Skip to main content
Log in

Calibrating probability distributions with convex-concave-convex functions: application to CDO pricing

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers a class of functions referred to as convex-concave-convex (CCC) functions to calibrate unimodal or multimodal probability distributions. In discrete case, this class of functions can be expressed by a system of linear constraints and incorporated into an optimization problem. We use CCC functions for calibrating a risk-neutral probability distribution of obligors default intensities (hazard rates) in collateral debt obligations (CDO). The optimal distribution is calculated by maximizing the entropy function with no-arbitrage constraints given by bid and ask prices of CDO tranches. Such distribution reflects the views of market participants on the future market environments. We provide an explanation of why CCC functions may be applicable for capturing a non-data information about the considered distribution. The numerical experiments conducted on market quotes for the iTraxx index with different maturities and starting dates support our ideas and demonstrate that the proposed approach has stable performance. Distribution generalizations with multiple humps and their applications in credit risk are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.ise.ufl.edu/uryasev/research/testproblems/financial_engineering/cs_calibration_copula/.

  2. If the maximum is not unique, the algorithm should be performed for eash point in the set \(argmax\{p^*_i:i=1,\ldots ,I\}\), and then the solution with the smallest objective value should be chosen.

  3. http://www.ise.ufl.edu/uryasev/research/testproblems/financial_engineering/cs_calibration_copula/.

  4. http://www.ise.ufl.edu/uryasev/research/testproblems/financial_engineering/cs_calibration_copula/.

References

  • Portfolio safeguard (2009) version 2.1. http://www.aorda.com/aod/welcome.action

  • Andersen L, Sidenius J (2004) Extensions to the gaussian copula: random recovery and random factor loadings. J Credit Risk 1(1):29–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnsdorf M, Halperin I (2007) Bslp: Markovian bivariate spread-loss model for portfolio credit derivatives. Quantitative research, JP Morgan

  • Avellaneda M (1998) Minimum-relative-entropy calibration of asset-pricing models. Intern J Theor Appl Finance 1(4):447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avellaneda M, Buff R, Friedman C, Grandchamp N, Gr N, Kruk L, Newman J (2001) Weighted monte carlo: a new technique for calibrating asset-pricing models. Intern J Theor Appl Finance 4:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahra B (1997) Implied risk-neutral probability density functions from option prices: theory and application. Working paper, Bank of England

  • Bu R, Hadri K (2007) Estimating option implied risk-neutral densities using spline and hypergeometric functions. Econ J 10:216–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burtschell X, Gregory J, Laurent JP (2005) A comparative analysis of cdo pricing models. In: ISFA Actuarial School and BNP Parisbas. ISFA Actuarial School

  • Campa JM, Chang PK, Reider RL (1998) Implied exchange rate distributions: evidence from otc option markets. J Intern Money Finance 17(1):117–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempster MAH, Medova EA, Yang SW (2007) Empirical copulas for cdo tranche pricing using relative entropy. Intern J Theor Appl Finance (IJTAF) 10(04):679–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golan A (2002) Information and entropy econometrics—editor’s view. J Econ 107(1–2):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin I (2009) Implied multi-factor model for bespoke cdo tranches and other portfolio credit derivatives. Quantitative research, JP Morgan

  • Hull J, White A (2010) An improved implied copula model and its application to the valuation of bespoke cdo tranches. J Invest Manag 8(3):11–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull JC, White AD (2006) Valuing credit derivatives using an implied copula approach. J Deriv 14(2):8–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackwerth JC (1999) Option implied risk-neutral distributions and implied binomial trees: a literature review. J Deriv 7:66–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackwerth JC, Rubinstein M (1996) Recovering probability distributions from option prices. J Finance 51(5):1611–1631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent JP, Gregory J (2003) Basket default swaps, cdo’s and factor copulas. J Risk 7(4):103–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Li DX (2000) On default correlation: a copula function approach. J Fixed Income 9(4):43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malz AM (1997) Estimating the probability distribution of the future exchange rate from option prices. J Deriv 5(2):18–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Dautrich S, Wagner C (2007) Minimum entropy calibration of cdo tranches. Working paper, UniCredit MIB

  • Miller D, Liu Wh (2002) On the recovery of joint distributions from limited information. J Econ 107(1): 259–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro AM, Tütüncü RH, Vicente LN (2008) Recovering risk-neutral probability density functions from options prices using cubic splines and ensuring nonnegativity. Eur J Oper Res 187(2):525–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedeljkovic J, Rosen D, Saunders D (2010) Pricing and hedging collateralized loan obligations with implied factor models. J Credit Risk 6(3):53–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen D, Saunders D (2009) Valuing cdos of bespoke portfolios with implied multi-factor models. J Credit Risk 5(3):3–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Tsyurmasto.

Appendix \(1\): running case study with portfolio safeguard (PSG)

Appendix \(1\): running case study with portfolio safeguard (PSG)

PSG has several syntax formats for running optimization problems in MATLAB environment:

  • Optimization subroutines for optimizing nonlinear functions. Subroutines (e.g., “riskprog”) use as a parameter the name of a nonlinear function (e.g. “entropyr”), which is optimized.

  • General PSG format.

With PSG optimization language in general format, the problem solving typically involves three main stages:

  1. 1.

    Mathematical formulation of a problem with a meta-code using PSG nonlinear functions. Typically, a problem formulation involves 5–10 operators of a meta-code. See in the end of the Appendix 1 the PSG meta-code for Problem C(\(w_l,w_r\)).

  2. 2.

    Preparation of data for the PSG functions in an appropriate format. For instance, the meansquare error function is defined by the matrix of loss scenarios. One of those matrices should be prepared if we use this function in the problem statement.

  3. 3.

    Solving the optimization problem with PSG using the predefined problem statement and data for PSG functions. The problem can be solved in several PSG environments, such as MATLAB environment and Run-File (Text) environment.

Further we present the PSG meta-code for solving Optimization Problem C(\(w_l\),\(w_r\)). The meta-code, data and solutions can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of this pageFootnote 4.

Meta-Code for Optimization Problem C(\(w_l,w_r\))

  1. 1

    Problem: problem_CCC, type \(=\) minimize

  2. 2

    Objective: objective_h, linearize \(=\) 1

  3. 3

    entropyr_h(matrix_h)

  4. 4

    Constraint: constraint_a, lower_bound \(=\) vector_bl, upper_bound \(=\) vector_b

  5. 5

    linearmulti_a (matrix_a)

  6. 6

    Constraint: constraint_aeq, lower_bound \(=\) 1, upper_bound \(=\) 1

  7. 7

    linearmulti_aeq (matrix_aeq)

  8. 8

    Box_of_Variables: lowerbounds \(=\) 0

  9. 9

    Solver: VAN, precision \(=\) 5

Here is a brief description of the presented meta-code. We boldface the important parts of the code. The keyword minimize tells a solver that the Problem C(\(w_l,w_r\)) is a minimization problem. The keyword Objective is used to define the objective function. The objective function (17), that is a Shannon entropy function, is defined in lines 2,3 with the keyword entropyr and the data matrix, located in the file matrix_h.txt. Each constraint starts with the keyword Constraint. The constraints (18), (19) and (22)–(25) are the system of linear inequalities, defined in lines 4,5 with the keyword linearmulti. The coefficients for these linear inequalities are given in the file matrix_a.txt. The probability distribution constraint (20) is defined in lines 6,7 with keyword linearmulti and the matrix of unit coefficients, located in the file matrix_aeq.txt. The Box_of_Variables in line 8 sets the non-negativity constraints (21).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Veremyev, A., Tsyurmasto, P., Uryasev, S. et al. Calibrating probability distributions with convex-concave-convex functions: application to CDO pricing. Comput Manag Sci 11, 341–364 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-013-0176-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-013-0176-4

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation