MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084547039 · doi:10.1142/s0219024909005646

CREDIT RISK MODELING USING TIME-CHANGED BROWNIAN MOTION

2009· article· en· W2084547039 on OpenAlexaff
T. R. Hurd

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit default swapCredit derivativeStochastic volatilityValuation (finance)Geometric Brownian motionCredit riskBrownian motionRange (aeronautics)EconometricsEconomicsPortfolioVolatility (finance)Mathematical economicsApplied mathematicsMathematicsComputer scienceDiffusion processFinancial economicsActuarial scienceFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the interplay between structural and reduced form credit models, we propose to model the firm value process as a time-changed Brownian motion that may include jumps and stochastic volatility effects, and to study the first passage problem for such processes. We are lead to consider modifying the standard first passage problem for stochastic processes to capitalize on this time change structure and find that the distribution functions of such "first passage times of the second kind" are efficiently computable in a wide range of useful examples. Thus this new notion of first passage can be used to define the time of default in generalized structural credit models. Formulas for defaultable bonds and credit default swaps are given that are both efficiently computable and lead to realistic spread curves. Finally, we show that by treating joint firm value processes as dependent time changes of independent Brownian motions, one can obtain multifirm credit models with rich and plausible dynamics and enjoying the possibility of efficient valuation of portfolio credit derivatives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207