Risk premiumin the global creditMarkets: 2006-2012

¿What have we learnt from the 2006-2012 crisis, including events such as the subprime crisis, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers or the European sovereign debt crisis, among others? It is usually assumed that in firms that have a CDS quotation, this CDS is the key factor in establishing the credit premiumrisk for a new financial asset. Thus, the CDS is a key element for any investor in taking relative value opportunities across a firm’s capital structure. In the first chapter we study the most relevant aspects of the microstructure of the CDS market in terms of pricing, to have a clear idea of how this market works. We consider that such an analysis is a necessary point for establishing a solid base for the rest of the chapters in order to carry out the different empirical studies we perform. In its document “Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems”, Basel sets the requirement of a capital charge for credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk in the trading book and its methodology for the computation for the capital requirement. This regulatory requirement has added extra pressure for in-depth knowledge of the CDS market and this motivates the analysis performed in this thesis. The problem arises in estimating of the credit risk premium for those counterparties without a directly quoted CDS in the market. How can we estimate the credit spread for an issuer without CDS? In addition to this, given the high volatility period in the credit market in the last few years and, in particular, after the default of Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008, we observe the presence of big outliers in the distribution of credit spread in the different combinations of rating, industry and region. After an exhaustive analysis of the results from the different models studied, we have reached the following conclusions. It is clear that hierarchical regression models fit the data much better than those of non-hierarchical regression. Furthermore,we generally prefer the median model (50%-quantile regression) to the mean model (standard OLS regression) due to its robustness when assigning the price to a new credit asset without spread,minimizing the “inversion problem”. Finally, an additional fundamental reason to prefer the median model is the typical "right skewness" distribution of CDS spreads...

Volatility Spillover and Multivariate Volatility Impulse Response Analysis of GFC News Events

This paper applies two measures to assess spillovers across markets: the Diebold Yilmaz (2012) Spillover Index and the Hafner and Herwartz (2006) analysis of multivariate GARCH models using volatility impulse response analysis. We use two sets of data, daily realized volatility estimates taken from the Oxford Man RV library, running from the beginning of 2000 to October 2016, for the S&P500 and the FTSE, plus ten years of daily returns series for the New York Stock Exchange Index and the FTSE 100 index, from 3 January 2005 to 31 January 2015. Both data sets capture both the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the subsequent European Sovereign Debt Crisis (ESDC). The spillover index captures the transmission of volatility to and from markets, plus net spillovers. The key difference between the measures is that the spillover index captures an average of spillovers over a period, whilst volatility impulse responses (VIRF) have to be calibrated to conditional volatility estimated at a particular point in time. The VIRF provide information about the impact of independent shocks on volatility. In the latter analysis, we explore the impact of three different shocks, the onset of the GFC, which we date as 9 August 2007 (GFC1). It took a year for the financial crisis to come to a head, but it did so on 15 September 2008, (GFC2). The third shock is 9 May 2010. Our modelling includes leverage and asymmetric effects undertaken in the context of a multivariate GARCH model, which are then analysed using both BEKK and diagonal BEKK (DBEKK) models. A key result is that the impact of negative shocks is larger, in terms of the effects on variances and covariances, but shorter in duration, in this case a difference between three and six months.