arxiv: v1 [q-fin.mf] 17 May 2016

Transcription

1 Wrong-Way Risk Models: A Comparison of Analyical Exposures Frédéric VRINS arxiv:165.51v1 [q-fin.mf] 17 May 216 Louvain School of Managemen & CORE Universié caholique de Louvain May 18, 216 Absrac In his paper, we compare saic and dynamic (reduced form) approaches for modeling wrong-way risk in he conex of CVA. Alhough all hese approaches poenially suffer from arbirage problems, hey are popular (respecively) in indusry and academia, mainly due o analyical racabiliy reasons. We complee he sochasic inensiy models wih anoher dynamic approach, consising in he sraigh modeling of he survival (Azéma supermaringale) process using he Φ-maringale. Jus like he oher approaches, his mehod allows for auomaic calibraion o a given defaul probabiliy curve. We derive analyically he posiive exposures V + condiional upon defaul associaed o prooypical marke price processes of FRA and IRS in all cases. We furher discuss he link beween he defaul condiion and change-of-measure echniques. The expecaion of V + condiional upon τ = is equal o he uncondiional expecaion of V + ζ. The process ζ is explicily derived in he dynamic approaches: i is proven o be posiive and o have uni expecaion. Unforunaely however, i fails o be a maringale, so ha Girsanov machinery canno be used. Neverheless, he expecaion of V + ζ can be compued explicily, leading o analyical expeced posiive exposure profiles in he considered examples. Conac informaion: Chaussée de Binche 151, Office A.212, B-7 Mons, Belgium. frederic.vrins@uclouvain.be. We hank he CVA desk of ING Bank for providing us wih daa for calibraing exposure profiles. 1

2 1 Inroducion An imporan facor driving he price of derivaives is counerpary risk. The counerpary risk-free price given by compuing he risk-neural expeced value of discouned fuure cashflows needs o be adjused by he so-called Credi Value Adjusmen, or CVA. The laer aims a capuring he value of he losses resuling from he defaul of he ransacion s counerpary. Is calculaion involves condiional expecaions. The associaed condiion refers o he fac ha we are ineresed in porfolio value given defaul: i capures he hybrid credi/marke dependency. This marke-credi relaionship is commonly referred o as wrong-way risk (WWR). Depending on he considered porfolio, WWR can be very significan; he self-speaking example being when one is long a call (righ-way) or a pu (wrong-way) on counerpary s own sock. Alhough counerpary risk in general and CVA in paricular is receiving much more aenion since he financial crisis and he bankrupcy of Lehman Brohers, he modeling of he WWR effec remains a difficul problem. In he financial indusry, mos of he exising models rely on saic or dynamic copulas (Gregory (21), Sokol (211a), Cepedes e al. (21)) while he problem is generally ackled quie differenly by academics, who ypically prefer a dynamic seup based on sochasic inensiy approaches (Hull and Whie (212), Brigo e al. (213)). Specific mehods have also been developed o handle CVA on Credi Defaul Swaps or bilaeral counerpary risk managemen where he problem of simulaneous defauls become relevan (see Brigo e al. (213) and references herein, and in paricular he work of Crépey, Jeanblanc, Bielecki and co-auhors in ha respec, for example Assefa e al. (Forhcoming)). Surprisingly however, no model comparison have been proposed so far wih respec o he WWR expeced posiive exposure (EPE) profiles and CVA levels. Moreover, exising coninuous models focus on eiher of he above approaches, whils oher alernaives can be hough of. Anoher aspec ha is worh invesigaing is wheher he WWR condiion in he expecaion can be deal wih using change-ofmeasure echniques. Indeed, a condiional expecaion is nohing bu an expecaion wih respec o he condiional densiy, and one may wonder wheher such echniques combined wih Girsanov heorem could help o decrease he dimensionaliy of he problem. The goal of his paper is o fill his gap by looking a he impac of hybrid correlaion on WWR EPE profiles, as well as on CVA levels on prooypical exposure pahs for boh saic and sochasic inensiy models. We also derive a new dynamic modeling seup based on he Φ-maringale, which is a racable maringale evolving in [, 1]. We show ha i behaves similarly han he copula approach in ha he correlaion impac is much more pronounced han ha produced by sochasic inensiy models. 2

3 The paper is organized as follows. We firs recall he pricing formula for CVA and sress he WWR effec. We hen review he mechanics of he saic (copula-based resampling) models in Secion 2.1. In Secion 2.2, we inroduce wo dynamic approcahes for WWR. We firs recall he inensiy paradigm for credi risk modeling before inroducing a new seup, ha we call he maringale approach. We hen inroduce in Secion 3 wo schemes aiming a modeling in a prooypical way he exposures of a Foward Rae Agreemen (FRA) and of an Ineres Rae Swap (IRS). For each of hem, he WWR exposures are derived in boh saic (Secion 3.2) and dynamic (Secion 3.3) models. Finally, a comparison among resampling, sochasic inensiy and maringale approaches is performed in Secion CVA and Wrong-Way Risk Models Our saring poin is he expression of he Credi Valuaion Adjusmen (CVA), expressed as he presen value of he non-recovered losses of a derivaive porfolio resuling from counerpary s defaul 1 Gregory (21); Brigo e al. (213): CV A := E[V + τ 1I {τ T } ]. (2.1) In his expression, E sands for he expecaion under he risk-neural measure Q, V denoes he numéraire-adjused (i.e. discouned) value of he derivaive porfolio a ime, T is he porfolio mauriy, τ he random variable sanding for he counerpary s defaul ime and 1I {ω} is he indicaor funcion, which is 1 if ω is rue and zero oherwise. We refer o he discouned price process V as he uncondiional exposure process. This expression can be rewrien by firs condiioning on he defaul ime of he counerpary and hen inegrae ou he laer using counerpary s survival probabiliy curve G() := Q{τ > }, deerminisically given by he prevailing available marke informaion 2 : T T CV A = E[V + τ = ]dg() = E[V + τ = ]h()g()d (2.2) where, in he las expression, we have made he usual assumpion ha τ is riggered by he firs jump of a ime-inhomogeneous Poisson process wih deerminisic hazard rae funcion h() > : G() := e h(s)ds =: 1 Ḡ(). (2.3) 1 We have implicily assumed ha counerpary s recovery rae is zero in order o keep noaions simple, bu his assumpion can easily been relaxed by rescaling he above expression. Similarly, we have disregarded he possibiliy for he financial insiuion o defaul as well ha is, focus on unilaeral CVA. 2 We assumed ha (V, τ) admis a join densiy f V,τ and he densiy f τ of τ is sricly posiive on R + so ha E[V + 1 τ = ] = f τ () xf V,τ (x, )dx is well-defined 3

4 In he paricular case where he discouned exposure is independen of counerpary s credi worhiness, we ge CV A = T E[V + ]h()g()d. (2.4) As explained above, his credi-marke independence assumpion is ofen no realisic and one may disinguish he uncondiional (discouned) expeced posiive exposure E[V + ] from he condiional (discouned) expeced posiive exposure E[V + τ = ]. We naurally refer E[V + τ = ] o as he wrong-way expeced posiive exposure or WWR EPE, implicily noing ha we are considering discouned exposures. Modeling of credi coningen producs can be handled in wo main ways ha we know review. 2.1 Resampling using saic (Gaussian) copula The saic seup is very popular among praciioners (Sokol (211a),Cepedes e al. (21),Sokol (211b)). I relies on copulas and allows o uncouple credi and marke risks adoping a compuaionally efficien wo-seps procedure. In his approach, one firs compues he risk-neural disribuions F V (x) of he discouned exposure a some fuure poins in ime { 1,..., n } up o porfolio mauriy. These disribuions need o be compued a porfolio level. Therefore, in pracice, one needs o draw sample pahs for discouned porfolio prices (called exposure profiles) disregarding counerpary risk, V (ω), and hen compue he empirical disribuions ˆF V (x). In a second phase, for each i, we compue E[V + i τ = i ] by averaging samples drawn from he disribuion of V i. From he probabiliy inegral ransform, if U is a uniform random variable in [, 1] independen from he risk facors driving he exposure and ˆF V (x), hen we have (up o he esimaion error resuling from 1 ˆF V (x) sands for he generalized inverse of ˆF 1 V F 1 V ): ˆF 1 V (U) V. (2.5) The WWR effec resuls from he fac ha he sampling variable U is correlaed wih he defaul ime τ: U = U(τ). Samples from V i given τ = i are obained by sampling F Vi wih U( i ). The idea behind he resampling echnique is o couple U and τ using wo independen variables ( Z, Z): U = f( Z, Z; ), where Z = g(τ) and conrols he impac of Z on U. Therefore, a sample V (, ω) of oday s porfolio value condiional upon τ = is obained by replacing τ by in Z: V (, ω) = 1 ˆF V (U(, ω)) = ˆF 1 V f(g(), Z(ω); ), (2.6) where he ime argumen in he brackes of V (, ω) emphasizes he defaul condiion τ =, in conrass 4

5 wih V (ω) ha represens he uncondiional exposure. We hus have samples for he condiional exposure, from which one can compue he empirical expecaions Ê[V + ()]. Finally, by he law of large numbers, we ge E[V + τ = ] Ê[V + ()]. Therefore, CVA is given by compuing he weighed sum of he condiional expeced values Ê[V + i ( i )] by he corresponding defaul probabiliies. The CVA expression (including WWR) is given by replacing E[V + τ = ] by E[V + ()] in eq. (2.2): T T CV A = E[V + ()]dg() = E[V + ()]h()g()d. (2.7) The resuling coupling scheme (ha is, he copula) associaed o his model depends on he choice of he se {f, g, Z}. Le Φ(x) be he sandard Normal cumulaive disribuion funcion. Then, he procedure consising in choosing Z as a sandard Normal variable, f(x, y; ) = Φ(x y) and g(x) = Φ 1 (G(x)) (so ha Z = g(τ) = Φ 1 (G(τ)) is a sandard Normal variable independen of Z) corresponds o he Gaussian copula. Oher copulas can be considered as well. Neverheless, we will use he Gaussian copula in his example as i is a marke sandard and allows for analyical resuls in he considered cases. In such a framework, he coupling beween τ and V () = V τ = is inroduced via a sandard Normal laen variable Z independen from he defaul ime variable: V (τ, ω) = F 1 V ( Φ Φ 1 (G(τ)) + ) 1 2 Z(ω). (2.8) Because G(τ) is uniform in [, 1], Φ 1 (G(τ)) is sandard Normal independen of Z, V (τ) V : Φ 1 F V (V (τ)) N (, 1). (2.9) By conras, he condiional exposure (where τ is se o ) has boh differen mean and variance: V (, ω) = ( F 1 V Φ Φ 1 (G()) + ) 1 2 Z(ω) (2.1) Φ 1 F V (V ()) N (Φ 1 (G()), ) 1 2. (2.11) Noe ha i is sraighforward o see ha in he limi where 1 (resp. -1), V () is given by is G()-quanile (resp. 1 G()-quanile): V (, ω) (=1) = F 1 V G() =: q + () (2.12) (= 1) = F 1 V (1 G()) =: q (). (2.13) 2.2 Dynamic Wrong-Way risk modeling The alernaive (dynamic) approach is o model he defaul and he exposure processes in a join, dynamic way. The defaul process can be eiher firm-valued (srucural models) or inensiy-based (reduced form) 5

6 models. Defauls are rare evens ha have an exreme impac. This means ha in pracice, a lo of simulaions are required o reach convergence. And hese simulaions are cosly since boh defaul imes and porfolio price pahs need o be drawn. In order o circumven his issue, one can work wih survival probabiliy processes insead of acual defaul imes. This seup requires a proper modeling of he informaion flow (filraion). The full informaion is noed G = (G ), and can be wrien as he defaul-free marke informaion (excluding defauls) F = (F ) enlarged wih he σ-field of he defaul indicaor G = F σ ( 1I {τ>s}, s ). (2.14) This seup allows us o work in he filraion F, geing rid of he indicaors feauring he G-sopping imes τ. This approach feaures he F-predicable survival process known as he Azéma supermaringale: S := E[1I {τ>} F ] = Q(τ > F ) =: 1 F. (2.15) In dynamic approaches, he objecive is o ge rid of he G-sopping imes τ by working in a smaller filraion F. Acual defaul simulaions can be avoided, which is good news. Those mehods rely on he Azéma supermaringale. Assuming τ >, sraigh applicaion of a key lemma abou filraion changes (see e.g. Lemma of Bielecki e al. (211)) allows us o wrie he righ-hand side of eq. (2.1) as E [ [ ] V τ + ] T 1I {τ T } = E V + ds. (2.16) The ineresing poin here is ha his expression feaures no defaul indicaors or defaul imes. They have been replaced by he F-predicable survival process. The choice of he dynamics of S specifies he WWR model. I can be shown (see e.g. Bielecki e al. (211)) ha S admis he Doob-Meyer decomposiion ds = da + dm, (2.17) where A is a F-predicable decreasing process saisfying A = 1, and M a non-negaive F-maringale. In paricular, here is no resricion on he decreasingness of S for eq. (2.16) o hold. The only resricion is ha S [, 1] almos surely since i is a probabiliy (see eq. (2.15)). In he coninuous case, he dynamics of S ake he general form: ds = µ(.)d + σ(.)dw. (2.18) Since h()g() > for all, we can define he wrong-way process ζ = (ζ ) : ζ := µ(.) h()g(). (2.19) 6

7 Recalling ha Iô inegrals have zero expecaion and using Fubini s heorem, eq. (2.16) becomes T CV A = E [ V + ] T ζ dg() = E [ V + ] ζ h()g()d. (2.2) In he sequel, we shall assume ha he risk-neural expeced value E[S ] is consrained o be given by he coninuous posiive non-increasing curve G() saisfying G() = 1 given in eq. (2.3). In financial applicaions, he calibraion equaion E[S ] = G() (2.21) ensures ha he sochasic defaul model is in line wih marke quoes. In paricular, i corresponds o he calibraion o CDS quoes under independence beween raes and credi. This assumpion is widely acceped because i is known o have lile impac on he CDS spreads implied by he model, see e.g.brigo and Alfonsi (25). This equaion implies ha he wrong-way process ζ saisfies, for all E[ζ ] = 1. (2.22) Equaion (2.2) jusifies he name wrong-way process for ζ which dynamics conrol he WWR effec. Should ζ be independen of V for example, CV A = CV A : here is no WWR effec. In a dynamic, one-facor seup, wrong-way risk impac will be inroduced by correlaing he exposure and credi risk drivers. In he case of exposure and survival processes driven by a single Brownian moion B and W we can assume d B, W = d. (2.23) We shall use a ime-independen correlaion in he sequel, =. We now recall he sochasic inensiy mehod for dynamic modeling of wrong-way risk, and inroduce he so-called maringale approach Sochasic Inensiy Approach The mos popular approach for credi risk modeling is Cox seup. In his case, defaul evens are riggered by he firs jump of a Poisson process which inensiy is a non-negaive sochasic process λ ha is, τ is modeled as he firs jump of a Cox process. The resuling Azéma supermaringale S is he sochasic version of eq. (2.3) where he deerminisic hazard rae funcion h() is replaced by he sochasic process λ being correlaed wih marke facors: S = e λsds. (2.24) I is well-known and easy o show ha under he calibraion equaion (2.21), one can sample he defaul disribuion Ḡ() by looking for he passage ime τ saisfying S τ = U where U is an independen barrier wih uniform disribuion. 7

8 In such a framework, he dynamics of he Azéma supermaringale akes he form ds = λ S d, (2.25) where λ Q-a.s. Cox seup hus corresponds o he special case where he Azéma supermaringale S is a decreasing F-adaped process. In paricular, he maringale par in he Doob-Meyer decomposiion vanishes, M. The resricion of having a decreasing survival process is moivaed by he Cox seup where λ is resriced o be posiive since i corresponds o a defaul inensiy. From eq. (2.18), µ( ) = λ S so ha he wrong-way process becomes λsds ζ = λ S h()g() = λ e h()g(). (2.26) This approach has been originally proposed in Lando (1998) and Duffie and Singleon (1999) in he conex of defaulable bonds valuaion and pricing of oher credi risky securiies. Here again, several sochasic processes can be used bu in pracice, one explois relaionship beween shor rae and defaul inensiy (see e.g. Brigo and Mercurio (26)). Equaion (2.24) indeed corresponds o he sochasic discoun facor compued from coninuously compounded rae r: D = e rsds. (2.27) All affine models lead o he following expression for zero-coupon bond prices (see e.g. Brigo and Mercurio (26)) P λ (, T ) =. E [e ] T rsds F = A(, T ) e B(,T )r. (2.28) Replacing r by λ, he above expression wih is nohing bu he calibraion equaion (2.21) wih P r (, ) = G(). Analyical and exac calibraion o any valid curve G() can hus be achieved by modeling he inensiy λ as a shor rae process r, shifed by a deerminisic funcion φ o allow for perfec fi o he iniial survival probabiliy curve: λ = r + φ() (2.29) S = D e φ(s)ds. (2.3) The calibraion equaion eq. (2.21) yields he drif funcion: G() = A(, ) e B(,)r e φ(s)ds. (2.31) Le us now focus on he sandard cases where r is governed by Ornsein-Uhlenbeck (OU) and Square- Roo Diffusion (SRD) dynamics. They are popular in indusry, essenially for he same reason as he 8

9 Gaussian copula: heir racabiliy. The shifed version of he OU is known as he Hull-Whie process. I is commonly used in ineres raes modeling, bu also o describe he dynamics of funding spread Pierbarg (21), ha is for credi spread, or hazard rae Lando (24), Benaim (211). Praciioners are aware of he fac ha negaive inensiies can be drawn, bu hey commonly agree o work wih models ha violae properies heoreically required, provided ha one can keep some conrol on he number of wrong pahs (hereby rying o make sure he aggregaed resuls are rusworhy, for whaever i means); see e.g. Cesari e al. (29). An appealing alernaive o he Hull-Whie process for he sake of defaul inensiy modeling is he square roo diffusion (also known as CIR, Duffie and Singleon (1999)) or, allowing for a perfec fi o marke daa, he shifed square roo diffusion (SSRD, also known as CIR ++ ), wih or wihou jumps (Brigo and Alfonsi (25),Brigo e al. (213)). Depending on he marke daa however (ha is, funcion G()), he shif funcion may lead o non-zero probabiliy of having negaive inensiies, and hus may violae he S 1 consrain. We shall hus focus on he Hull-Whie process, which is Gaussian and allows for analyical resuls. However, we shall commen some resuls obained for he SSRD as well (mos of he resuls below can be found in Brigo and Mercurio (26)). We model he inensiy process as λ = r + φ(; κ, θ, σ), (2.32) where Noing dr = κ(θ r )d + σ(r )dw. (2.33) ξ(x, ) = 1 e xκ xκ he analyical expressions for he funcions A, B and φ are given in Table , (2.34) Vasicek CIR σ(x) σ σ x ( ) ( ) ( ln A(, T ) θ σ2 2κ B(, T ) T + σ2 2 4κ B2 (, T ) 2κθ/σ 2 ln B(, T ) ξ(1, T ) φ(; κ, θ, σ) h() + B(, ) ( σ 2 2 B(, ) θκ ) r e κ h() 2κθ e k 1 (κ+k)(t )/2 2k e 2k+(κ+k)(e (T )k 1) 2(e (T )k 1) 2k+(κ+k)(e (T )k 1) 2k+(κ+k)(e k 1) + r ) 4(k 2 ) e k (2k+(κ+k)(e k 1)) 2 In spie of he possible negaive inensiies in eiher shor-rae models, his approach is probably he mos popular candidae for modeling coninuous posiive inensiy processes in he Cox seup. Of course, oher models for he sochasic inensiy can be adoped (see e.g. Hull and Whie (212),Willemen and Vrins (214)), bu hey do no admi analyical calibraion and require a numerical scheme. 9

10 Ou of he posiiviy propery, hey are expeced o behave similarly o he above wo approaches in erms of CVA when he laer is subsanially posiive (see comparison below wih SSRD) Maringale Approach An alernaive o Cox seup is o direcly model he supermaringale S wihou passing hrough he laen process λ. More explicily, we follow Cesari s seup depiced in Cesari e al. (29) iniially derived in he conex of CVA on credi-linked opions. In his secion, we specify he dynamics of a family of F-maringales S,T := Q(τ > T F ) (2.35) and define he associaed Azéma supermaringale (or survival process) by leing T S := S,. (2.36) In Cesari e al. (29), he auhors propose o model he maringales (S,T ) on [, T ] using a Gaussian process S,T = G(T ) + leading o he dynamics η(s, T )dw s (2.37) ds,t = η(, T )dw. (2.38) The volailiy coefficien η is supposed o mee he (Lipschiz or Holder-1/2 coninuiy ogeher wih he linear growh bound, see e.g. Kloeden and Plaen (1999)) regulariy assumpions for S,T o be a maringale (and no merely a local maringale). The corresponding Azéma supermaringale is hus given by S = G() + η(s, )dw s. (2.39) Observe ha in our specific conex, his seup is clearly inappropriae when η(, T ) = η(). Indeed, we have seen ha he WWR feaure is conrolled by he wrong-way process ζ. In his specific case however, ds = h()g()d + η()dw (2.4) ha is, µ() = h()g() implying ζ 1. In oher words, here is no WWR effec, whaever he correlaion. Considering more complex funcions η(, T ) does no help fixing he problem of he range of S, which is R and no [, 1] as i should. The auhors argue ha for pracical cases, his is accepable provided 1

11 ha one keeps conrol on probabiliies Q(S > 1) and Q(S < ). In a sense, his siuaion is indeed no much differen from he above Cox models since he Hull-Whie model yields negaive inensiies, while CIR ++ can have he same drawback depending on he marke daa and he process parameers. The range problem can easily be circumvened by considering maringales S,T ha belong o [, 1], Q- a.s. Alhough such processes received lile aenion in finance, analyically racable processes sharing his propery have been recenly proposed, see e.g. Vrins (214); Vrins and Jeanblanc (215). Le us apply he procedure depiced in Vrins (214) o our CVA conex, named conic maringale hereafer. We consider a family of laen processes X,T wih dynamics dx,t = a(x,t )d + σdw (2.41) and hen choose a bijecion H : R [, 1]. Se S,T = H(X,T ). We hen use Iô s lemma o deermine he drif funcion a(x) ensuring ha S,T is a local maringale provided ha he soluion X,T o eq. (2.41) exiss. Since any bounded local maringale is a maringale (see e.g. Th. 5.1 in Proer (25)), S,T would be a genuine maringale, oo. In he specific case where we choose he sandard Normal cumulaive disribuion Φ as mapping funcion H, Iô s lemma combined wih he local maringale condiion uniquely deermines he drif funcion o be a(x) = σ2 2 x. (2.42) Wih his specific drif, he sochasic differenial equaion (2.41) admis a unique srong soluion for each T. This yields a family of Vasicek processes wih zero long-erm mean and negaive mean-reversion speed (Vrins and Jeanblanc (215)): X,T = X,T e σ2 /2 +σ e σ2 2 ( s) dw s. (2.43) Noing ϕ(x) = Φ (x) he sandard Normal densiy and using Φ (x)/φ (x) = ϕ (x)/ϕ(x) = x, he dynamics of are given by S,T = Φ(X,T ) (2.44) ds,t = σϕ(φ 1 (S,T ))dw (2.45) Because S,T is given by mapping a process hrough a cumulaive disribuion funcion, i is consrained o evolve in [, 1] (he diffusion coefficien σϕ(φ 1 (x)) vanishes a he boundaries {, 1} of he uni inerval). I is hus a bounded local maringale, and hence a maringale. More deails abou he saical properies of his sochasic process can be found in Vrins and Jeanblanc (215). 11

12 The ineresing poin here is ha he soluion, and hus he disribuion of S,T is readily given from ha of X,T, which is Normal wih mean X,T e σ2 /2 and variance e σ2 1. In he following, we se X,T := Φ 1 (G(T )) (2.46) and define he survival process as S := Φ(X) where X := (X ), X := X,. I is easy o show ha S corresponds o he following Iô process: S = 1 + e σ2 /2s ϕ(φ 1 (S s )) ϕ(φ 1 (G(s))) dg(s) + σ In his model, he wrong-way process ζ hus akes he form The iniializaion (2.46) guaranees ha (2.21) holds: ϕ(φ 1 (S s ))dw s. (2.47) ζ = e σ2 /2 ϕ(φ 1 (S )) ϕ(φ 1 (G())). (2.48) [ ( )] E[S ] = E[Φ(X )] = E Φ X, e µ + e σ2 1Z = Φ(X, ) = G(). (2.49) Inuiively, he process behaves as follows. Around =, S G() 1: he volailiy S is negligible and he survival process decreases from 1 as per he deerminisic curve G(): ds dg(). When geing away from 1, he maringale par eners he picure, bu S is frozen a he boundaries of he uni inerval [, 1]. We shall now proceed o he analysis of WWR EPE profiles and CVA levels among he presened approaches. To ha end, we inroduce prooypical derivaives exposure profiles. 3 Exposures Comparison Our purposes here is o compare he above WWR models from boh exposure profiles and CVA levels perspecives. We are herefore more ineresed in he impac of he credi/marke coupling han in he precise modeling of porfolio dynamics. Insead, we would like o work ou simplified processes easy o handle and reproduce. To ha end, we shall use prooypical insrumens. In paricular, we assume a fla hazard rae process for prevailing survival probabiliy curve (h() = h) and model he discouned porfolio process using a rescaled Brownian moion or a Brownian bridge, hereby aemping o mimic he profile of a plain vanilla forward conrac and ineres rae swap (IRS), respecively. This modeling seup has he advanage of leading o Gaussian processes, allowing us o derive closed form expressions for EPE profiles. 12

13 3.1 Prooypical Exposures I is clear from risk-neural pricing heory ha he exposure (i.e. discouned price) process of a forward conrac wih expiry dae T mus be a F-maringale on [, T ), wih iniial value zero. Therefore, we can model our exposure process as, wih s < T : V = ϑb (3.1) V V s = V s + ϑ(b B s ) (3.2) V s + ϑ sz (3.3) where B is a Brownian moion, Z N (, 1). A IRS is paying a sream of cashflows, and hus exhibis a pull-o-zero effec. The discouned porfolio process can hus be modeled in [, T ) as a Brownian bridge shifed in a deerminisic way. Assuming V = : 1 V = γ(t ) + ϑ(t ) T s db s (3.4) V V s = T T s V 1 s + γ( s)(t ) + ϑ(t ) T u db u (3.5) T T s V s + γ( s)(t ) + ϑ where Z N (, 1) and using he erminal condiion V T =. s ( s)(t ) Z (3.6) T s In eq. (3.4), B is a Brownian moion, he firs erm conrols he expeced exposure (EE) profile and he second par is a rescaled Brownian bridge ha will drive expeced posiive exposures (EPE) and expeced negaive exposure (ENE) profiles away from he expeced exposure (average, EE) profiles. The consan ϑ conrols he exposure volailiy and γ conrols he profile moneyness. For a payer swap, a posiive (resp. negaive) value for γ mimics an increasing (resp. decreasing) forward curve. This specific formulaion of he Brownian bridge is given in Theorem of Shreve (24), and is paricularly imporan as i leads o a F -measurable process. For a EURO 5Y payer swap, reasonable values ha can be obained from swapions or cap/floor prices are γ =.5% and ϑ = 2.2%. Since he profiles are Gaussian processes, hey are Normally disribued so ha generally speaking, In he above cases, we respecively have V N (a(), b()). (3.7) The uncondiional expeced exposure, posiive expeced exposure and negaive expeced exposure 13

14 V V (a) (γ, ϑ) = (%, 2.2%) (b) (γ, ϑ) = (.1%, 2.2%) V V (c) (γ, ϑ) = (+.1%, 2.2%) (d) (γ, ϑ) = (.1%, 4.4%) Figure 1: Discouned exposure profiles for IRS-ype profile. Five sample pahs (blue), average of 5k pahs (solid red) average ± one sandard deviaion (dashed red), Expeced exposure γt (T ) (solid, black), EPE and ENE (expeced posiive and negaive profiles, given by he posiive and negaive green dashed profiles) 14

15 a() b() Forward ϑ IRS γ(t ) ϑ (1 /T ) are given by E[V ] = a() (3.8) ( ) ( ) a() a() E[V + ] = b()ϕ + a()φ. (3.9) b() b() We now proceed wih he compuaion of he condiional EPE profiles and CVA levels in saic and dynamic approaches. 3.2 Saic WWR CVA (wih Gaussian Copula) In his secion, we compue he WWR EPE profiles and he associaed CVA for boh prooypical insrumens under he One-Facor Gaussian copula seup. One advanage of his prooypical modeling is ha i allows for closed form expression of EPE under his seup, hereby avoiding he resampling sep: analyical expressions are available and Mone Carlo simulaions are no required. We now proceed o he derivaion of he EPEs for boh producs. Because he uncondiional exposures are Gaussian processes, eq. (3.7) yields In he saic seup, he WWR exposure are modelled according o F 1 V (u) = a() + b()φ 1 (u). (3.1) E[V + τ = ] = E[V + ()], (3.11) where V () is a resampled, condiional exposure. The Gaussian copula seup ransforms uncondiional exposures V wih mean a() and variance b 2 () ino WWR (condiional) exposures V () according o where V (, ω) = F 1 V (Φ(Φ 1 (G()) Z(ω))) (3.12) Therefore, WWR exposures are Normally disribued, oo: = a() + b()φ 1 (G()) + b() 1 2 Z(ω). (3.13) V () N (ã(), b()), (3.14) ã() := a() + Φ 1 (G())b() (3.15) b() := b() 1 2 (3.16) 15

16 so ha he WWR expeced discouned posiive exposure is given by E[V + τ = ] = E [ V + () ] (ã() = b()ϕ b() ) + ã()φ (ã() b() ). (3.17) In boh cases, he Gaussian behavior of he price process allows o ge he EPE profile in closed form, so ha he CVA is given by he semi-analyical formula T (ã() ) T (ã() ) CV A = ϕ b()dg() Φ ã()dg(). (3.18) b() b() 3.3 Dynamic WWR CVA CVA is given by he inegral of he WWR EPE wih respec o he defaul probabiliy Ḡ() = 1 G() up o porfolio mauriy; his is eq. (2.2). In he dynamic approach, his WWR EPE akes he form E[V + τ = ] = E[ζ V + ], (3.19) where ζ = µ()/(h()g()) is he wrong-way process defined according o he dynamics of he Azéma supermaringale implied by he model. In his secion, we analyze he inensiy approach using he shifed Vasicek approach and he maringale approach. The reason why SSRD is no deal wih in deails here is ha we focus on cases ha remain analyically racable, which is no he case of SSRD (in paricular, due o he difficuly o compue he correlaion beween λ and Λ = λ sds). Moreover, he main advanage of he SRD (CIR) process over he Vasicek is (in our conex) he posiiviy propery. Unforunaely, he posiiviy propery is no guaraneed due o he shif funcion φ, which rends he model less aracive. Moreover, boh inensiy models have more or less he same behavior (in erms of WWR impac) when being far from zero (empirical evidences illusrae ha poin in Secion 3.4). Therefore, we resric ourselves o perform a deailed analysis of he Hull-Whie inensiy approach, and will make some commens on he SSRD based on numerical resuls. The laer will be based on Mone Carlo simulaions using he Euler schemes proposed in Brigo and Alfonsi (25). Denoing by Z i sandard Normal variables wih appropriae correlaion marix λ A() + B()Z 1 (3.2) A() = r e κ +φ() (3.21) φ() = h() + σ2 κ (ξ(1, ) ξ(2, )) r e κ (3.22) B() = σ ξ(2, ). (3.23) 16

17 EPE(T/2) vs Correlaion EPE(T/2) vs Correlaion Condiional EPE(T/2) Condiional EPE(T/2) (a) Forward-ype profile (h=1%) (b) IRS-ype profile (h=1%) EPE(T/2) vs Correlaion EPE(T/2) vs Correlaion Condiional EPE(T/2) Condiional EPE(T/2) (c) Forward-ype profile (h=1%) (d) IRS-ype profile (h=1%) Figure 2: E[V + ()] wr for = T/2 and T = 5, ϑ = 2.2%,γ =.4% (blue, solid), average of discouned condiional exposure δγ(1 /T ) + ϑ (1 δ/t )Φ 1 (G()) (red, dashed) and residual sandard deviaion ϑ (1 δ/t )(1 2 ) (blue, dashed) for Forward (δ = ) and IRS (δ = 1) profiles. 17

18 On he oher hand, S = e rs+φ(s)ds =: e Λ (3.24) where Λ = λ s ds = (r s + φ(s))ds (3.25) ω() + Ω()Z 2 (3.26) ω() = r ξ(1, ) + φ(s)ds (3.27) = σ2 ( 2ξ(1, ) + ξ(2, )) ln G() (3.28) 2κ2 Ω() = σ κ 2ξ(1, ) + ξ(2, ) (3.29) and recall ha boh profiles are Normally disribued, ha is V = a() + b()z 3. (3.3) For each ime, he inensiy, survival probabiliy and discouned exposure variables can be wrien as a funcion of iid sandard Normal variables X, Y, Z : λ = A() + B()X (3.31) S = e ω() Ω()(r21X+r22Y ) (3.32) V = a() + b()(r 31 X + r 32 Y + r 33 Z) (3.33) where r ij is he (i, j) elemen of he lower riangular marix R obained by Choleski decomposiion of he (λ, Λ, V ) correlaion marix, and saisfy r 1 2 = r 2 2 = 1. Disregarding he ime-index for ease of reading, 1 λ,λ λ,v λ,λ 1 Λ,V λ,v Λ,V 1 = RRT (3.34) wih R aking he form R := 1 λ,λ 1 2 λ,λ λ,v Λ,V λ,v λ,s 1 2 λ,λ 1 2 λ,v ( Λ,V λ,v λ,λ ) λ,λ. (3.35) Using his formulaion, he expression of E [ ζ V + ] [ becomes analyically available as E λ S V + ] can be obained in closed-form; his is performed in Appendix, Secion I remains o compue he expression of he correlaion marix RR T for each ime index, which we now derive. To ha purpose, 18

19 firs recall ha he covariance beween wo Iô inegrals I and J of deerminisic inegrands a(), b() driven by wo Brownian moions W I and W J I = J = a(s)dw I s (3.36) b(s)dw J s (3.37) is given by Wih his expression in hand, we can compue he pairwise correlaions beween he involved processes. cov(i, J ) = a(s)b(s)d W I, W J s. (3.38) In paricular, he inensiy-inegraed inensiy correlaion λ,λ () does no depend on he porfolio process. I corresponds o he correlaion beween r = λ φ() and y := r sds, and is given by r,y () = λ,λ () = ξ(1, ) ξ(2, ) ξ(2, ) 2ξ(1, ) + ξ(2, ). (3.39) We now compue he correlaion wih discouned exposure variable for boh FRA and IRS prooypical exposure profiles. Wih regards o he forward-ype conrac, he correlaion beween λ and V is consan and given by V,λ () = σϑ σ2 ϑ 2 = (3.4) and he correlaion beween Λ and V is given by V,Λ () = ( ξ(1, )) ( 2ξ(1, ) + ξ(2, ). (3.41) For he IRS-ype profiles, he correlaion beween λ and V is given by V,λ () = σϑ(t ) σ2 ϑ 1 T s ds 2 (T ) T and he correlaion beween Λ and V is given by V,Λ () = = ϑσ(t ) ( (T ) = (T )T ln(t/(t )) ( ln(t/(t )) + e ) κ T e κs T s ds σ2 ϑ2 (T ) T ln(t/(t )) + e κ(t ) T T 2ξ(1, ) + ξ(2, ) (T ) T e κs s ds ) (3.42) (3.43). (3.44) The above resuls show ha one can compue CVA analyically under a sochasic inensiy model where boh exposures and inensiies are Gaussian processes. The analyical racabiliy is preserved when working wih he Φ-maringale, as we now show. The resuling expressions are simpler han hose of he Hull-Whie inensiy approach as here is no need o 19

20 compue λ,λ (). Indeed, eq. (2.48) reveals ha ζ is given by a simple funcion (smooh bijecion) of a Gaussian process, and no he produc of wo Gaussian processes: ζ = ϕ(x )k() (3.45) k() = e µ /ϕ(φ 1 (G()) (3.46) wih µ = σ 2 /2 and where he laen (Vasicek) process is disribued as X Φ 1 (G()) e µ + e }{{} 2µ 1 Z. (3.47) }{{} A() B() On he oher hand, (X, V ) is joinly Gaussian wih some correlaion (), ha will be derived below. Therefore, wih () = 1 () 2 he ime- conribuion of WWR EPE o CVA f() := E[V + ζ ] is given by f() = k() = k() I(x) := = x,y x m(x) ( )( +ϕ(x)ϕ(y)dxdy ϕ A() + B()x a() + b()(()x + ()y)) (3.48) ( ) ϕ A() + B()x I(x)ϕ(x)dx (3.49) ( a() + b()(()x + ()y)) +ϕ(y)dy (3.5) ( ) a() + b()(()x + ()y) ϕ(y)dy. (3.51) Seing he inegral I(x) above becomes m(x) := a() b() + ()x () (3.52) I(x) = = ( ) a() + b()()x m(x) ϕ(y)dy + a() + b() () yϕ(y)dy (3.53) m(x) ( ) a() + b()()x Φ(m(x)) + b() ()ϕ(m(x)). (3.54) Using his expression for I(x), he inegral (3.49) can be derived explicily (see Appendix 6..2). The only missing piece a his sage is (), a quaniy ha we now compue for boh FRA and IRS profiles. In FRA-ype conracs, he correlaion beween X and V is given by () = σϑ e µ e µs ds σ 2 e2µ( s) ds ϑ 2 1 e σ2 /2 = 2 σ (1 e σ2 ). (3.55) 2

21 For swap-ypes conrac, he correlaion beween X and V is given by () = σϑ(t ) e µ σ 2 e2µ( s) ds T = σϑ(t ) eµ T e 2µ 1ϑ = = σ σ T e µs T s ds 1 e 2µ (T ) T T (T ) T T (T ) (1 e σ2 ) e µs T s ds (ϑ(t )) 2 e µs s ds T e σ2 /2s s 1 (T s) 2 ds 3.4 Impac of correlaion on WWR EPE profiles and CVA (3.56) (3.57) (3.58) ds. (3.59) In his secion, we shall compare he WWR EPE profiles f() = E[V + τ = ] as a funcion of for boh Forward and IRS prooypical examples. We handle hose analyically or semi-analyically for he Gaussian Copula (GC), he Hull-Whie (HW) inensiy and he Conic maringale (CM) seups. 3 Corresponding values for CVA, obained by inegraing he above wih respec o he defaul disribuion Ḡ() = 1 G(), are hen analyzed for various risk profiles (hazard rae levels h). Noice ha in order o faciliae he comparison exercise, we swapped he sign of in he Conic maringale approach. The drawback of he HW approach (negaive hazard raes) becomes specifically maerial in he EPE conex for counerpary embedding lile credi risk (h small) as soon as decen volailiy is plugged in he model. Indeed, as he inensiy process is Normal, here is no skew in he model: he inensiy process λ can deviae in a quie significan way from he level h(). When h() is small, his rapidly leads o boh posiive and negaive values for he sochasic inensiy. Consequenly, negaive ζ (proporional o λ) can be observed and even he WWR EPE can become negaive for negaive a some ime poin. This is clearly emphasized in panels (b) and (f) of Fig. 3 and 4 for Forward and IRS profiles, respecively. Alhough negaive EPEs are no observed in SSRD, he shif funcion can be negaive, leading o negaive values for λ (we shall come back on his poin in he nex secion). When credi risk increases, he inensiy process moves around more posiive values, rending he negaive pahs more rare. The HW and CM volailiies are quie large here. We decided o specify exogenously his parameer as (i) here is no liquid quoes for single-name CDS opions and (ii) our main purpose here is o compare he capabiliies of he models, jusifying he analysis of limi behavior as well. For HW, he impac of on CVA seems o increase wihou bounds wih σ for large posiive correlaion. However, CVA becomes hen negaive for negaive correlaions. Therefore, for HW, we decided o se σ o a value such ha 3 The Φ-maringale belongs o he class of conic maringales, as defined in Vrins (214) or? 21

22 CV A is for h = 5% and = 8% for eiher profiles. For CM, CVA does no increase monoonously wih σ: i firs increases and hen decrease; we have hus chosen he σ allowing for maximum CVA a = 8%. For all hree models, WWR EPE values generally increase poinwise wih correlaion. This is always rue for HW, and is valid as well as for GC and CM for counerparies wih lile credi risk (small h: see panels (a), (b), (c) and (e), (f), (g) of Fig. 3 and 4 for Forward and IRS profiles, respecively). This holds rue for HW even for increasing h bu for he las wo models however, he monooniciy of WWR EPE wih respec o breaks down for he long-erm par of WWR EPE for very risky counerparies. See panels (i), (j), (k) of he same figures. Again, i is worh noing ha all hese resuls are obained in a analyical or semi-analyical way, here is no resampling, esimaion or simulaion error. Anoher imporan remark is ha compared o GC and CM, HW can only inroduce small WWR effec on he shor-end; WWR akes ime o maerialize. This is no a specificiy of HW, bu is a common feaure of inensiy-based approaches. WWR EPE comparison revealed ha CM and GC behave quie similarly in ha hey boh allow for WWR impac on he shor-erm profiles, and ha in boh cases, monooniciy of WWR EPE values wih respec o may no hold for he long-erm par of he profiles. A comparison in erms of CVA is also quie ineresing. In paricular, i allows o pu in perspecives common houghs. Firs, i is ofen hough ha ±1 provide upper and lower bounds on CVA in he WWR framework. Again, his is rue here for HW (and in fac, seems valid for inensiy models), bu can fail o hold in general. In paricular, CVA is no monoonic wr for large h when considering GC or CM models. This monooniciy is rue only o some exend in erms of defaul rae: his behavior fails o hold for risky counerparies. We illusrae his using our Forward and IRS examples in panels (d), (h) and (l) of Fig. 3 and 4. As explained above, we have se he volailiy parameer σ of he HW model such ha when seing = 8%, CVA is zero for h = 5% (see panels (h)). Anoher common hough deserves o be clarified. I is ofen believed ha inensiy models ypically fail o induce large correlaion impac because dependency beween exposure and defaul imes is incorporaed only via inensiy of defaul evens, bu ha condiional upon he inensiy pah, defauls are independen evens. I appears in fac ha in he conex of CVA, he moderae correlaion impac is in fac a covariance effec, which is very low due o small insananeous volailiy of inensiy processes. Increasing he laer will enhance he correlaion impac. Consider for insance he Hull-Whie approach: any correlaion impac level can be achieved by weaking he insananeous volailiy. However, his is hard o achieve in a consisen way. The reason is ha increasing σ will increase he number of 22

23 pahs exceeding 1 a some poin. Same applies o he SSRD model: increasing he volailiy will break he Feller condiion 2κθ > σ 2 which limis he levels of implied volailiies ha can be achieved under posiiviy consrain. This problem can be parly circumvened by using jumps (JCIR ++ ), bu he posiiviy consrain becomes more difficul o check. We refer o Brigo and Mercurio (26) and Brigo and El-Bachir (21) for a deailed discussion and o Brigo e al. (213)[Sec ] for a summary. A las poin worh menioning is he CVA convexiy implied by he model. Here again, HW exhibis no convexiy: CVA increases quie linearly wih, and his is why negaive CVA canno be avoided for large negaive correlaion values and small h (driving he inercep of he CV A plo). Again, his is no he case of he oher wo models. Posiive (negaive) convexiy for small (large) correlaion value can be observed, provided ha h is small (large) enough. The similariy beween HW and SSRD models in erms of CVA profiles (more specifically, he almos perfec lineariy of CVA wih respec o ) can be seen on Fig. 5. Lef panel uses values close o hose in Brigo and Alfonsi (25) whils in he righ panel, more exreme values are used o emphasize he impac of larger volailiies (righ panel). Jus like Hull-Whie, he SSRD model does no really exhibi a skew, and relaxing he perfec fi assumpion does no really help obaining convexiy. This can be undersood as follows. Assume we drop he perfec calibraion consrain so ha we rely on a pure (i.e. unshifed) CIR model. We will hen opimize he parameers such ha E[S ] G() subjec o he Feller consrain. The process λ will hus remain sricly posiive, ensuring CV A() > for all. In such circumsances, his zero lower bound should imply a convexiy in -CVA() profile when CV A() is small (ha is when h is small) 4. However, one canno observe such a con,vex curve. For a given exposure process, small CV A() implies small h and means a relaively small κθ. Therefore, only lile values for σ can be chosen in order o comply wih he Feller condiion. Hence, he impac of (proporional o σ) will be very limied and he profile CV A() says above zero, bu is essenially fla (and hus raher linear). Using a shifed CIR does no fix he issue. Indeed, one can plug larger values for σ (magnifying he impac of on CVA) and weaking he oher SRD parameers so ha Feller condiion is me, and hen play wih he deerminisic shif o ge he approximae (or perfec) calibraion. Noneheless, he laer will hen be ypically negaive, leading o poenially negaive CVA. Summarizing, CVA() profile remains quie linear in boh inensiy models. I seems here is no way o obain large raio CVA()/CVA() values for large while prevening CVA() o be negaive for quie negaive when using inensiies. 4 If CV A() is large (and hus h is large), here is no reason o have convexiy because he curve is shifed in he large posiive values, so ha he zero lower bound can be achieved wihou any convexiy effec. 23

24 Gaussian Copula Hull Whie Conic WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR CVA (a) (b) (c) (d) Gaussian Copula Hull Whie Conic.5..5 WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR CVA (e) (f) (g) (h) Gaussian Copula Hull Whie Conic.5..5 WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR CVA (i) (j) (k) (l) Figure 3: WWR EPE Forward profiles for he Gaussian Copula (1s col.), Hull-Whie (2nd col.; σ = 4%, κ =.5%) and Conic Maringale (3rd col.; 24

25 Gaussian Copula Hull Whie Conic WWR EPE WWR EPE.5..5 WWR EPE WWR CVA (a) (b) (c) (d) Gaussian Copula Hull Whie Conic.5..5 WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR CVA (e) (f) (g) (h) Gaussian Copula Hull Whie Conic.5..5 WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR EPE WWR CVA (i) (j) (k) (l) Figure 4: WWR EPE IRS profiles for he Gaussian Copula (1s col.), Hull-Whie (2nd col.; σ = 3.15%, κ =.5%) and Conic Maringale (3rd col.; 25

26 We conclude his secion by sressing he fac ha correlaion in he saic approach GC represens in fac a se of erminal correlaions, and embeds boh insananeous correlaion and volailiy effecs feaured in dynamic seups. This explains why large shor-erm correlaion impac can be observed in saic models. I appears from our resuls ha large GC correlaion corresponds o exremely large (ha is o say, unrealisic) volailiies in dynamic seups. Indeed, as explained above, panels (d), (g) and (l) corresponds o resuls where dynamic volailiies are se a heir (reasonable) maximum. The impac of σ, and in paricular he monoonic and convexiy behaviors of CV A() can be seen on Fig. 6 and 7. 26

27 (a) (h, 35%,.12%, 2%) (b) (h, 35%, 12%, 2%) Figure 5: Impac of Brownian correlaion on CVA on prooypical Payer swap (γ, ϑ) = (.5%, 2.2%) for SSRD model for sandard and bumped values of (r, κ, θ, σ). The impac is prey linear in boh cases, and CVA can become negaive as a resul of he deerminisic shif required for calibraion purposes when counerpary feaures lile credi risk (small h) and inensiy has large volailiy. These values have been compued based on 1, Mone Carlo simulaions wih ime sep =.1. 27

28 h =.1 h =.5 h =.1 h =.5 CVA (%) CVA (%) CVA (%) CVA (%) h =.1 h =.3 h =.1 h =.3 CVA (%) CVA (%) CVA (%) CVA (%) (a) Hull-Whie: σ(%) {.1,.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5} (b) Conic Maringale: σ(%) {.5, 1, 5, 1, 4, 1, 2} Figure 6: Impac of on he CVA (FW profiles) for increasing values of σ (color map: black, blue, green, red, yellow, cyan, magena). For HW, κ =.5%. 28

29 h =.1 h =.5 h =.1 h =.5 CVA (%).2..2 CVA (%) CVA (%) CVA (%) h =.1 h =.3 h =.1 h =.3 CVA (%) CVA (%) CVA (%) CVA (%) (a) Hull-Whie: σ(%) {.1,.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5} (b) Conic Maringale: σ(%) {.5, 1, 5, 1, 4, 1, 2} Figure 7: Impac of on he CVA (IRS profiles) for increasing values of σ (color map: black, blue, green, red, yellow, cyan, magena). For HW, κ =.5%. 29

30 4 Discussion and wrong-way measures A cenral poin is wheher hese wrong-way risk models imply an equivalen measure Q under which one could simulae V o incorporae he wrong-way risk effec. If so, CVA given by he inegral of condiional Q-expecaions would become an inegral of uncondiional Q-expecaions: T CV A = = T E[V + τ = ]dg() (4.1) Ẽ[V + ]dg(). (4.2) If his proves o be he case, one could incorporae wrong-way risk by adoping he independen (no-wwr) seup, bu adjusing he dynamics of price processes according o Girsanov s heorem. This would hopefully allow us o disenangle he credi and marke variables, and lower he dimensionaliy of he problem. ha Such a measure Q would exis if here exiss a posiive Q-maringale L wih uni expecaion such T CV A = E [ V + ] L dg(). (4.3) Comparing eq. (4.3) wih eq. (2.2) we see ha in he above dynamic models, ζ seems o play he role of L. From eq. (4.1) and (4.3), we have ha E [ V + ] [ ζ = E V + τ = ]. The variable ζ conrols he raio of he condiional and uncondiional probabiliy densiies. The condiion in he former however depends on ime in a way ha is no merely depending on he informaion available a ime, i.e. no only hrough he filraion F, bu also hrough he τ = condiion: E [ V + ζ ] = E[V + E[ζ V ]] (4.4) = E [ V + τ = ] = v= v= E[ζ V = v] = f V τ (v, ) f V (v) v E[ζ V = v]f V (v)dv (4.5) vf V τ (v, )dv (4.6) where f V τ (v, ) is he (condiional) densiy of V given τ = evaluaed a V = v. Therefore, dynamic WWR models would imply a change of measure provided ha ζ Q-a.s., E[ζ ] = 1 and E[ζ F s ] = ζ s. Clearly, he wrong-way process in boh Cox and Conic Maringale seups saisfies he firs wo condiions. Wih regards o he posiiviy requiremen, i is clear from eq. (2.26) ha ζ is non-negaive provided ha λ > which is he case in Cox seup (recall ha his is no ensured when modeling λ using sandard ineres raes processes). Similarly from eq. (2.48), same holds rue in he Φ-maringale case, where ζ is well-defined provided ha S [, 1], which is he case by consrucion. (4.7) 3

31 The uni-expecaion consrain is rivially me: his is eq. (2.22) which resuls from eq. (2.21). We can check ha his is indeed he case in he considered models. In Cox seup for insance, we have E[ζ ] = E[λ S ] h()g() = E[dS /d] = d E[S ]/d = 1. (4.8) h()g() h()g() In he Conic Maringale case, he calibraion equaion (2.46) leads o E[ζ ] = = = = e σ2 2 ϕ(φ 1 (G())) E[ϕ(Φ 1 (S ))] (4.9) e σ2 /2 ϕ(φ 1 (G())) E[ϕ(X )] (4.1) e σ2 /2 ϕ(φ 1 (G())) E[ϕ(Φ 1 (S, ) e + σ 2 /2 e σ2 1Z)] (4.11) e σ2 /2 ϕ(φ 1 (S, )) ϕ(φ 1 (G())) e σ2 /2 (4.12) = 1. (4.13) Unforunaely however, ζ does generally no saisfy he maringale propery of Radon-Nikodym derivaive processes. This implies ha ζ does no defines an equivalen measure Q bu insead, defines a se of measures. Indeed, ζ is a uni expecaion random variable which is sricly posiive in Cox and CM approaches. Therefore, each erm of he inegral can be compued using a local change of measure Shreve (24). The problem is ha we need o deermine he dynamics of he exposure process in each of hese measures, so ha his perspecive is of lile use in pracice. We conclude his analysis wih he comparison of he pahs of S and ζ for 4 dynamic approaches: Hull- Whie, SSRD, Gaussian maringale and Φ-maringale. Simulaion schemes for he firs hree approaches are well known in he lieraure. Wih regards o he las case, he exac scheme for simulaing S i can be obained by seing S = 1 and noing ha S = Φ(X ) where X is a Vasicek process, which can also be sampled in an error-free way. As explained above, modeling sochasic inensiies using shor-rae processes possibly lead o negaive pahs for λ, ha is, for ζ. The only way o preven his (especially for safe counerparies, ha is wih small hazard rae funcion h()) is o have a small volailiy σ which, may no be consisen wih opion quoes, bu more imporanly in his conex, will cancel he effec of he insananeous correlaion beween Brownian drivers W and B (no impac on erminal correlaions). The Conic maringale approach, however, does no suffer from his drawback. I allows for fas and easy (analyical, and in fac auomaic) calibraion wihou facing he problem of generaing probabiliies ou of [,1]. In paricular, a volaile wrong-way process ζ can be obained in all cases. Figure 8 shows sample pahs of he Azéma supermaringale for boh inensiy models (Hull-Whie and SSRD) as well as for he Gaussian and Φ-maringale wih consan diffusion coefficiens. Among 31