MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123848600 · doi:10.3905/jod.2000.319115

Valuing Credit Default Swaps I

2000· article· en· W3123848600 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 · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit default swapIssuerCredit derivativeiTraxxCredit default swap indexEmbedded optionCredit riskCredit valuation adjustmentBondValuation (finance)Credit spread (options)Bond valuationBusinessEconomicsFinancial economicsActuarial scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the fastest growing areas of both derivatives trading and research right now is in contracts based on credit risk. The credit default swap is a standard instrument, offering the possibility of hedging against default by the issuer of an underlying bond. Several existing valuation methodologies differ in their assumptions about the payoff in case of a credit event. In this article, Hull and White present an approach based on the realistic assumption that the amount bondholders will claim in a default is based on the difference between the bond&’s post-default market value and its face value. An important contribution of this article is to use the term structure of risk-neutral implied default probabilities obtained from market prices for a set of bonds of the same issuer. The dependence of swap values on assumed recovery rates and the shape of the yield curve are explored.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.201 · 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