Vergleichende Analyse alternativer Kreditrisikomodelle
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Vergleichende Analyse alternativer Kreditrisikomodelle
Wahrenburg, Mark | Niethen, Susanne
Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, Vol. 33 (2000), Iss. 2 : pp. 235–257
1 Citations (CrossRef)
Additional Information
Article Details
Author Details
Mark Wahrenburg, Frankfurt/Main
Susanne Niethen, Köln
Cited By
-
Generally accepted rating principles: A primer
Krahnen, Jan Pieter
Weber, Martin
Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 25 (2001), Iss. 1 P.3
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(00)00115-1 [Citations: 105]
References
-
Black, F./J. C. Cox, (1976): Valuing Coporate Securities: Some Effects of Bond Indenture Provisions, Journal of Finance 31, 351-367.
Google Scholar -
Briys, E./F. de Varenne, (1997): Valuing Risky Fixed Rate Debt: An Extension, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 32, 239-248.
Google Scholar -
Crouhy, M./Robert Mark, (1993a): A Comparative Analysis of Current Credit Risk Models, Präsentation anläßlich der Konferenz: Credit Modelling and the Regulatory Implications, London, September 1998.
Google Scholar -
Crouhy, M./Robert Mark, (1998b): Aggregating and Integrating Market and Credit Risk within a Consistent Framework, Vortag Global Derivatives, Paris, 1998. - CreditMetrics, (1997): Technical Document, J. P. Morgan. - CreditRisk*, (1997): Technical Document, Credit Suisse Financial Products. -- Credit Portfolio View, (1998): Approach Document and User’s Manual, McKinsey & Company.
Google Scholar -
Das, S. R./P. Tuffano, (1995): Pricing Credit-Sensitive Debt when Interest Rates, Credit Ratings and Credit Spreads are Stochstic, The Journal of Financial Engineering 5, 161-198.
Google Scholar -
Duffie, D./K. Singleton, (1995): Modeling Term Structures of Defaultable Bonds, Working Paper, Stanford University.
Google Scholar -
Gordy, Michael B., (1998): A Comparative Anatomy of Credit Risk Models, Working Paper, Federal Reserve System.
Google Scholar -
Jarrow, R./S. M. Turnbull, (1995): Pricing Options on Financial Securities Subject to Credit Risk, Journal of Finance, 53-86.
Google Scholar -
Jarrow, R./D. Lando/ S. M. Turnbull, (1997): A Markov Model for the Term Structure of Credit Risk Spreads, The Review of Financial Studies 10, 481-523.
Google Scholar -
Kealhofer, S., (1995a): Managing Default Risk in Portfolios of Derivatives, in Derivatives Credit Risk: Advances in Measurement and Management, Risk Publication, London, 49-63.
Google Scholar -
Kealhofer, S., (1995b): Portfolio of Default Risk, proprietary documentation, KMV Corporation, San Francisco.
Google Scholar -
Longstaff, F. A./E. S. Schwartz, (1995): A Simple Approach to Valuing Risky Fixed and Floating Rate Debt, Journal of Finance, 789-819.
Google Scholar -
Merton, R. C., (1974): On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates, Journal of Finance 29, 449-470.
Google Scholar -
Wilson, T., (1997a): Portfolio Credit Risk (D), Risk Magazine, September, Volume 10, Number 9.
Google Scholar -
Wilson, T., (1997b): Portfolio Credit Risk (II), Risk Magazine, October, Volume 10, Number 10.
Google Scholar
Abstract
Comparative Analysis of Alternative Credit Risk Models
Various models have been developed in recent years for quantifying banks’ default risks with the portfolio effects of such risks being taken into account. So far, no approach has been able to establish itself as the generally accepted standard. Since the models show fundamental conceptual differences for using different empirical input data, the credit-risk model choice may have a considerable impact on banks’ credit portfolio management. The purpose of this contribution therefore is to clarify whether models permit to calculate systematically deviating value-at-risk figures and, if so, what the origins of such deviations are. This contribution initially shows that the existing credit risk models may be divided into two categories: asset value-based models and default rate-based models. On the basis of a model portfolio of loans to German construction firms, the protagonists of the two model classes (CreditMetrics and CreditRisk*) are compared estimating the effects of the differing empirical input parameters on risk results. The analysis shows substantial differences between the models. However, an examination of the reasons explaining the deviations show that the wide value-at-risk variations primarily stem from the differences in the empirical input data leading to different assumptions for implied correlations. This contribution demonstrated how to choose model parameters to generate identical correlations. The results of both models are largely congruent where the correlation assumptions are consistent