Calibration of structural and reduced-form recovery models
Alexander F. R. Koivusalo, Rudi Sch\"afer

TL;DR
This paper investigates how different recovery rate models, especially those incorporating a dependence on default probabilities, affect the accuracy of loss distribution tail estimates in credit risk modeling.
Contribution
It demonstrates that modeling recovery rates as a function of default probabilities improves tail loss estimation compared to constant recovery assumptions.
Findings
Constant recovery models underestimate tail losses.
Reduced-form models perform better with full calibration data.
Functional dependence models provide the most stable results.
Abstract
In recent years research on credit risk modelling has mainly focused on default probabilities. Recovery rates are usually modelled independently, quite often they are even assumed constant. Then, however, the structural connection between recovery rates and default probabilities is lost and the tails of the loss distribution can be underestimated considerably. The problem of underestimating tail losses becomes even more severe, when calibration issues are taken into account. To demonstrate this we choose a Merton-type structural model as our reference system. Diffusion and jump-diffusion are considered as underlying processes. We run Monte Carlo simulations of this model and calibrate different recovery models to the simulation data. For simplicity, we take the default probabilities directly from the simulation data. We compare a reduced-form model for recoveries with a constant…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
