Pricing Default Events : Surprise, Exogeneity and Contagion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to derive closed-form expressions of the prices of credit derivatives, standard credit-risk models typically price the default intensities, but not the default events themselves. The default indicator is replaced by an appropriate prediction and the prediction error, that is the default-event surprise, is neglected. Our paper develops an approach to get closed-form expressions for the prices of credit derivatives written on multiple names without neglecting default-event surprises. This approach differs from the standard one, since the default counts necessarily cause the factor process under the risk-neutral probability, even if this is not the case under the historical probability. This implies that the standard exponential pricing formula of default does not apply. Using the US bond data, we show that allowing for the pricing of default events has important implications in terms of both data-fitting and model-implied physical probabilities of default. In particular, it may provide a solution to the credit spread puzzle. Besides, we show how our approach can be used to account for the propagation of defaults on the prices of 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".