inter-sector default correlation,
1380: $P_{N}(n)$ is given by the superposition of $P_{N}(n|Y=1)$ and
1381: $P_{N}(n|Y=0)$. The conditional default probabilities $p^{k}_{1,0}$
1382: $p^{k}_{1,1}$ and $\tilde{p}^{k}_{1,0}$ are given as
1383: \begin{eqnarray}
1384: &p^{k}_{1,0}=p \hspace*{0.3cm} \mbox{and}\hspace*{0.3cm}
1385: p^{k}_{1,1}=p+
1386: \sqrt{\rho_{inter}}(1-p)
1387: \sqrt{\frac{p}{1-p}\frac{(1-p_{y})}{p_{y}}} \\
1388: &\tilde{p}^{k}_{1,0}=p-
1389: \sqrt{\rho_{inter}}\hspace*{0.1cm} p
1390: \sqrt{\frac{1-p}{p}\frac{p_{y}}{(1-p_{y})}} .
1391: \end{eqnarray}
1392: $P_{N}(n|Y=1)$ and $P_{N}(n|Y=0)$ are the binomial
1393: distributions Bin$(N,p^{k}_{1,1})$ and Bin$(N,\tilde{p}^{k}_{1,0})$.
1394:
1395:
1396:
1397: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1398: \begin{center}
1399: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{Log_P_Nd_multi_100_003_003_001_03.eps}
1400: \caption{Semi-log plot of $P_{N}(n)$ vs $n$.
1401: $N=100$, $K=2,10,100$, $p=\rho=0.03$, $\rho_{inter}=0.01$
1402: and $\lambda=0.3$. We set $p_{y}=0.5$.
1403: Solid line represents $K=1$ and $\rho=0.03$ case and the dotted line
1404: shows the curve for $K=1$ and $\rho=0.01$.}
1405: \label{multi_compare}
1406: \end{center}
1407: \end{figure}
1408:
1409:
1410:
1411: \Fref{multi_compare} shows the semi-log plot of the
1412: default probability $P_{N}(n)$ for $K=1,2,10,50,100$.
1413: We set the model parameters as $p=\rho=0.03$,
1414: $N=100$, $\rho_{inter}=0.01$ and $p_{y}=0.5$.
1415: The solid curve plots the data for $K=1$ and $\rho=0.03$ and the
1416: dotted line shows the data for $K=1$ and $\rho=0.01$. As $K$ increases,
1417: the data for each $K$ departs from the solid line. At $K=10$, the
1418: data almost shrinks on the dotted line ($K=1$ and $\rho=0.01$).
1419: The data for $K=50$ almost coincide with those of $K=100$, whose $P_{N}(n)$
1420: is given by the superposition of the two binomial distributions.
1421: This point is also a drawback of the present model.
1422: If the glueing process works perfectly, these data should
1423: coincide with the homogeneous portfolio case $K=1$ and $\rho=0.01$.
1424: However, this discrepancy is inherent property of the model.
1425: Contrary to the discrepancy in the two-sector case, the
1426: conditions on the conditional default probabilities
1427: $p^{k}_{n_{k},1}$ are different from those of the $K=1$ homogeneous
1428: portfolio. They could cause the difference in $P_{N}(n)$.
1429:
1430:
1431: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1432: \begin{center}
1433: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{dD_i_10_10_003_003_001_03.eps}
1434: \caption{
1435: Plot of $|\Delta D(i)|$ and $D(i)$ vs $i$.
1436: $\Delta D(i)$ are between $\rho=0.01,0.05$ and $\rho=0.03$.
1437: $N=100$, $K=2,10,100$, $p=0.03$, $\rho_{inter}=0.01$
1438: and $\lambda=0.3$. We set $p_{y}=0.5$.
1439: The solid curve shows the data of $D(i)$ with $\rho=0.03$.}
1440: \label{multi_compare_2}
1441: \end{center}
1442: \end{figure}
1443:
1444: From the above discussions on $P_{N}(n)$ with different $K$,
1445: we think that the inter-sector default correlation $\rho_{inter}$
1446: is more important than
1447: the intra-sector default correlation $\rho$ in cases of a large $K$.
1448: In the $K=10$ case, the $P_{N}(n)$ are roughly given by those of
1449: the homogeneous portfolio with $\rho=\rho_{inter}$.
1450: If one estimates the implied values of $\rho$ and $\rho_{inter}$
1451: from the premium (or $D(i)$) of the portfolio with large $K$,
1452: this point is crucial.
1453: In \Fref{multi_compare_2}, we show $|\Delta D(i)|$
1454: for $K=10$ between
1455: $\rho=0.01,0.05$ and $\rho=0.03$.
1456: We set the model parameters as in the previous figure.
1457: For comparison, we also plot $D(i)$ for $\rho=0.03$.
1458: $D(i)$ represents the expected loss rate of the $i$-th tranche,
1459: the magnitude of $|\Delta D(i)|$ is important when one estimates
1460: the implied default correlation $\rho$ from the premium of the tranche.
1461: We see that $|\Delta D(i)|$ with small $i$ is small as compared with
1462: $D(i)$.
1463: If we change $\rho$ from $\rho=0.03$, $D(i)$ does not change significantly.
1464: It is difficult to obtain the implied values of $\rho$ from
1465: the premium of the tranche with lower seniority.
1466: In contrast with medium values of $i \simeq 13$,
1467: the magnitudes of $D(i)$ and $\Delta D(i)$ are almost comparable.
1468: $D(i)$ is sensitive to the change in $\rho$ and
1469: it is not difficult to derive the implied value of $\rho$.
1470:
1471:
1472:
1473:
1474:
1475:
1476: \section{Implied Default Correlation}
1477: \label{implied_c}
1478:
1479: In the last section, as a concrete example, we try to
1480: estimate the implied values of the default correlation
1481: from the premium of a synthetic CDO.
1482: We treat iTraxx-CJ (Series 2), which is an equally weighted portfolio
1483: of 50 CDSs on Japanese companies. The standard attachment points
1484: and detachment points are $\{0,3\%\}$,$\{3\%,6\%\}$,$\{6\%,9\%\}$,$
1485: \{9\%,12\%\}$ and $\{12\%,22\%\}$. Table \ref{premium} shows quotes
1486: on July 5,2005. The quote for the $\{0\%,3\%\}$ transhe shows the
1487: upfront payment (as a percent of principal) that must be paid in
1488: addition to 300 basis points per year. The other quotes for the other
1489: tranches are the annual payment rates in basis points per year.
1490: The index indicates the cost of entering into a CDS on all 50 companies
1491: underlying the index. The recovery rate $R$ is $0.35$.
1492:
1493:
1494:
1495: \begin{table}[hbtp]
1496: \begin{center}
1497: \caption{Quotes for iTraxx-CJ Tranches on July 5, 2005.
1498: Quotes for the $\{0,3\%\}$ tranche are the percent of the principal that
1499: must be paid up front in addition to 300 basis points per year.
1500: Quotes for other tranches and the index are in basis points.
1501: Source: Morgan Stanley Japan Securities Co. and Bloomberg
1502: }
1503: \vspace*{0.4cm}
1504: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
1505: & $\{0,3\%\}$ & $\{3\%,6\%\}$ & $\{6\%,9\%\}$ & $\{9\%,12\%\}$ &
1506: $\{12\%,22\%\}$ & Index \\
1507: \hline
1508: 5-year Quotes & 15.75 & 113.25 & 42.0 & 30.5 & 15.5 & 24.55 \\
1509: \hline
1510: \end{tabular}
1511: \label{premium}
1512: \end{center}
1513: \end{table}
1514:
1515: In order to get the implied default correlation for each
1516: tranche,
1517: it is necessary to
1518: relate the loss distribution function $P_{N}(n)$ to the premiums. The
1519: premiums are the present value of the expected cash flows.
1520: The calculation of this present value involves three terms \cite{Hull4}.
1521: We denote by $P_{k}(a_{L},a_{H})$ the remaining notional for the
1522: $\{a_{L},a_{H}\}$ tranche after
1523: $k$ defaults. It is given as
1524: \begin{equation}
1525: P_{k}(a_{L},a_{H})=
1526: \left\{
1527: \begin{array}{cc}
1528: (a_{H}-a_{L})N & k< \lceil a_{L}N /(1-R) \rceil \\
1529: a_{H}N-k(1-R) & \lceil a_{L}N/(1-R) \rceil \le
1530: k \le \lceil
1531: a_{H}N/(1-R) \rceil \\
1532: 0 & k \ge \lceil a_{H}N/(1-R)) \rceil \\
1533: \end{array}
1534: \right.
1535: \end{equation}
1536: Here, $\lceil x \rceil$ means the smallest integer greater than $x$.
1537: For simplicity,
1538: we treat the 5-year as one period. The three terms are written as
1539: \begin{eqnarray}
1540: A=5.0 \times <P_{k}(a_{L},a_{H})>e^{-5.0r} \nonumber \\
1541: B=2.5 \times ((a_{H}-a_{L})N-<P_{k}(a_{L},a_{H})>)e^{-r\frac{5}{2}}
1542: \nonumber \\
1543: C=((a_{H}-a_{L})N-<P_{k}(a_{L},a_{H})>)e^{-r\frac{5}{2}}
1544: \end{eqnarray}
1545: where $r$ is the risk-free rate of interest and we set $r=0.01$.
1546: By considering the total value of the contract, one can see that
1547: the break even spread is given as $C/(A+B)$.
1548:
1549: For the index, $a_{H}=1.0$ and $a_{L}=0.0$ and it is possible
1550: to estimate the average default probability $p$. Instead, we use
1551: the CDS data for each company and estimate the average default
1552: probability $p$ and its dispersion
1553: $\Delta P_{d}$ as
1554: \[
1555: p=1.8393 \% / \mbox{5-year}
1556: \hspace*{0.5cm}
1557: \Delta P_{d}=1.131 \% / \mbox{5-year}.
1558: \]
1559:
1560: With these parameters, the tranche correlations can be implied
1561: from the spreads quoted in the market for particular tranches.
1562: These correlations are known as tranche correlations or compound correlations.
1563: As a pricing model, we use MCB, BBD and Gaussian
1564: copula models. For MCB, we use the following candidates.
1565: \begin{itemize}
1566: \item Original MCB model (MCB1). $N=50,K=1$ and $\lambda=0.0$.
1567: \item Short tail MCB model (MCB2). $N=50,K=1$ and $\lambda=0.3$.
1568: \item Short tail MCB model (MCB3). $N=50,K=1$ and
1569: $\lambda=0.6$.
1570:
1571: \item Disordered MCB model (MCB4). $N=25+25$,$\lambda=0.3$,
1572: $\rho_{xy}=\rho_{x}=\rho_{y}=\rho$ and
1573: $p_{x}=p+\Delta P_{d},p_{y}=p-\Delta P_{d}$. $N+M$ MCB model with
1574: inhomogeneous default probability.
1575: \item Two-sector MCB model (MCB5). $K=2$,$\rho_{x}=\rho_{y}=\rho,p_{x}=p_{y}=p$ and
1576: $\rho_{xy}=0.0$. Assets are categorized in $2$ sectors and $\rho_{inter}=0.0$.
1577: \end{itemize}
1578:
1579:
1580:
1581:
1582:
1583:
1584: \begin{table}[hbtp]
1585: \caption{Implied tranche correlation (\%) for 5-year iTraxx-CJ on July 5,2005.}
1586: \vspace*{0.5cm}
1587:
1588: \begin{center}
1589: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
1590: Tranches & MCB 1 &MCB 2 & MCB 3 & MCB 4& MCB5 &BBD & Gaussian \\
1591: \hline
1592: $\{0\%,3\%\}$ & 11.79 & 10.8 & 9.96 & 12.88 & 21.2 & 11.4 & 13.8 \\
1593: $\{3\%,6\%\}$ & 1.27 & 1.18 & 1.13 & 1.36 & 2.45 & 1.26 & 1.35 \\
1594: $\{6\%,9\%\}$ & 3.16 & 3.08 & 3.09 & 3.46 & 6.32 & 3.15 & 3.23 \\
1595: $\{9\%,12\%\}$ & 6.16 & 5.95 & 5.90 & 6.65 & 12.15 & 6.11 & 6.31 \\
1596: $\{12\%,22\%\}$ & 9.78 & 9.67 & 9.90 & 10.67 & 19.97 & 9.73 & 9.46 \\
1597: \hline
1598: \end{tabular}
1599: \label{implied}
1600: \end{center}
1601: \end{table}
1602:
1603:
1604: Table \ref{implied} shows implied tranche correlations for the 5-year
1605: quotes in Table \ref{premium}.
1606: We see a ``Correlation
1607: Smile'', which is a typical behavior of implied correlations
1608: across portfolio tranches \cite{Andersen}.
1609:
1610: We also find that the implied correlations are different
1611: among the models.
1612: For MCB, models with a larger $\lambda$
1613: have a smaller correlation skew. The correlation
1614: for $\{0\%,3\%\}$ decreases with $\lambda$ and other correlations
1615: do not change significantly. If a probabilistic model describe the true default
1616: distribution, there should not exist any correlation skew.
1617: As a model approaches the true distribution, we can expect that the
1618: skew decreases. MCB3 is more faithful to the true
1619: default distribution. The skew of BBD is between MCB 1 and MCB 2, which
1620: is reasonable because the profile of BBD is between MCB1 and MCB2 (
1621: see \fref{Dist}).
1622: Gaussian copula's skew range is larger than
1623: MCB 1, MCB 2, MCB 3 and BBD.
1624:
1625: About the effect of $\Delta P_{d}$,
1626: the implied correlations are considerably
1627: different between $\Delta
1628: P_{d} \neq 0$ (MCB 4) and $\Delta P_{d}=0.0$ (MCB 2).
1629: In the estimation of the implied correlation, we cannot neglect the
1630: fluctuation $\Delta P_{d}$. In particular, for the tranches
1631: $\{0\%,3\%\}$, the implied value is affected greatly by $\Delta P_{d}$.
1632: As has been discussed in \cite{Finger2}, the increase in the
1633: dispersion of the default probability increases the loss in the equity tranche.
1634: It is necessary to increase the implied correlation to match with the market
1635: quote.
1636:
1637:
1638:
1639: In the case $K=2$ (MCB5), the correlation level and correlation
1640: skew are very large.
1641: This means that if assets are categorized in many sectors and
1642: inter-sector correlation is very weak, the loss distribution
1643: accumulates around the origin $n=0$.
1644: In order to match with the market quote, a
1645: large intra-sector correlation
1646: is necessary.
1647:
1648:
1649: For the estimation of the model parameter $\lambda$, we think that the
1650: resulting loss distribution should look closer to the implied
1651: loss distribution. That is, the range of tranche correlation skew should be
1652: small. \Fref{Tranche} shows the tranche correlation vs $\lambda$.
1653: As we increase $\lambda$, the skew range becomes small.
1654: At $\lambda \simeq 0.61$, the range becomes minimal.
1655: We should calibrate $\lambda$ to be $\lambda=0.61 \sim 0.62$.
1656:
1657:
1658: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1659: \begin{center}
1660: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{Tranche_Corr_vs_Lambda.eps}
1661: \caption{Range pf implied tranche correlation for 5-year iTraxx-CJ on July 5, 2005
1662: vs $\lambda$.}
1663: \label{Tranche}
1664: \end{center}
1665: \end{figure}
1666:
1667:
1668:
1669:
1670: \section{Concluding Remarks}
1671: \label{conclusion}
1672:
1673:
1674:
1675:
1676: In this paper, we generalize Moody's correlated binomial
1677: default distribution to the inhomogeneous portfolio cases.
1678: As the inhomogeneity, we consider the non-uniformity in the
1679: default probability $p$ and in the default correlation $\rho$ and
1680: $\rho_{inter}$. To treat the former case, we construct a coupled
1681: $N+M$ MCB model
1682: and obtain the default probability function $P_{N+M}(n)$.
1683: The inhomogeneity in $p$ causes changes
1684: in the expected loss rates of the tranches with lower seniority.
1685:
1686: In order to treat the inhomogeneity
1687: in the default correlation,
1688: we construct a multi-sector MCB model by glueing multiple MCB
1689: models by an auxiliary
1690: random variable $Y$. We cannot take out the joining lines between the MCB
1691: models, for small portfolio and small $\rho_{inter}$, the
1692: construction works well. For the inhomogeneity in $\rho$, we
1693: divide a homogeneous portfolio into $K$ sectors.
1694: We set $\rho_{inter} <\rho=\rho_{intra}$
1695: and see the effect of the increase in $K$
1696: on $P_{N}(n)$. As the sector number $K$
1697: increases, the inter-sector correlation $\rho_{inter}$ becomes
1698: more important than the intra-sector default correlation $\rho$.
1699: With large $K$, the default correlation is governed by $\rho_{inter}$
1700: only. The CDOs, whose assets are categorized in many sectors,
1701: $\rho_{inter}$ should be treated more carefully than $\rho=\rho_{intra}$.
1702:
1703:
1704:
1705: In order to check the validity of the MCB model and our generalization
1706: method, more careful treatment and calibration should be done.
1707: We assume that $\rho_{n}$ decays exponentially with $n$.
1708: With such a modification, the skew of the
1709: correlations diminishes, however, the skew remains significantly.
1710: Other models for $\rho_{n}$ should be considered. For this purpose, it is
1711: necessary
1712: to study the implied loss distribution directly.
1713: Recently, Hull and White \cite{Hull3,Hull4} developed
1714: a method to derive the implied loss distribution and to obtain
1715: the implied copula function from the market quotes of CDOs.
1716: The authors proposed a calibration method for $\rho_{n}$
1717: from the implied loss function \cite{Mori2}.
1718: By incorporating this information in the MCB model's framework,
1719: we may have a
1720: ``Perfect'' correlated binomial default distribution model
1721: which reflects market quotes completely. We think that
1722: our generalization method provides important information
1723: based directly on the market quotes.
1724:
1725:
1726:
1727: \section{Acknowledgement}
1728:
1729:
1730: This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Education,
1731: Science, Sports and Culture, Grant-in-Aid for
1732: Challenging Exploratory Research ,21654054, 2009.
1733:
1734:
1735:
1736:
1737:
1738:
1739:
1740: \Bibliography{999}
1741:
1742: \bibitem{Fabozzi} Fabozzi, F. J. and L. S. Goodman, 2001 {\it Investing in
1743: Collateralized Debt Obligations}, U.S. John Wiley \& Sons.
1744:
1745: \bibitem{Schonbucher} Sch\"{o}nbucher, P. ,2003,{\it Credit Derivatives
1746: Pricing Models : Model, Pricing and Implementation} , U.S. John Wiley \& Sons.
1747:
1748: \bibitem{Duffie2} Duffie, D. and K.J.Singleton, 2003,
1749: {\it Credit Risk-Pricing, Measurement and Management} (Princeton : Princeton
1750: University Press).
1751:
1752:
1753: \bibitem{Hull} Hull, J., M. Predescu and A. White, 2005,
1754: {\it The Valuation of Correlation-Dependent Credit Derivatives Using a
1755: Structural Model}, Working Paper, University of Toronto.
1756:
1757: \bibitem{Finger2} Finger, C. C., 2005,{\it Issues in the Pricing of Synthetic
1758: CDOs}, Journal of Credit Risk, {\bf1(1)}.
1759:
1760:
1761: \bibitem{Cifuentes} Cifuettes, A. and G. O'Connor, 1996, {\it
1762: The Binomial Expansion Method Applied
1763: to CBO/CLO Analysis}, Working Paper (Moody's Investors Service).
1764:
1765: \bibitem{Martin} Martin, R. , Thompson, K. and C. Browne, 2001,{\it How
1766: dependent are defaults}, Risk Magazine,{\bf 14(7)} 87-90.
1767:
1768: \bibitem{Finger} Finger, C. C., 2000,{\it A Comparison of stochastic default
1769: rate models}, Working Paper (The RiskMetrics Group).
1770:
1771: \bibitem{Duffie} Duffie, D. and N. G\^{a}rleau, 2001,{\it Risk and
1772: the Valuation of Collateralized Debt Obligation}, Financial Analyst
1773: Journal {\bf 57(1)} 41-59.
1774:
1775: \bibitem{Li} Li, D. ,2000,{\it On Default Correlation: a Copula Approach},
1776: {\it The Journal of Fixed Income} {\bf 9(4)} 43.
1777:
1778: \bibitem{Vasicek} Vasicek, O.,1987,{\it Probability of Loss on Loan Portfolio}
1779: , Working Paper (KMV Corporation).
1780:
1781: \bibitem{Schonbucher2} Sch\"{o}nbucher, P. and D. Schubert, 2001,{\it
1782: Copula Dependent Default Risk in Intensity Models},
1783: Working paper (Bonn University).
1784:
1785: \bibitem{Andersen} Andersen, L., J.Sidenius and S.Basu, 2003, {\it All your
1786: Hedges in one Basket},RISK, 67-72.
1787:
1788: \bibitem{Davis} Davis, M. and V. Lo ,{\it Infectious defaults},
1789: Quantitative Finance, 1, 382-387.
1790:
1791: \bibitem{Zhou} Zhou, C. , 2001, {\it An analysis of default correlation
1792: and multiple defaults}, Review of Financial Studies {\bf 4},555-576.
1793:
1794: \bibitem{Laurent} Laurent J-P. and J. Gregory, 2003, {\it
1795: Basket Default Swaps, CDO's and Factor Copulas}, Journal of Risk{\bf
1796: 7(4)},103-122.
1797:
1798: \bibitem{CR} CREDIT-SUISSE-FINANCIAL-PRODUCTS, 1997, {\it
1799: CreditRisk${}^{+}$ a Credit Risk Management Framework}, Technical Document.
1800:
1801: \bibitem{Frey1} Frey, R. , Mcneil, A. and M. Nyfeler, 2001,{
1802: \it Copulas and Credit Models}, Risk, October, 111-113.
1803:
1804: \bibitem{Frey2} Frey, R. and A. McNeil, 2002,{\it
1805: VaR and Expected Shortfall in Portfolios of Dependent Credit Risks:
1806: Conceptual and Practical Insights},
1807: Journal of Banking and Finance, 1317-1344.
1808:
1809:
1810:
1811: \bibitem{Witt} Witt, G. ,2004, {\it Moody's Correlated Binomial Default
1812: Distribution}, Working Paper (Moody's Investors Service) {\bf August 10}.
1813:
1814: \bibitem{Molins} Molins, J. and E.Vives, 2004,{\it Long range Ising Model for
1815: credit risk modeling in homogeneous portfolios},
1816: Preprint arXiv:cond-mat/0401378.
1817:
1818: \bibitem{Mori} Kitsukawa, K., Mori, S. and M. Hisakado,2006,{\it Evaluation of
1819: Tranche in Securitization and Long-range Ising Model},
1820: Physica {\bf A 368} 191-206.
1821:
1822: \bibitem{Hisakado} Hisakado, M, Kitsukawa, K. and S. Mori ,2006,{\it
1823: Correlated Binomial Models and Correlation Structures},
1824: J.Phys. {\bf A39} 15365.
1825:
1826: \bibitem{Mori2} Mori, S, Kitsukawa, K. and M. Hisakado, 2008,
1827: {\it
1828: Correlation Structures of Correlated Binomial Models and
1829: Implied Default Distribution}, J.Phys.Soc.Jpn {\bf 77},vol.11,114802-114808.
1830:
1831:
1832: \bibitem{SP} Standard \& Poor's CreditPro 7.00, 2005.
1833:
1834:
1835: \bibitem{Lucas} Lucas, D., J, 1995,
1836: {\it Default Correlation and Credit Analysis}, Journal of
1837: Fixed Income, March, 76.
1838:
1839:
1840: \bibitem{Jobst}Jobst, N. J. and A. de Servigny, 2005,{\it An Empirical
1841: Analysis of Equity Default Swaps (II): Multivariate insights},
1842: Working Paper (S\&P).
1843:
1844: \bibitem{Hull3} Hull, J. and A. White, 2005,{\it The Perfect Copula}, Working
1845: Paper,(University of Toronto).
1846:
1847: \bibitem{Hull4} Hull, J. and A. White, 2006,{\it Valuing Credit Derivatives Using
1848: an Implied Copula Approach}, Working Paper (University of Toronto).
1849:
1850:
1851: \endbib
1852:
1853: \end{document}
1854:
1855:
1856:
1857:
1858:
1859:
1860:
1861:
1862:
1863:
1864:
1865:
1866:
1867:
1868: