Author
Abstract
ABSTRACT During the summer of 2007 the financial markets of the world were rippled by the crisis in the US market for subprime residential mortgage loans. The risk in the subprime residential mortgage loans has been packaged and sold over the world using structured finance instruments such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and as many of these products have been assignedthe highest rating by the rating agencies it is unavoidable to question the methodology used by the rating agencies to assign labels of credit quality to these structures as well as the role(s) played by the rating agencies in theprocess. In this paper we introduce a structured approach to concepts of redit quality and we discuss in detail how to assign a notion of rating to cashflows exposed to credit risk. We claim that the model risk and complexity of the process of pricing non-traded credit risk using structured finance products like cashflow CDOs must be considered as significant and that it seems clear that transparency concerning methods, models, assumptions and definitions of credit quality is crucial to the process of creating an even more efficient market for structured finance products, such as cashflow CDOs. One of our points is that it should be possible to create universal, standardized, transparent and mathematically formalized approaches to the rating of structured finance products. Our discussion is exemplified by a cashflow CDO constructed using a portfolio of residential mortgages as reference portfolio and a key problem is to choose the set of scenarios, to base the analysis of the CDO on, and to attach probabilities to these scenarios. Different sets of scenarios and different sets of probabilities give rise to different cashflows and hence to different risks, credit qualities and prices for the instruments involved. Our example emphasizes the effects of the business cycle and the importance of the timing of defaults and the effect, on losses and risks, of different models as well as the impact of structural differences on the generated cashflows.
Suggested Citation
Handle:
RePEc:rsk:journ5:2161294
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:2161294. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk-model-validation .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.