MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101593446 · doi:10.3905/jod.2004.450964

Valuation of a CDO and an <i>n</i> -th to Default CDS Without Monte Carlo Simulation

2004· article· en· W2101593446 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Hull, Alan White

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Derivatives · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollateralized debt obligationCredit derivativeCredit default swapCopula (linguistics)Credit riskMonte Carlo methodSynthetic CDOValuation (finance)EconometricsCredit valuation adjustmentiTraxxActuarial scienceComputer sciencePortfolioProbability of defaultDerivative (finance)Systemic riskEconomicsFinancial economicsMathematicsAccountingFinanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the new credit derivative products are based on default experience for a portfolio of financial instruments. These include collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and similar tranched credit products, and “n-th to default swaps.” Devising good default risk models for single-name credits has been challenging enough, but applying them to credit portfolios introduces much greater complexity, because of the critical importance of correlation. The most common valuation technology is Monte Carlo simulation, but with many bonds, each of which is subject to both correlated and idiosyncratic risk factors, the simulation is time-consuming and limited in scope. In this article, Hull and White offer two straightforward approximation techniques for evaluating default risk within the industry-standard “copula“ model that eliminate simulation of the idiosyncratic risks. Their approach greatly accelerates the solution while still allowing a large degree of flexibility in the choice of factor correlation structure and probability distributions. For example, Student-t distributed shocks that have fatter tails than the normal are easily accommodated.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations509
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of DerivativesSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207