MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387595473 · doi:10.1002/fut.22465

Leveraging prices from credit and equity option markets for portfolio risk management

2023· article· en· W4387595473 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐François Bégin, Mathieu Boudreault, Mathieu Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Futures Markets · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyUniversité du Québec à MontréalSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCredit riskCredit default swapiTraxxCredit default swap indexCredit derivativeCredit valuation adjustmentLeverage (statistics)BusinessEquity (law)Volatility (finance)PortfolioFinancial economicsMonetary economicsEconomicsActuarial scienceFinanceCredit reference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study presents a firm‐specific methodology for extracting implied default intensities and recovery rates jointly from unit recovery claim prices—backed by out‐of‐the‐money put options—and credit default swap premiums, therefore providing time‐varying and market‐consistent views of credit risk at the individual level. We apply the procedure to about 400 firms spanning different sectors of the US economy between 2003 and 2019. The main determinants of default intensities and recovery rates are analyzed with statistical and machine learning methods linking default risk and credit losses to market, sector, and individual variables. Consistent with the literature, we find that individual volatility, leverage, and corporate bond market determinants are key factors explaining the implied default intensities and recovery rates. Then, we apply the framework in the context of credit risk management in applications, like, market‐consistent credit value‐at‐risk calculation and stress testing.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Futures MarketsSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207