Does modeling framework matter? A comparative study of structural and reduced-form models

Yalin Gündüz and Marliese Uhrig-Homburg

No 2011,05, Discussion Paper Series 2: Banking and Financial Studies from Deutsche Bundesbank

Abstract: This study provides a rigorous empirical comparison of structural and reduced-form credit risk frameworks. As major difference we focus on the discriminative modeling of default time. In contrast to previous literature, we calibrate both approaches to bond and equity prices. By using same input data, applying comparable estimation techniques, and assessing the out-of-sample prediction quality on same time series of CDS prices we are able to judge whether empirically the model structure itself makes an important difference. Interestingly, the models' prediction power is quite close on average. Still, the reduced-form approach outperforms the structural for investment-grade names and longer maturities.

Keywords: credit risk; structural models; reduced-form models; default intensity; stationary leverage; credit default swaps (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G13 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/45639/1/659408813.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Does modeling framework matter? A comparative study of structural and reduced-form models (2014)
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:zbw:bubdp2:201105

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Discussion Paper Series 2: Banking and Financial Studies from Deutsche Bundesbank Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics ().