MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111514894 · doi:10.3905/jod.2006.650197

Credit Spread Option Valuation under GARCH

2006· article· en· W2111514894 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Derivatives · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityEconometricsMean reversionValuation (finance)Stochastic volatilityEconomicsBondValuation of optionsVolatility (finance)Embedded optionActuarial scienceFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the stochastic behavior of credit spreads and devising models for derivatives with credit spreads as underliers grows increasingly important every day. Mean reversion in spreads is clearly evident in the data, as is time-varying volatility. In this paper, Tahani models credit spreads using a mean-reverting GARCH framework. Adopting Heston and Nandi9s GARCH specification allows closed-form option valuation formulas to be obtained by inversion of the characteristic function. Moreover, Tahani9s model contains the Longstaff-Schwartz spread model as a special case. The model is then taken to the data, by fitting it to the credit spreads between Moody9s Aaa and Baa bond yields and U.S. Treasuries. The GARCH specification fits that data well, and the GARCH option model calibrated to the bond yields exhibits the same kinds of unusual behavior (e.g., option prices below intrinsic values, in some cases) as Longstaff and Schwartz found with their more restricted model. <b>TOPICS:</b>Options, statistical methods

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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.205 · 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