text.dvi

Similar documents
IMES DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Discussion Paper No. 99-J- 9 -J-19 INSTITUTE FOR MONETARY AND ECONOMIC STUDIES BANK OF JAPAN

untitled

untitled



BIS CDO CDO CDO CDO Cifuentes and O Connor[1] Finger[6] Li[8] Duffie and Garleânu[4] CDO Merton[9] CDO 1 CDO CDO CDS CDO three jump model Longstaff an

.n.s.N.._...{.\1

CDOのプライシング・モデルとそれを用いたCDOの特性等の考察: CDOの商品性、国内市場の概説とともに


株式保有構成と企業価値 ─コーポレート・ガバナンスに関する一考察─

スプレッド・オプション評価公式を用いた裁定取引の可能性―電力市場のケース― 藤原 浩一,新関 三希代

IT

バーリ&ミーンズの株式会社論

大規模データベースを用いた信用リスク計測の問題点と対策(変数選択とデータ量の関係)

相互取引に伴う債権債務の依存構造を考慮した金融機関の与信評価について

年次報告書2008年3月期

Vol. 3 No (Mar. 2010) An Option Valuation Model Based on an Asset Pricing Model Incorporating Investors Beliefs Kentaro Tanaka, 1 Koich

アジアの資本移動の変化に関するクラスター分析 アジア域内の証券投資活性化に向けて

Sony Bank 11j_Master_IKM.indd

cover.ai

untitled

IT

商品流動性リスクの計量化に関する一考察(その2)―内生的流動性リスクを考慮したストレス・テスト―

Masahiro NAKANO Keynes benchmark Keynes 89

untitled

untitled

Y-...W

わが国のレポ市場について―理論的整理と実証分析―

,255 7, ,355 4,452 3,420 3,736 8,206 4, , ,992 6, ,646 4,

ir資料4 2.ai

() ( ) ( ) (1996) (1997) (1997) EaR (Earning at Risk) VaR ( ) ( ) Memmel (214) () 2 (214) 2

日本株式市場における経済レジームファクターの役割

第42巻第1号【論説】銀行経営研究序説

Mizuho Industry Focus Vol

_03.indd

ERM 2007/12/26 1

To Our Shareholders 1

Black-Scholes [1] Nelson [2] Schrödinger 1 Black Scholes [1] Black-Scholes Nelson [2][3][4] Schrödinger Nelson Parisi Wu [5] Nelson Parisi-W

Microsoft Word - Šv”|.DOC

,511,519 8,635,897 7,796,285 7,796,285 2,108,969 2,233,759 1,299,999 1,300,411 93,736 93, ,511,796 8,636,164 12,450 18,675

IS-LM (interest) 100 (net rate of interest) (rate of interest) ( ) = 100 (2.1) (gross rate of interest) ( ) = 100 (2.2)

untitled

濱田弘潤 : 多角化企業の利潤分析 77 多角化企業の利潤分析 多角化ディスカウントの寡占理論による説明 * 濱田弘潤 (diversification discount) Keywords: JEL classifications: D43, L13, L22, G



本組/根間弘海


-

07_7„”“ƒ_…p…h…b…N

メイン寄せリスクと貸出債権価値の評価:ゲーム論的リアルオプションによるアプローチ

1 Nelson-Siegel Nelson and Siegel(1987) 3 Nelson-Siegel 3 Nelson-Siegel 2 3 Nelson-Siegel 2 Nelson-Siegel Litterman and Scheinkman(199

L Y L( ) Y0.15Y 0.03L 0.01L 6% L=(10.15)Y 108.5Y 6%1 Y y p L ( 19 ) [1990] [1988] 1


Q A Q A 1

橡\\Toro\c\USER_1\RAND\ARTICLE\TEXT.DVI



Auerbach and Kotlikoff(1987) (1987) (1988) 4 (2004) 5 Diamond(1965) Auerbach and Kotlikoff(1987) 1 ( ) ,

IT

0226_ぱどMD表1-ol前

1

,398 4% 017,


Change in Organization Mode and Asymmetric Personal Information via Corporate Group Management Resolution 1 asymmetric information,2003a symmetric ign


A 24 B 27 C 29 D 32 E 35 F

P P P P P P P P P P P P P

東アジアへの視点

03.Œk’ì

2 / 24

Public Pension and Immigration The Effects of Immigration on Welfare Inequality The immigration of unskilled workers has been analyzed by a considerab


TOP MESSAGE BUSINESS SUMMARY

COE-RES Discussion Paper Series Center of Excellence Project The Normative Evaluation and Social Choice of Contemporary Economic Systems Graduate Scho

1 CAPM: I-,,, I- ( ) 1 I- I- I- ( CAPM) I- CAPM I- 1 I- Jensen Fama-French 3 I- Fama-French 3 I- Fama-MacBeth I- SMB-FL, HML-FL Fama-MacBeth 1 Fama-Fr

橡計画0.PDF

untitled

genron-3

80期期末_表1_web.ai


わが国企業による資金調達方法の選択問題

年次報告書2008年3月期

A B A E

復活だぁっ! 日本の不況と流動性トラップの逆襲

ITの経済分析に関する調査

子ども・子育て支援新制度 全国総合システム(仮称)に関するインターフェース仕様書 市町村・都道府県編(初版)

高齢化とマクロ投資比率―国際パネルデータを用いた分析―

初級/発刊に寄せて・改定にあたって(第2次)

No

「国債の金利推定モデルに関する研究会」報告書

1 12 ( )150 ( ( ) ) x M x 0 1 M 2 5x 2 + 4x + 3 x 2 1 M x M 2 1 M x (x + 1) 2 (1) x 2 + x + 1 M (2) 1 3 M (3) x 4 +

バリュー・アット・リスクのリスク指標としての妥当性について ― 理論的サーベイによる期待ショートフォールとの比較分析―

スライド 1

(2005a) (2005) ( ) (2004) (2003) 3 (2003) (2003) 2

上場変更と株価:株主分散と流動性変化のインパクト

1

Title ベンチャー企業の研究開発支出の決定要因 日本と台湾の事例を中心に Author(s) 蘇, 顯揚 Citation 經濟論叢 (1996), 158(1): Issue Date URL Right

76 3 B m n AB P m n AP : PB = m : n A P B P AB m : n m < n n AB Q Q m A B AQ : QB = m : n (m n) m > n m n Q AB m : n A B Q P AB Q AB 3. 3 A(1) B(3) C(

166“ƒŒÚ”Ł

金融システムレポート(2008年3月号)

Transcription:

Abstract JP Morgan CreditMetrics (1) () (3) (4) 1 3 3 4 4 5 10 6 16 1

1 BIS 1 3 1 BIS 1 BIS 1 3 ALM (1) Value at Risk () (3) RAROC (Risk Ajusted Return On Capital) (4)

3 5 6 31 99% (= p ) ~x X Prf~x Xg = p p p 99% 1% 3 4 1 [4] 3 3

100 A 100 A 100 1 100 100 1 100 0 80 075 4 1 0 1 1 [18] 4 () 4 (1) () (3) (4) RiskMetrics [5] 41 ( ) 4

3 [4] () i i ~r i;y ~r i;y = (1 + R i;y ) (1 0 d ~ i;y ) 0 1 (1) R i;y = i y ~d i;y = i y r i;y d i;y [1, 10, 19] () E[r i ] () ri ri ;r j ( ) () portfolio portfolio = x 0 6x 6 = r i x = 4 5

1: Aaa Aa A Baa Ba B 70 00 00 00 03 84 16 71 00 00 00 00 15 00 7 00 00 00 00 05 118 73 00 00 00 05 05 34 74 00 00 00 00 00 69 75 00 00 00 00 16 30 76 00 00 00 00 11 00 77 00 00 00 03 06 88 78 00 00 00 00 11 53 79 00 00 00 00 05 00 80 00 00 00 00 00 44 81 00 00 00 00 00 41 8 00 00 0 03 6 83 00 00 00 00 10 60 84 00 00 00 06 05 73 85 00 00 00 00 0 87 86 00 00 00 11 19 116 87 00 00 00 00 6 53 88 00 00 00 00 15 57 89 00 03 00 05 7 86 90 00 00 00 00 33 19 91 00 00 00 0 51 131 9 00 00 00 00 0 61 [9] 3 3 (1) 3 4 t n n + 1 X n n + 1 h n = Prfn X n + 1g () X 6

h(t) = h(t; z) = h 0 (t) expf 0 zg (3) z = ( ) = h 0 (t) = 1 3 GDP GDP h 0 4 i L ~ i 3 4 [4, 7] L ~ P ~ i L i P ~ i L i 4 L ~ i i 7

1 i D 0 p i1 p i p id t 0 1 t p i1 p i p id T 0 1 T 1 P 1: 43 1 ( ) t i q i;t q i;t+1 = DX j=1 p j;i q j;t (4) q t = P = p i;d = 0 B @ 0 B @ q 1;t q ;t q D;t q t+1 = Pq t (5) 1 C A p 1;1 p ;1 111 p D;1 p 1; p ; 111 p D; p 1;D p ;D 111 p D;D ( 0 (i 6= D) 1 (i = D) 1 C A i + k i i + j (k > j > 0) i p i+j;i > p i+k;i (k > j > 0) (6) [6, 19] (6) i L ~ i L P ~ i L i 8

4 5 P P L ~ i CreditMetrics 44 V dv = V dt + V dz (7) 5 z [3, ] 1 (7) i L ~ i L P ~ i L i 4 (7) (7) 9

dz L ~ i i (7) 5 ( ) () : 51 511 ( ) () t i v it v i;t+1 = v it + a i + b 1i ~x 1 + b i ~x + 111+ i (8) ~x j = j a i = i b ji = j i i = 10

1 : ( : %) ( 1) ( ) 3 ( 3) i i t 0 1nt 1 3 4 5 D 1 863 17 00 0 00 08 19 864 10 04 03 09 3 00 4 849 90 10 08 4 00 00 43 869 77 10 5 00 00 06 05 780 09 D 00 00 00 00 00 1000 3: x x N(0; 6) (9) 6 x i i v i N( i ; i ) (10) i = v it + a i (11) i = b0 6b + Var( i ) (1) x i 51 v i;t+1 i i, i v 3 i = v i 0 i i (13) v 3 i 3 4% 3 849% 4 90% 5 10% 08% x v 3 i c c+1 x c;c+1 x Z xc01;c 1 p c = p e 0 1 z dz (14) x c;c+1 p c c 11

(1 + r)p 1 rp rp 3 t 3 5 850% D 08% 10% 4 90% 4% 03 0 01 0 1 3 x 45 = 0:09 x 5D = 0:41 x 34 = 01:4 x 3 = 1:73 v 3 i rp 1 P t 3 5: 4: v 3 i 5 PV def ( 5 ) PV def = d01 X t=1 D t rp + D d P (15) d = D t = t ( ) r = P = = PV nodef PV nodef = TX t=1 D t rp + D T P (16) T 1

0 0 40 60 80 100 (%) 6: 7: L L = PV nodef 0 PV def (17) 53 10,000 ( ) 6 ( 99%) 7 x y 4 x y 4 8 p L L = (a + bq(p)) 4 + (18) a, b q(p) p p = Z q(p) 01 1 p e 0 1 z dz (19) 13

^05-4 - 0 4 0 0 40 60 80 100 (%) 8: 4 9: 54 RAROC ( ) ( ) ( ) 14

^05-4 - 0 4 10: 4 10% 9 4 ( 10) 55 CreditMetrics JP Morgan 1997 4 CreditMetrics [6] CreditMetrics 1 1 CreditMetrics CreditMetrics 1 1 1 [0, 5] 15

6 [1] Altman ES Why business fail The Journal of Business Strategy, pp 15{1, 1983 [] Robert CMerton On the pricing of corporate debt: the risk structure of interest rates Journal of Political Economy, pp 449{470, 1973 [3] Fischer Black and Myron Scholes The pricing of options and corporate liablities Journal of Political Economy, pp 637{654, 1973 [4] TR Fleming and DP Harrington Counting process and survival analysis John Wiley and Sons, 1991 [5] JP Morgan Risk Metrics Technical Document JP Morgan, 199 [6] JP Morgan Credit Metrics Technical Document JP Morgan, 1997 [7] JD Kalbeish and RL Prentice The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data John Wiley and Sons, 1980 [8] M Kijima and K Komoribayashi A markov chain model for valuing credit risk derivatives preprint, 1997 [9] Moody's Investors Service,, 1, 1994 [10] Platt HD and Platt MB Business cycle eects on state corporate failure rates Journal of Economics and Business, pp 113{ 17, 1994 [11] Robert AJarrow, David Lando, and Stuart MTurnbull A markov model for the term structure of credit risk spreads Review of Financial Studies, pp 481{53, 1997 [1], pp 7{100, 1994 16

[13], (), 1997 [14],, 7 1996 [15] I, 1994 [16] II, 1994 [17], pp 40{57, 7 1996 [18], pp 5{54, 1997 [19],, 6 1996 [0], JCR, pp 5{9, 1996 [1] ALM, 1995 [],, 1997 [3] 4, 6 1996 [4],, pp 10{, 11 1995 [5], 1997 [6], 1997 17