arxv:cond-mat/0411699v1 [cond-mat.other] 28 Nov 2004 Estmatng Probabltes of Default for Low Default Portfolos Katja Pluto and Drk Tasche November 23, 2004 Abstract For credt rsk management purposes n general, and for allocaton of regulatory captal by banks n partcular (Basel II), numercal assessments of credtworthness are ndspensable. These assessments are expressed n terms of probabltes of default (PD) that should ncorporate a certan degree of conservatsm n order to reflect the prudental rsk management style banks are requred to apply. In case of credt portfolos that dd not at all suffer defaults or very few defaults only over years, the resultng nave zero or close to zero estmates would clearly not nvolve a suffcent conservatsm. As an attempt to overcome ths ssue, we suggest the most prudent estmaton prncple. Ths means to estmate the PDs by upper confdence bounds whle guaranteeng at the same tme a PD orderng that respects the dfferences n credt qualty ndcated by the ratng grades. The methodology s most easly appled under an assumpton of ndependent default events but can be adapted to the case of correlated defaults wthout too much effort. 1 Introducton A core nput to modern credt rsk modelng and managng technques are probabltes of default (PD) per borrower. As such, the accuracy of the PD estmatons determnes the qualty of the results of credt rsk models. One of the obstacles connected wth PD estmatons can be the low number of defaults, especally n the better ratng grades. Good ratng grades mght experence many years wthout any defaults. And even f some defaults occur n a gven year, the observed default rates mght exhbt a hgh degree of volatlty, due to the relatvely low number of borrowers n that grade. Low default portfolos are not uncommon n realty. Examples nclude portfolos wth an overall good qualty of borrowers (e.g. soveregn or bank portfolos) as well as hgh-volume-low-number Deutsche Bundesbank, Postfach 10 06 02, 60006 Frankfurt am Man, Germany E-mal: katja.pluto@gmx.de, drk.tasche@gmx.net The opnons expressed n ths note are those of the authors and do not necessarly reflect vews of the Deutsche Bundesbank. 1
portfolos (e.g. specalzed lendng). Usual bank practces for dervng PD values for such exposures often crcle around qualtatve mappng mechansms to bank-wde master scales or external ratngs. These practces, whle wdespread n the ndustry, do not entrely satsfy the desre for a statstcal foundaton of the assumed PD values. One may beleve that the PDs per ratng grade appear correct, as well as beleve that the ordnal rankng and the relatve spread between the PDs of two grades s rght, but nformaton about the absolute PD fgures s lackng. Lastly, t could be questoned whether these rather qualtatve methods of PD calbraton fulfll the mnmum requrements set out n BCBS (2004a). The ssue has, amongst others, recently been rased n BBA (2004). In ths paper, applcatons of causal default models and of exogenous dstrbuton assumptons on the PDs across the grades have been proposed. In a recent paper, Schuermann and Hanson (2004) present a methodology to estmate PDs by means of mgraton matrces ( duraton method, cf. also Jafry and Schuermann, 2004). Ths way, non-zero PDs for hgh-qualty ratng grades can be estmated more precsely by countng the borrower mgratons through the lower grades to eventual default and usng Markov chan propertes. Ths paper focuses on a dfferent ssue of PD estmatons n low default portfolos. We present a methodology to estmate PDs for portfolos wthout any defaults, or a very low number of defaults n the overall portfolo. The proposal by Schuermann and Hanson does not provde a soluton for such cases, because the duraton method requres a certan number of defaults n at least some (usually the low-qualty) ratng grades. For estmatng PDs, we use all avalable quanttatve nformaton of the ratng system and ts grades. Moreover, we assume that the ordnal borrower rankng s correct. We do not use any addtonal assumptons or nformaton. Every addtonal pece of nput would be more on the assumpton sde, as the low default property of these portfolos does not allow for more relable quanttatve nformaton. Our methodology provdes confdence regons for the PDs of each ratng grade. The PD range can be adjusted by the choce of an approprate confdence level. Moreover, by the most prudent estmaton prncple our methodolgy provdes monotone PD estmates. We look both at the cases of uncorrelated and correlated default events, at the latter case under assumptons consstent wth the Basel rsk weght model. The paper s structured as follows: The two man concepts estmatng PDs as upper confdence bounds and guaranteeng ther monotony by the most prudent estmaton prncple underlyng the methodology are ntroduced by means of two examples that assume ndependence of the default events. The frst example deals wth a portfolo wthout any observed defaults. For the second example, we modfy the frst example by assumng that a few defaults have been observed 1. In a further secton, we show how the methodology can be modfed n order to 1 In ths paper, only the stuaton s consdered where estmatons are carred out on a one year (or one observaton perod) data sample. In case of a tme seres wth data from several years beng avalable, the PDs 2
take nto account non-zero correlaton of default events. The last two sectons are devoted to dscussons of the potental scope of applcaton and of open questons. We conclude wth a summary of our proposal. In Appendx A, we provde nformaton on the numercs that s needed to mplement the estmaton approach we suggest. 2 Example: no defaults, assumpton of ndependence The oblgors are dstrbuted to ratng grades A, B, and C, wth frequences n A, n B, and n C. The grade wth the hghest credtworthness s denoted by A, the grade wth the lowest credtworthness s denoted by C. Nether n A nor n B nor n C any defaults occurred durng the last observaton perod. We assume that the stll to be estmated PDs p A of grade A, p B of grade B, and p C of grade C reflect the decreasng credtworthness of the grades, n the sense of the followng nequalty: p A p B p C. (2.1) Accordng to (2.1), the PD p A of grade A cannot be greater than the PD p C of grade C. As a consequence, the most prudent estmate of the value of p A s obtaned under the assumpton that the probabltes p A and p C are equal. Then, from (2.1) even follows p A = p B = p C. Assumng ths relaton, we now proceed n determnng a confdence regon for p A at confdence level γ. Ths confdence regon 2 can be descrbed as the set of all admssble values of p A wth the property that the probablty of not observng any default durng the observaton perod s not less than 1 γ (for nstance for γ = 90%). If we have got p A = p B = p C, then the three ratng grades A, B, and C do not dffer n ther respectve rskness. Hence we have to deal wth a homogeneous sample of sze n A + n B + n C wthout any default durng the last observaton perod. Assumng uncondtonal ndependence of the default events, the probablty of observng no defaults turns out to be (1 p A ) n A+n B +n C. As a consequence, we have to solve the nequalty 1 γ (1 p A ) n A+n B +n C (2.2a) for p A n order to obtan the confdence regon at level γ for p A as the set of all the values of p A such that p A 1 (1 γ) 1/(n A+n B +n C ). (2.2b) (per ratng grade) for the sngle years can be estmated and can then be used for calculatng frequency (of the grades) weghted averages of the PDs n order to make more effcent use of the data. Alternatvely, the data of all the years could be pooled and tackled as n the one-year case. However, there mght be a need to ncorporate tme correlaton effects nto the estmaton method. 2 For any value of p A not belongng to ths regon, the hypothess that the true PD assumes ths value would have to be rejected at a type I error level of 1 γ. 3
If we choose for the sake of llustraton n A = 100, n B = 400, n C = 300, (2.3) Table 1 exhbts some examples of confdence levels γ wth the correspondng maxmum values (upper confdence bounds) ˆp A of p A such that (2.2a) s stll satsfed. Accordng to Table 1, there Table 1: Upper confdence bound ˆp A of p A as a functon of the confdence level γ. No defaults observed, frequences of oblgors n grades gven by (2.3). ˆp A 0,09% 0,17% 0,29% 0,37% 0,57% 0,86% s a strong dependence of the upper confdence bound ˆp A on the confdence level γ. Intutvely, values of γ smaller than 95% seem more approprate for estmatng the PD by ˆp A. By nequalty (2.1), the PD p B of grade B cannot be greater than the PD p C of grade C ether. Consequently, the most prudent estmate of p B s obtaned by assumng p B = p C. Assumng addtonally equalty wth the PD p A of the best grade A would volate the most prudent estmaton prncple snce p A s a lower bound of p B. If we have got p B = p C then B and C do not dffer n ther respectve rskness and may be consdered a homogeneous sample of sze n B +n C. Therefore, the confdence regon at level γ for p B s obtaned from the nequalty 1 γ (1 p B ) n B+n C. (2.4a) (2.4a) mples that the confdence regon for p B conssts of all the values of p B that satsfy p B 1 (1 γ) 1/(n B+n C ). (2.4b) If we take up agan the stuaton descrbed by (2.3), Table 2 exhbts some examples of confdence levels γ wth the correspondng maxmum values (upper confdence bounds) ˆp B of p B such that (2.4a) s stll fulflled. For determnng the confdence regon at level γ for p C we only make use Table 2: Upper confdence bound ˆp B of p B as a functon of the confdence level γ. No defaults observed, frequences of oblgors n grades gven by (2.3). ˆp B 0,10% 0,20% 0,33% 0,43% 0,66% 0,98% of the observatons n grade C because by (2.1) there s no obvous upper bound for p C. Hence the confdence regon at level γ for p C conssts of those values of p C that satsfy the nequalty 1 γ (1 p C ) n C. (2.5a) Equvalently, the confdence regon for p C can be descrbed by p C 1 (1 γ) 1/n C. (2.5b) 4
Comng back to our runnng example (2.3), Table 3 lsts some examples of confdence levels γ wth the correspondng maxmum values (upper confdence bounds) ˆp C of p C such that (2.5a) s stll fulflled. Comparson of Tables 1, 2, and 3 shows that besdes the confdence level γ the Table 3: Upper confdence bound ˆp C of p C as a functon of the confdence level γ. No defaults observed, frequences of oblgors n grades gven by (2.3). ˆp B 0,23% 0,46% 0,76% 0,99% 1,52% 2,28% applcable sample sze s a man drver of the upper confdence bound. The smaller the sample sze that can be made use of, the greater wll be the upper confdence bound. Ths s not an undesrable effect snce ntutvely the credtworthness ought to be the better, the greater s the number of oblgors n a portfolo wthout any default observaton. As the results presented so far seem qute plausble, we suggest to use upper confdence bounds as descrbed by (2.2b), (2.4b), and (2.5b) as estmates for the PDs n portfolos wthout observed defaults. The case of three ratng grades we have consdered n ths secton can be readly generalzed to an arbtrary number of grades. We do not provde the detals here. However, the greater the number of oblgors n the portfolo s, the more often wll occur a case where n some of grades are observed defaults even f the general qualty of the portfolo s very hgh. Ths case s not covered by (2.2b), (2.4b), and (2.5b). In the followng secton, we wll show stll keepng the assumpton of ndependence of the default events how the most prudent estmaton methodology can be adapted to the case of non-zero but stll rather rare defaults. 3 Example: few defaults, assumpton of ndependence We consder agan the portfolo from Secton 2 wth the frequences n A, n B, and n C. In contrast to Secton 2, ths tme we assume that durng the last perod no default was observed n grade A, two defaults were observed n grade B, and one default was observed n grade C. As n Secton 2, also n ths stuaton we determne a most prudent confdence regon for the PD p A of A. As descrbed n Secton 2, we can do so by assumng that the PDs of the three grades are equal because the consequence wll be that we can act as f we had avalable a homogeneous sample of sze n A + n B + n C. Then the probablty of observng not more than three defaults s gven by the expresson 3 =0 ( na +n B +n C ) p A (1 p A ) n A+n B +n C. (3.1) (3.1) follows from the fact that the number of defaults n the portfolo s bnomally dstrbuted as long as the default events are ndependent. As a consequence of (3.1), the confdence regon 5
at level γ for p A s gven as the set of all the values of p A that satsfy the nequalty 1 γ 3 =0 ( na +n B +n C ) p A (1 p A ) n A+n B +n C. (3.2) Inequalty (3.2) cannot be solved analytcally for p A. As a consequence, n ths example the confdence regon for p A cannot be represented n a form analogous to (2.2b), (2.4b), or (2.5b). However, solvng (3.2) numercally for p A s not too dffcult (see Appendx A, Proposton A.1 for addtonal nformaton). When we assume agan that the oblgors numbers per grade are as n (2.3), Table 4 shows maxmum solutons ˆp A of (3.2) as a functon evaluated at some confdence levels γ. Although n grade A no defaults have been observed, the three defaults that occurred Table 4: Upper confdence bound ˆp A of p A as a functon of the confdence level γ. No default observed n grade A, two defaults observed n grade B, one default observed n grade C, frequences of oblgors n grades gven by (2.3). ˆp A 0,46% 0,65% 0,83% 0,97% 1.25% 1,62% durng the observaton perod enter the calculaton and effect upper confdence bounds that are much hgher than those n Table 1. Ths s a consequence of the precautonary assumpton p A = p B = p C. If, however, for nstance we consdered grade A alone, n case n A = 100, we would obtan at level γ = 75% by means of (2.5b) 3 the upper confdence bound 1,38%. Ths value s stll much hgher than the one that has been calculated under the precautonary assumpton p A = p B = p C a consequence of the low frequency of oblgors n grade A n ths example. Nevertheless, we see that the methodology descrbed by (3.2) yelds farly reasonable results. In order to determne the confdence regon at level γ for p B, as n Secton 2, we assume that p B takes on ts greatest possble value accordng to (2.1),.e. that we have p B = p C. In ths stuaton, we have got a homogeneous portfolo wth n B +n C oblgors, PD p B, and three observed defaults. In complete analogy to (3.1), the probablty of observng no more than three defaults n one perod then can be wrtten as 3 =0 ( nb +n C ) p B (1 p B ) n B+n C. (3.3) Hence, the confdence regon at level γ for p B turns out to be the set of all the admssble values of p B whch satsfy the nequalty 1 γ 3 =0 ( nb +n C ) p B (1 p B ) n B+n C. (3.4) By numercally solvng (3.4) for p B wth frequences of oblgors n the grades as n (2.3) we obtan Table 5 wth some maxmum solutons ˆp B of (3.4) as a functon evaluated at several 6
Table 5: Upper confdence bound ˆp B of p B as a functon of the confdence level γ. No default observed n grade A, two defaults observed n grade B, one default observed n grade C, frequences of oblgors n grades gven by (2.3). ˆp B 0,52% 0,73% 0,95% 1,10% 1,43% 1,85% confdence levels γ. From the gven numbers of defaults n the dfferent grades t becomes clear that a stand-alone treatment of grade B would yeld stll much hgher values 4 for the upper confdence bounds. The upper confdence bound 0, 52% of the confdence regon at level 50% s almost dentcal wth the nave frequency based estmate 2/400 = 0,5% that could be done for the PD of grade B n ths example. However, as ths nave estmate n general does not seem very relable, one mght be tempted to estmate nstead by means of upper confdence bounds at levels 75% or 90%, produced accordng to the most prudent estmaton methodology as descrbed n the paper at hand. For determnng the confdence regon at level γ for the PD p C, by the same ratonale as n Secton 2 the grade C must be consdered a stand-alone portfolo. As accordng to the assumpton made n the begnnng of ths secton no default occurred among the n C oblgors n C, we see that the confdence regon for p C s the set of all admssble values of p C that satsfy the nequalty 1 γ 1 ( n C ) p C (1 p C ) n C =0 = (1 p C ) n C + n C p C (1 p C ) n C 1. (3.5) For the case that we assume frequences of oblgors per grade as n (2.3), Table 6 exhbts some maxmum solutons 5 ˆp C of (3.5) as a functon evaluated at several confdence levels γ. So far, Table 6: Upper confdence bound ˆp C of p C as a functon of the confdence level γ. No default observed n grade A, two defaults observed n grade B, one default observed n grade C, frequences of oblgors n grades gven by (2.3). ˆp C 0,56% 0,90% 1,29% 1,57% 2,19% 3,04% we have descrbed how to generalze the methodology from Secton 2 to the case where non-zero default frequences have been recorded. In the followng secton we nvestgate the mpact of 3 For the calculaton, substtute n A for n C. 4 At level 99, 9%, e.g., 2,78% would be the value of the upper confdence bound. 5 If we had assumed that two defaults occurred n grade B but no default was observed n grade C, then we would have obtaned smaller upper bounds for p C than for p B. As ths s not a desrable effect, a possble conservatve work-around could be to ncrement the number of defaults n grade C up to the pont where p C would take on a greater value than p B. Nevertheless, n ths case one would have to make sure that the appled ratng system really yelds a correct rankng of the oblgors. 7
non-zero default correlaton on the PD estmates that are effected by applyng the most prudent estmaton methodology. 4 Example: no defaults, correlated default events In ths secton, we descrbe the dependence of the default events wth the one-factor probt model 6 that underles the rsk weght functons gven n BCBS (2004a). For the rest, we come back to the example from Secton 2 and assume that no default at all 7 was observed n the whole portfolo durng the last perod. In order to llustrate the effects of correlaton, we apply the mnmum value of the asset correlatons that appear n the rsk weght functon. Ths mnmum value s 3%. Under the assumptons of ths secton, the confdence regon at level γ for p A s represented as the set of all admssble values of p A that satsfy the nequalty 1 γ ϕ(y) ( 1 Φ (Φ 1 (p A ) + ρy 1 ρ ) ) n A +n B +n C dy, (4.1) where ϕ and Φ stand for the standard normal densty and dstrbuton functon respectvely, Φ 1 denotes the nverse functon of Φ, and ρ s the asset correlaton (here ρ s chosen as ρ = 3%). Smlar to (2.2a), the rght-hand sde of nequalty (4.1) tells us the one-perod probablty of not observng any default among n A + n B + n C oblgors wth average PD p A (measured as a long-term average). Solvng numercally 8 Equaton (4.1) (wth frequences of oblgors per grade as n (2.3)) leads to Table 7 wth some maxmum solutons ˆp A of (4.1) as a functon evaluated at several confdence levels γ. Comparng the values from Tables 7 and 1 shows that dfferences n the upper confdence Table 7: Upper confdence bound ˆp A of p A as a functon of the confdence level γ. No defaults observed, frequences of oblgors n grades gven by (2.3). Case of correlated default events. ˆp A 0,10% 0,21% 0,39% 0,54% 0,93% 1,60% 6 See Gordy (2003) and BCBS (2004b) for the background of the rsk weght functons. In the case of non-zero realzed default rates Balthazar (2004) uses the one-factor model for dervng confdence ntervals of the PDs. 7 In the case of non-zero realzed default rates upper confdence bounds for the PDs can be calculated also under the correlaton assumpton n a way smlar to the procedures of Secton 3. 8 See Appendx A, Proposton A.2 for addtonal nformaton. Takng nto account correlatons entals an ncreased numercal complexty. Therefore, t mght be more effcent to deal wth the correlaton problem by choosng an approprately enlarged confdence level n the ndependent default events approach as descrbed n Sectons 2 and 3. 8
bounds are not too large for confdence levels up to 95%. However, the bounds are almost doubled for the hgher confdence levels when swtchng from the uncorrelated to the correlated model. Essentally, the formulae for the estmatons of upper confdence bounds for p B and p C can be derved analogously to (4.1). The numercal calculatons wth these formulae do not delver addtonal qualtatve nsghts. Therefore we skp lstng the formulae and numbers here. 5 Potental Applcatons The most prudent estmaton methodology descrbed n the prevous sectons can be used for a range of applcatons, both n an bank nternal context as well as n a Basel II context. In the latter case, t mght be of specfc mportance for portfolos where nether nternal nor external default data are suffcent to meet the Basel requrements. A prme example mght be Specalsed Lendng. In these hgh-volume, low-number and low-default portfolos, nternal data are often nsuffcent for PD estmatons per ratng grade, and mght ndeed even be nsuffcent for ceentral tendency estmatons for the entre portfolo (across all ratng grades). Moreover, mappng to external ratngs - although explctly allowed n the Basel context and wdely used n bank nternal applcatons - mght be mpossble due to the low number of externally rated exposures. The (conservatve) prncple of the most prudent estmaton could potentally serve as an alternatve to the Basel slottng approach, subject to supervsory approval. In ths context, the proposed methodology mght be nterpreted as a specfc form of the Basel requrement of conservatve estmatons n case of data scarcty. In a wder, bank nternal context, the methodology mght be used for all sorts of low default portfolos. In partcular, t could serve as a complement to other estmaton methods, whether ths be mappng to external ratngs, the proposals by Schuermann and Hanson (2004) or others. Moreover, we want to emphasze that our proposed methodology can only be appled to whole ratng systems and portfolos. An - at frst sght magnable - calbraton of PDs of ndvdual, low default ratng grades wthn an otherwse data rch portfolo seems unfeasble because of the unavodable structural break between average PDs (data rch ratng grades) and upper PD bounds (low default ratng grades). Smlarly, the applcaton of the methodology for back-testng or smlar valdaton tools would not add much addtonal nformaton, as the (e.g. purely expert based) average PDs per ratng grade would normally be well below our proposed quanttatve upper bounds. 6 Open Issues For potental applcatons, the followng ssues would need to be addressed: 9
Whch confdence levels are approprate? Our proposed most prudent estmate could serve as a conservatve proxy for average PDs. In determnng ths confdence level, the mpact of a potental underestmaton of these average PDs should be taken nto account. The more severe ths mpact were, the hgher the level should be chosen. In a Basel II context as well as n many bank nternal credt rsk models, average PDs are used to determne Unexpected Losses and Regulatory or Economc Captal, respectvely, by means of stress scenaros. Thus, the PDs are subject to some addtonal sort of stress. As such, the results of such models already nclude a certan buffer aganst uncertanty, and moderate confdence levels for our PD estmaton method seem feasble. Ths argument s partcularly vald wth the Basel rsk weght functons, where PDs are transformed nto stress PDs n order to determne the regulatory captal requrements (BCBS, 2004b). At whch number of defaults should one devate from our methodolgy and use normal average PD estmaton methods (at least for the overall portfolo central tendency)? Can ths crtcal number be analytcally determned? If the relatve number of defaults n one of the better ratngs grades s sgnfcantly hgher than those n lower ratng grades (and wthn low default portfolos, ths mght happen wth only one or two addtonal defaults), then our PD estmates can turn out to be nonmonotone. In whch cases should ths be taken as an ndcaton for the non-correctness of the ordnal rankng? Certanly, monotony or non-monotony of our upper PD bounds does not mmedately mply that the average PDs are monotone or non-monotone. Under whch condtons would there be statstcal evdence of a volaton of the monotony requrement for the PDs? 7 Conclusons In ths artcle, we have ntroduced a methodology for estmatng probabltes of default n low or no default portfolos. The methodology s based on upper confdence ntervals by use of the most prudent estmaton. Ths estmaton methodology can the easest be appled under the assumpton of ndependent default events. In prncple, the methodology can also be appled n case of default correlatons. The above example from secton 4 shows, however, that ths mght not even be necessary, as smlar effects can be obtaned by applyng hgher confdence levels to the estmatons. Our methodology uses all avalable quanttatve nformaton. In the extreme case of no correlatons n the entre portfolo, ths nformaton conssts solely of the absolute numbers of counter-partes per ratng grade. The lack of defaults n the entre portfolo prevents relable quanttatve statements on both the absolute level of average PDs per ratng grade as well as on the relatve rsk ncrease from 10
ratng grade to ratng grade. Wthn the most prudent estmaton methodology, we do not use such nformaton. The only addtonal assumpton used s the ordnal rankng of the borrowers, whch s assumed to be correct. Our PD estmates mght seem rather hgh at frst sght. However, gven the amount of nformaton that s actually avalable, the results do not appear out of range. Moreover, we beleve that the choce of modest confdence levels s approprate wthn most applcatons. References Balthazar, L. (2004) PD estmates for Basel II. Rsk Aprl, 84-85. Basel Commttee on Bankng Supervson (BCBS) (2004a) Basel II: Internatonal Convergence of Captal Measurement and Captal Standards: a Revsed Framework. http://www.bs.org/publ/bcbs107.htm Basel Commttee on Bankng Supervson (BCBS) (2004b) An Explanatory Note on the Basel II IRB Rsk Weght Functons. Brtsh Bankers Assocaton (BBA), London Investment Bankng Assocaton (LIBA) and Internatonal Swaps and Dervatves Assocaton (ISDA) (2004) The IRB Approach for Low Default Portfolos (LDPs) Recommendatons of the Jont BBA, LIBA, ISDA Industry Workng Group. Dscusson paper. http://www.sda.org/speeches/pdf/isda-liba-bba-lowdefaulportfolopaper080904-paper.pdf Gordy, M. (2003) A Rsk-Factor Model Foundaton for Ratngs-Based Bank Captal Rules. Journal of Fnancal Intermedaton 12(3), 199-232. Jafry, Y. and T. Schuermann (2004) Measurement, estmaton and comparson of credt mgraton matrces. Journal of Bankng & Fnance 28, 2603-2639. Schuermann, T. and S. Hanson (2004) Estmatng Probabltes of Default. Staff Report no. 190, Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Vascek, O. (1997) The loan loss dstrbuton. Workng paper, KMV Corporaton. A Appendx Goal wth ths appendx s to gve some addtonal nformaton on the solutons of Equatons (3.2) and (4.1). The followng proposton shows the exstence and unqueness of the soluton of (3.2), and, at the same tme, provdes us wth ntal values for the numercal root-fndng. 11
Proposton A.1 Let 0 k < n be ntegers, and defne the functon f n,k : (0,1) R by f n,k (p) = k ( n ) p (1 p) n, p (0,1). (A.1a) =0 Fx some 0 < v < 1. Then the equaton f n,k (p) = v (A.1b) has exactly one soluton 0 < p = p(v) < 1. Moreover, ths soluton p(v) satsfes the nequaltes 1 n v p(v) n 1 v. (A.1c) Proof. A straght-forward calculaton yelds df n,k dp (p) = (n k)(n k ) p k (1 p) n k. (A.2) Hence f n,k s strctly decreasng. Ths mples unqueness of the soluton of (A.1b). The nequaltes f n,0 (p) f n,k (p) f n,n 1 (p) (A.3) mply exstence of a soluton of (A.1b) and the nequaltes from (A.1c). For (4.1) we can derve a result smlar to Proposton A.1. However, there does not exst an obvous upper bound to the soluton p(v) of (A.4b) as n (A.1c). Proposton A.2 For any probablty 0 < p < 1, any correlaton 0 < ρ < 1 and any real number y defne F ρ (p,y) = Φ (Φ 1 (p) + ρ y 1 ρ ), (A.4a) where we make use of the same notatons as for Equaton (4.1). Fx a value 0 < v < 1 and a postve nteger n. Then the equaton v = ϕ(y) ( 1 F ρ (p,y) ) n dy, (A.4b) wth ϕ denotng the standard normal densty, has exactly one soluton 0 < p = p(v) < 1. Ths soluton p(v) satsfes the nequalty p(v) 1 n v. (A.4c) Proof. Note that for fxed ρ and y the functon F ρ (p,y) s strctly ncreasng and contnuous n p. Moreover, we have 0 = lm p 0 F ρ (p,y) and 1 = lm p 1 F ρ (p,y). (A.5) Equaton (A.5) mples exstence and unqueness of the soluton of (A.4b). 12
Defne the random varable Z by Z = F ρ (p,y ), (A.6) where Y denotes a standard normally dstrbuted random varable. Then Z has the well-known Vascek dstrbuton (cf. Vascek, 1997), and n partcular we have E[Z] = p. (A.7) Usng (A.6), Equaton (A.4b) can be rewrtten as v = E[(1 Z) n ]. (A.8) Snce y (1 y) n s convex for 0 < y < 1, by (A.7) Jensen s nequalty mples v = E[(1 Z) n ] (1 p) n. As the rght-hand sde of (A.4b) s decreasng n p, (A.4c) now follows from (A.9). (A.9) 13