This paper empirically tests five structural models of corporate bond pricing: those of Merton (1974), Geske (1977), Leland and Toft (1996), Longsta# and Schwartz (1995), and Collin-Dufresne and Goldstein (2001). We implement the models using a sample of 182 bond prices from firms with simple capital structures during the period 1986-1997. The conventional wisdom is that structural models do not generate spreads as high as those seen in the bond market, and true to expectations we find that the predicted spreads in our implementation of the Merton model are too low. However, most of the other structural models predict spreads that are too high on average. Nevertheless, accuracy is a problem, as the newer models tend to severely overstate the credit risk of firms with high leverage or volatility and yet su#er from a spread underprediction problem with safer bonds. The Leland and Toft model is an exception in that it overpredicts spreads on most bonds, particularly those with high coupons. More accurate structural models must avoid features that increase the credit risk on the riskier bonds while scarcely a#ecting the spreads of the safest bonds.

Copyright c○2004 by the authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

This paper estimates recent default risk premia for U.S. corporate debt, based on a close relationship between default probabilities, as estimated by Moody's KMV EDFs, and default swap (CDS) market rates. The default-swap data, obtained through CIBC from 22 banks and specialty dealers, allow us to establish a strong link between actual and risk-neutral default probabilities for the 69 firms in the three sectors that we analyze: broadcasting and entertainment, healthcare, and oil and gas. We find dramatic variation over time in risk premia, from peaks in the thrid quarter of 2002, dropping by roughly 50% to late 2003.

We identify and estimate the sources of risk that cause corporate bonds to earn an excess return over default-free bonds. In particular, we estimate the risk premium associated with a default event. Default is modelled using a jump process with stochastic intensity. For a large set of firms, we model the default intensity of each firm as a function of common and firm-specific factors. In the model, corporate bond excess returns can be due to risk premia on factors driving the intensities and due to a risk premium on the default jump risk. The model is estimated using data on corporate bond prices for 104 US firms and historical default rate data. We find significant risk premia on the factors that drive intensities. However, these risk premia cannot fully explain the size of corporate bond excess returns. Next, we estimate the size of the default jump risk premium, correcting for possible tax and liquidity effects. The estimates show that this event risk premium is a significant and economically important determinant of excess corporate bond returns.

This paper explores the e¡ect of equity volatility on corporate bond yields. Panel data for the late 1990s show that idiosyncratic ¢rm-level volatility can explain as much cross-sectional variation in yields as can credit ratings. This ¢nding, together with the upward trend in idiosyncratic equity volatility documented by Campbell, Lettau, Malkiel, and Xu (2001), helps to explain recent increases in corporate bond yields. DURING THE LATE 1990s, THE U.S. EQUITY and corporate bond markets behaved very di¡erently. As displayed in Figure 1, stock prices rose strongly, while at the same time, corporate bonds performed poorly. The proximate cause of the low returns on corporate bonds was a tendency for the yields on both seasoned and newly issued corporate bonds to increase relative to the yields of U.S.Treasury securities. These increases in corporate^Treasury yield spreads are striking because they occurred at a time when stock prices were rising; the optimism of stock market investors did not seem to be shared by investors in the corporate bond market.

This paper explores the nature of default arrival and recovery implicit in the term structures of sovereign CDS spreads. We argue that term structures of spreads reveal not only the arrival rates of credit events (λ Q), but also the loss rates given credit events. Applying our framework to Mexico, Turkey, and Korea, we show that a single-factor model with λ Q following a lognormal process captures most of the variation in the term structures of spreads. The risk premiums associated with unpredictable variation in λ Q are found to be economically significant and co-vary importantly with several economic measures of global event risk, financial market volatility, and macroeconomic policy. THE BURGEONING MARKET FOR SOVEREIGN CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS (CDS) contracts offers a nearly unique window for viewing investors ’ risk-neutral probabilities of major credit events impinging on sovereign issuers, and their risk-neutral losses of principal in the event of a restructuring or repudiation of external debts. In contrast to many “emerging market ” sovereign bonds, sovereign CDS

We propose a reduced-form model where jumps-to-default are priced because they generate a market-wide jump in credit spreads. While this framework is consistent with a counterparty risk interpretation (e.g., Jarrow and Yu (2001)), it is most naturally interpreted as an updating of beliefs due to an unexpected event. Simple analytic solutions are obtained for the prices of risky debt regardless of the number of firms that share in the contagious response. As a special case, we show that the contagious response can be induced via a liquidity-shock, with no impact on actual default intensities. Empirically, we find that credit events of large firms generate a market wide increase in credit spreads and a significant ‘flight-to-quality ’ response in the Treasury market. A calibration argument suggests that the premium associated with jump-to-default risk for a typical investment grade firm has an upper bound of a few basis points per year, but that the risk premium for contagion-risk may be considerably larger.

Recent sovereign defaults in emerging countries are accompanied by interest rate spikes and deep recessions. This paper develops a small open economy model to study default risk and its interaction with output, consumption, and foreign debt. Default probabilities and interest rates depend on incentives for repayment. Default occurs in equilibrium because asset markets are incomplete. The model predicts that default incentives and interest rates are higher in recessions, as observed in the data. The reason is that in a recession, a risk averse borrower finds it more costly to repay non-contingent debt and is more likely to default. In a quantitative exercise the model matches various features of the business cycle in Argentina such as: high volatility of interest rates, higher volatility of consumption relative to output, a negative correlation of interest rates and output and a negative correlation of the trade balance and output. The model can also predict the recent default episode in Argentina.

Abstract not found

This paper is a critical survey of models designed for pricing fixed income securities and their associated term structures of market yields. Our primary focus is on the interplay between the theoretical specification of dynamic term structure models and their empirical fit to historical changes in the shapes of yield curves. We begin by overviewing the dynamic term structure models that have been fit to treasury or swap yield curves and in which the risk factors follow diffusions, jump-diffusion, or have “switching regimes. ” Then the goodness-of-fits of these models are assessed relative to their abilities to: (i) match linear projections of changes in yields onto the slope of the yield curve; (ii) match the persistence of conditional volatilities, and the shapes of term structures of unconditional volatilities, of yields; and (iii) to reliably price caps, swaptions, and other fixed-income derivatives. For the case of defaultable securities we explore the relative fits to historical yield spreads. 1