Vulnerable options, risky corporate bond, and credit spread

Melanie Cao and Jason Wei

Journal of Futures Markets, 2001, vol. 21, issue 4, 301-327

Abstract: In the current literature, the focus of credit‐risk analysis has been either on the valuation of risky corporate bond and credit spread or on the valuation of vulnerable options, but never both in the same context. There are two main concerns with existing studies. First, corporate bonds and credit spreads are generally analyzed in a context where corporate debt is the only liability of the firm and a firm’s value follows a continuous stochastic process. This setup implies a zero short‐term spread, which is strongly rejected by empirical observations. The failure of generating non‐zero short‐term credit spreads may be attributed to the simplified assumption on corporate liabilities. Because a corporation generally has more than one type of liability, modeling multiple liabilities may help to incorporate discontinuity in a firm’s value and thereby lead to realistic credit term structures. Second, vulnerable options are generally valued under the assumption that a firm can fully pay off the option if the firm’s value is above the default barrier at the option’s maturity. Such an assumption is not realistic because a corporation can find itself in a solvent position at option’s maturity but with assets insufficient to pay off the option. The main contribution of this study is to address these concerns. The proposed framework extends the existing equity‐bond capital structure to an equity‐bond‐derivative setting and encompasses many existing models as special cases. The firm under study has two types of liabilities: a corporate bond and a short position in a call option. The risky corporate bond, credit spreads, and vulnerable options are analyzed and compared with their counterparts from previous models. Numerical results show that adding a derivative type of liability can lead to positive short‐term credit spreads and various shapes of credit‐spread term structures that were not possible in previous models. In addition, we found that vulnerable options need not always be worth less than their default‐free counterparts. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 21:301–327, 2001

Date: 2001
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:jfutmk:v:21:y:2001:i:4:p:301-327

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0270-7314

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Futures Markets is currently edited by Robert I. Webb

More articles in Journal of Futures Markets from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().