Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Defaultable bond liquidity spread estimation: an option-based approach

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the liquidity spread of a defaultable coupon bond can be estimated from the ratio of two look-back option values, one evaluated on discrete trading dates and one on continuous trading.

desk verdict Honest extension of the look-back option framework to defaultable coupon bonds, but the central identification is assumed and the empirical fit is partly by construction. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11427 v1 pith:P2NDKZN2 submitted 2025-01-20 q-fin.PR q-fin.CP

Pietro Rossi , Paolo Spezzati , Riccardo Tedeschi This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.PRq-fin.CP MSC 91G2091G4091G30
keywords liquidityspreadlook-backoptiondefaultablebondcouponcreditriskprobingfrequencyMonteCarlosimulationunquotedbonds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the liquidity spread of a defaultable coupon bond can be estimated by pricing liquidity as a look-back option: an ideal investor with perfect timing captures a payoff that depends on how often the bond can be sold. The central quantity is the ratio of the option's value when trading is restricted to discrete dates to its value when trading is continuous, and the model equates this ratio with the bond's liquidity discount factor $e^{-\gamma(T-t)}$. This extends the equity-marketability framework [11] and the default-free zero-coupon version [12] by adding default events and credit-spread volatility, then solves the resulting implicit equation numerically. If the identification holds, the method produces a concrete upper-bound estimate for unquoted bonds; the Republic of Italy case yields a 23–27 basis point spread for a 3.5-year bond.

What carries the argument

The central object is the look-back option $O(0,T)$, whose payoff is the maximum over allowed trading dates of the present value of the bond plus already-received coupons and recovery in default, with proceeds reinvested at the risk-free rate. Liquidity is priced through the ratio of $O$ evaluated on a discrete set of trading dates to $O$ evaluated on the liquid continuous market (approximated by hourly probing), and this ratio is set equal to the liquidity discount factor $e^{-\gamma(T-t)}$. The numerical machinery is a G2++ short-rate model calibrated to swaptions, a CIR credit-spread model calibrated to the issuer's spread curve, Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 paths, and a numerical root-finder that exploits the monotonicity of the option value in $\gamma$.

What would settle it

Run the model with a known $\gamma$ and check whether the simulated ratio $O_{\text{discrete}}/O_{\text{continuous}}$ equals $e^{-\gamma(T-t)}$; if it does not, the second equality of Eq. (12) is false, and the same test applied to the quoted illiquid bonds in Table 10 would reveal whether the market discount is a fraction of $\gamma$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the loss of marketability of a defaultable coupon bond can be measured by the ratio of two look-back option values, $$$e^{{-\gamma(T-t)}}$ = \frac{O_{\text{discrete}}(0,T)}{O_{\text{continuous}}(0,T)} = \frac{\tilde P(0,T)}{\bar P(0,T)},$$ where $\gamma$ is the theoretical liquidity spread and $\tilde P/\bar P$ is the liquidity discount factor of the risky zero-coupon bond. The first equality is a definition; the second equality is the paper's underlying assumption, and the paper states that the true discount is a fraction $c\gamma$ of this upper bound. For coupon bonds, the option payoff includes coupons already received and recovery in default, leading to the implicit equation (15), which is solved numerically. The paper argues that credit risk enters twice: credit-spread volatility changes the bond values feeding the option, and default events truncate the set of admissible probing dates, with the largest effect on short-maturity, lower-rated bonds.

Load-bearing premise

The whole estimate rests on the assumption that the ratio of look-back option values under discrete vs continuous trading equals the bond's liquidity discount, and, in the market application, that the yield gap between an illiquid bond and the fitted liquid curve is entirely a liquidity premium.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any coupon-bearing defaultable bond with a specified illiquid trading frequency gets a finite, positive liquidity spread, so unquoted bonds can be priced without a quoted market price.
  • Default events increase the estimated spread, especially at short maturities and lower ratings, so omitting credit risk understates the illiquidity cost for BB-rated issuers.
  • The estimated spread rises monotonically as the illiquid probing frequency increases, giving a calibration handle from the quoted spreads of illiquid bonds.
  • For the Republic of Italy bond, the calibrated probing frequencies of 14, 17, and 19 days produce liquidity spreads of 23, 24, and 27 basis points, respectively.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the identity in Eq. (12) can be tested directly on quotes of the same bond class by comparing model-implied $O_{\text{discrete}}/O_{\text{continuous}}$ with observed price discounts; a mismatch would separate the model's definitional part from its assumption.
  • Editorial extension: because the paper leaves the fraction $c$ undetermined, the 23–27 bps figures are best read as upper bounds; calibrating $c$ on liquid-versus-illiquid quoted pairs of the same issuer would convert the method into a point estimate.
  • Editorial extension: replacing the bucket-wise bid-ask/volume classification with a continuous liquidity score could absorb the negative-spread outliers (bonds #8 and #12) and the extreme probing-frequency outliers (#64 and #65) rather than discarding them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the option-theoretic approach to bond liquidity pricing (Longstaff 1995; Koziol and Sauerbier 2003) to defaultable coupon bonds. Illiquidity is captured by a look-back option whose payoff is evaluated under two trading schedules: continuous (liquid) and discrete (illiquid). The liquidity spread gamma is defined via the ratio of the option values under these schedules (Eq. 12), and the model is solved numerically using G2++ short-rate and CIR credit-spread processes. Numerical experiments in Section 3 study the effect of default events and credit-spread volatility. Section 4 calibrates the model's probing frequency to yield-curve-based liquidity spreads of quoted Italian sovereign bonds and uses the resulting distribution to estimate a 23-27 bps liquidity spread for an unquoted 3.5-year Republic of Italy bond.

Significance. If the identification in Eq. (12) held, the paper would provide a tractable framework for estimating liquidity spreads in defaultable bond markets, extending the prior literature by adding credit risk and coupons. The numerical experiments reveal interesting interactions between default events, credit-spread volatility, and the estimated spread, e.g., the non-monotone behavior for short maturities at low ratings. The paper is transparent about the underlying assumption and the upper-bound interpretation, and the market application demonstrates a practical calibration pipeline. However, the central equality between option-value ratios and bond-price ratios is assumed rather than derived, and the empirical calibration in Section 4 makes the reported fits in Table 10 close by construction. The contribution is therefore best read as a model-based upper-bound measure with an explicit calibration procedure, rather than as a validated estimator of market liquidity spreads.

major comments (5)
  1. [2.2, Eq. (12)] The second equality in Eq. (12) is stated as the 'underlying assumption', but the illiquid option value O(0,T) on the right-hand side already depends on gamma through \tilde P(t,T)=e^{-\gamma(T-t)}\bar P(t,T). Consequently, Eq. (12) does not derive gamma from observable quantities; it is a nonlinear equation that the Newton routine in Section 2.3 solves by construction, so the reported gamma is the value that forces the assumed identity to hold. Since the paper also concedes that the true discount is a fraction c·gamma, gamma is an upper-bound parameter rather than a measured market spread. Please clarify the status of gamma and discuss what empirical evidence would be needed to support the proportionality assumption.
  2. [2.3, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) assumes that the ratio of look-back option values for coupon bonds equals VB(0,T)/VB_{\gamma=0}(0,T), but the coupon option payoff in Eq. (14) includes accumulated coupon payments, survival indicators, and recovery terms. No argument is provided for why such a ratio should equal the bond-price ratio; without it, the extension to coupon bonds in Section 4 lacks a theoretical foundation. This is the same identification problem as in Eq. (12) and should be either derived or explicitly labeled as an additional assumption.
  3. [4, Table 10] The calibration in Section 4 solves for the probing frequency that reproduces the market liquidity spread, defined as the yield difference between each illiquid bond and the fitted liquid yield curve. The close agreement between Model Liquidity Spread and Market Liquidity Spread in Table 10 is therefore by construction and does not validate the model. The final estimate for the unquoted bond (Table 3) is an interpolation from the probing-frequency distribution fitted to these same quoted bonds, not an out-of-sample verification. Please provide an out-of-sample check (e.g., holding out some quoted bonds) or explicitly frame the procedure as a fitting exercise.
  4. [4, footnote 8] Footnote 8 acknowledges that the yield difference between an illiquid bond and the liquid yield curve is hard to disentangle from credit-curve shifts. Since this yield difference is the target for calibrating the probing frequency, the estimated spread for the unquoted bond is conditional on this identification. If part of the difference is due to credit migration or term-structure misalignment, the calibrated probing frequencies and the resulting 23-27 bps range will be biased. The paper should discuss the direction and magnitude of this potential bias.
  5. [2.2 and 4] Even if Eq. (12) is accepted as an assumption, the model's practical output is not the actual liquidity spread but an upper bound c·gamma, with c unspecified. The paper does not calibrate c or provide bounds for its magnitude; the market application reports gamma values (23-27 bps) without adjusting for c, so it is unclear what economic quantity these numbers represent. The paper should clarify the relationship between the reported figures and the actual discount that would be applied to an illiquid bond.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are numerous typos throughout, such as 'liqudity' in the Introduction, 'substitutibg' before Eq. (14), and 'yeas' in Section 4; the manuscript needs careful proofreading.
  2. [2.2, Eq. (12)] In Eq. (12), the left-hand side is written as e^{-\gamma(T-t)} while the right-hand side is evaluated at time 0; if t denotes the valuation date, the exponent should be e^{-\gamma T} or the right-hand side should be time-t quantities.
  3. [3, Figure 1] The caption of Figure 1 is confusing: it refers to red as case 2 and green as case 3 on the left, while the text discusses default events (case 1 vs case 3) on the left; please clarify the panel labels.
  4. [4, Table 10] The description of the probing-frequency distribution in bucket G is incomplete: the paper states that outliers #64 and #65 are removed and then uses 14, 17, and 19 days, but it does not report the mean and standard deviation of the distribution or the remaining sample size.
  5. [4, Table 10] In Table 10, for a few bonds the Model Liquidity Spread differs from the Market Liquidity Spread by 1-2 bps even after calibration; this should be explained, e.g., by the discreteness of the probing-frequency grid.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the key equality is explicitly stated as an underlying assumption, and the market application is presented as calibration rather than as an out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central relation, Eq. (12), is introduced with the explicit caveat that 'the first equality is the definition, while the second equality is in turn the underlying assumption of our approach.' The authors do not claim to derive the equality between the look-back option ratio and the bond liquidity discount factor; they model it as a premise. The liquidity spread gamma is then obtained as the solution of an implicit equation, with gamma appearing in the option payoff through the liquidity-adjusted bond price. This is a well-posed, if assumption-dependent, fixed-point definition rather than a circular derivation: the output is not presented as an independent first-principles result but as the implication of a stated model. In the market application, Section 4 explicitly calibrates the probing frequency 'yielding the observed liquidity spread' and reports in Table 10 that the calibration reproduces the market spreads; this is calibration, not a claim of out-of-sample prediction. The final 23-27 bps estimates for the unquoted bond are computed for probing frequencies chosen from the calibrated distribution of frequencies of comparable illiquid bonds, so the target bond's spread is not itself used as an input. The paper also flags its own limitations, including the difficulty of separating liquidity from credit-curve shifts in footnote 8, which further supports the interpretation that the reported spread is a model-conditional estimate rather than a disguised restatement of the inputs. No self-citation is load-bearing, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is simply renamed. Accordingly, the derivation chain does not exhibit any step that is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimate depends on several assumed ingredients: the look-back option ratio identifying gamma, a constant recovery rate, independence between rates and default intensity, uniform probing dates, and the empirical assumption that yield deviations from a liquid curve are entirely liquidity. The model parameters (G2++ and CIR) are calibrated to swaption and credit data, and the probing frequency is fitted to market spreads, so the final liquidity spread is not a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (6)
  • Probing frequency Delta t (illiquid trading interval) = Calibrated per bond in Table 10, e.g., 14, 17, 19 days for target bucket G
    The number of days between allowed sale dates in the illiquid look-back option is the main calibration parameter; it is solved so the model liquidity spread matches the market spread for each quoted illiquid bond.
  • Adjustment factor c in gamma_adjusted = c times gamma = Not estimated
    The paper states the true liquidity discount is a fraction c of the model's upper-bound gamma, but c is left as a market-dependent parameter in Section 2.2.
  • Recovery rate RR (or LGD) = Not reported for the numerical applications
    Defaultable bond pricing and option payoffs depend on recovery, but the paper never gives the recovery rate value used in the Monte Carlo runs.
  • G2++ calibration parameters (a, sigma, b, eta, rho) = Table 5 for the numerical study, Table 7 for the Italy calibration
    Risk-free rate model parameters are calibrated on swaptions; for the Italy case the BUND yield curve is used because no swaptions on bond yields exist.
  • CIR credit spread parameters (kappa, theta, sigma, s0) = Table 4 for BBB/BB, Table 8 for Italy
    Calibrated to the credit spread term structure and historical maximum likelihood; these parameters feed the stochastic credit spread scenarios.
  • Illiquid classification thresholds = One standard deviation from liquid yield curve; three liquid bonds per maturity bucket
    Hand-set choices determine which bonds are labeled illiquid and therefore which market spreads enter the probing-frequency calibration.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math A martingale measure Q exists and all assets are priced under it.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 with reference to Protter; standard in no-arbitrage pricing.
  • domain assumption Default intensity process and risk-free rate are independent under Q.
    Assumed in Section 2.1 following Duffie and others; this allows the defaultable bond price to factor into survival probability and discount factor.
  • domain assumption Recovery rate is constant.
    Set in Section 2.1 to simplify the defaultable bond formula, but its value is not reported.
  • domain assumption The liquidity discount is constant and multiplies each cash flow by e^{-gamma(t_i-t)}.
    Equation (10) in Section 2.1 defines the constant gamma, which is the object to estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper The value of liquidity is captured by the ratio of look-back option values under continuous and discrete trading, i.e., the second equality in Eq. (12).
    Stated as the underlying assumption of the approach; the paper acknowledges it gives an upper bound and that the true discount is c times gamma.
  • ad hoc to paper Illiquid market probing dates are equally spaced.
    Assumed in Section 2.2 for simplicity, although the paper notes different date distributions change the estimated spread.
  • domain assumption The liquid market can be approximated by continuous or hourly trading.
    Used in Section 2.2 and 2.3 to define the denominator of the option ratio.
  • ad hoc to paper The yield difference between an illiquid quoted bond and the fitted liquid yield curve is entirely a liquidity spread.
    Used in Section 4 to build the market liquidity spread that is then fit by the model; the paper flags this as hard to separate from credit curve shifts in footnote 8.
  • domain assumption For the BUND-based calibration, swap rate volatility equals bond yield volatility.
    Used in Section 4 to calibrate G2++ with swaptions when no bond yield swaptions exist.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defaultable bond liquidity spread estimation: an option-based approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2NDKZN2

@misc{pith2026250111427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defaultable bond liquidity spread estimation: an option-based approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2NDKZN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11427}
}
read the original abstract

This paper extends an option-theoretic approach to estimate liquidity spreads for corporate bonds. Inspired by Longstaff's equity market framework and subsequent work by Koziol and Sauerbier on risk-free zero-coupon bonds, the model views liquidity as a look-back option. The model accounts for the interplay of risk-free rate volatility and credit risk. A numerical analysis highlights the impact of these factors on the liquidity spread, particularly for bonds with different maturities and credit ratings. The methodology is applied to estimate the liquidity spread for unquoted bonds, with a specific case study on the Republic of Italy's debt, leveraging market data to calibrate model parameters and classify liquid versus illiquid emissions. This approach provides a robust tool for pricing illiquid bonds, emphasizing the importance of marketability in debt security valuation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Default events and credit spread volatility effects (BB rating). In blue is depicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Default events and credit spread volatility effects (BB rating). The four cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Liquidity spread for short-maturity bonds (BB rating) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of probing frequency on the liquidity spread estimation (BB rating). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Liquid bond selection and Liquid Yield curve fitting. Vertical dotted grey lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Liquid and illiquid bond calssification. Vertical lines denote the time bucket [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ilmanen and C

    A. Ilmanen and C. Asness. Expected Returns: An Investor’s Guide to Harvesting Market Rewards. The Wiley Finance Series. Wiley, 2011.isbn: 9781119990772.url: https://books.google.it/books?id=WqFf6imwTsUC

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Excess volatility of corporate bonds

    Jack Bao, Jun Pan, et al. “Excess volatility of corporate bonds”. In:Unpublished Manuscript. MIT (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects

    Yakov Amihud. “Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects”. In: Journal of Financial Markets 5.1 (2002), pp. 31–56. issn: 1386-4181. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / S1386 - 4181(01 ) 00024 - 6. url: https : / / www . sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386418101000246

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Re- turns

    Lubos Pastor and Robert Stambaugh. “Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Re- turns”. In: Journal of Political Economy111.3 (2003), pp. 642–685. url: https: //EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jpolec:v:111:y:2003:i:3:p:642-685

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Liquidity risk and expected corporate bond returns

    Hai Lin, Junbo Wang, and Chunchi Wu. “Liquidity risk and expected corporate bond returns”. In:Journal of Financial Economics99.3 (2011), pp. 628–650

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Working Paper 16468

    Xing Hu, Jun Pan, and Jiang Wang.Noise as Information for Illiquidity. Working Paper 16468. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010.doi: 10.3386/w16468. url: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16468

    work page doi:10.3386/w16468 2010

  7. [7]

    Nave.Term structure estimation, liquidity-induced heteroskedasticity and the price of liquidity risk

    Emma Berenguer, Ricardo Gimeno, and Juan M. Nave.Term structure estimation, liquidity-induced heteroskedasticity and the price of liquidity risk. Working Papers

    work page

  8. [8]

    Robust and Interpretable Liquidity Proxies for Market and Funding Liquidity

    Riccardo Rebonato and Hong Sherwin. “Robust and Interpretable Liquidity Proxies for Market and Funding Liquidity”. In:The Journal of Fixed Income30 (Aug. 2020), jfi.2020.1.103. doi: 10.3905/jfi.2020.1.103

    work page doi:10.3905/jfi.2020.1.103 2020

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity

    Markus K. Brunnermeier and Lasse Heje Pedersen. “Market Liquidity and Funding Liquidity”. In: The Review of Financial Studies22.6 (Nov. 2008), pp. 2201–2238. issn: 0893-9454. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhn098. eprint: https://academic.oup.com/ rfs/article-pdf/22/6/2201/24436258/hhn098.p...

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Measuring Bond-Level Liquidity

    Phelps Bruce D. Konstantinovsky Vadim Ng Kwok Yuen. “Measuring Bond-Level Liquidity”. In: The Journal of Portfolio Management(2016). doi: 10.3905/jpm. 2016.42.4.116

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    How Much Can Marketability Affect Security Values?

    F. A. Longstaff. “How Much Can Marketability Affect Security Values?” In:The Journal of Finance 50.(5) (1995), 1767–1774. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2329335. 22

    1995

  4. [12]

    Valuation of Bond Illiquidity: An Option- theoretical Approach

    Christian Koziol and Peter Sauerbier. “Valuation of Bond Illiquidity: An Option- theoretical Approach”. In:SSRN Electronic Journal16 (Mar. 2003).doi: 10.2139/ ssrn.424282

    2003

  5. [13]

    Roberto Baviera, Aldo Nassigh, and Emanuele Nastasi.A closed formula for illiquid corporate bonds and an application to the European market. Jan. 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    A Liquidity Index

    Ren-Raw Chen, Wei He, and Wenling Lin. “A Liquidity Index”. In:The Journal of Fixed Income25 (Mar. 2016), pp. 5–19.doi: 10.3905/jfi.2016.25.4.005

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Pricing Corporate Bonds with Credit Risk, Liquidity Risk, and Their Correlation

    Xinting Li et al. “Pricing Corporate Bonds with Credit Risk, Liquidity Risk, and Their Correlation”. In:Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society2021 (Mar. 2021). doi: 10.1155/2021/6681035

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Estimating Expected Losses and Liquidity Discounts Implicit in Debt Prices

    Tibor Janosi, Robert Jarrow, and Yildiray Yildirim. “Estimating Expected Losses and Liquidity Discounts Implicit in Debt Prices”. In:Journal of Risk5 (Aug. 2002). doi: 10.21314/JOR.2002.071

    2002 doi

  9. [17]

    Stochastic Integration and Differential Equation

    Philip Protter. Stochastic Integration and Differential Equation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Marek Musiela and Marek Rutkowski.Martingale Methods in Financial Modelling. Vol. 93. Sept. 1998.isbn: 978-3-540-20966-9. doi: 10.1007/b137866

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Defaultable Term Structure Models with Fractional Recovery of Par

    Darrell Duffie. “Defaultable Term Structure Models with Fractional Recovery of Par”. In: 1998.url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14258649

    1998

  12. [20]

    The Valuation of Corporate Coupon Bonds

    JensHilscher,RobertJarrow,andDonaldVanDeventer. The Valuation of Corporate Coupon Bonds. Nov. 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Modeling Term Structure of Defaultable Bonds

    Darrell Duffie and Kenneth Singleton. “Modeling Term Structure of Defaultable Bonds”. In: Review of Financial Studies 12 (Feb. 1999), pp. 687–720. doi: 10 . 1093/rfs/12.4.687

    1999

  14. [22]

    Schonbucher

    Philipp J. Schonbucher. Team Structure Modelling of Defaultable Bonds. FMG Dis- cussion Papers dp272. Financial Markets Group, July 1997.url: https://ideas. repec.org/p/fmg/fmgdps/dp272.html

    1997

  15. [23]

    On Cox Processes and Credit Risky Securities

    David Lando. “On Cox Processes and Credit Risky Securities”. In:Review of Deriva- tives Research2 (Dec. 1998), pp. 99–120.doi: 10.1007/BF01531332

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    isbn:978-3-540-22149-4

    Damiano Brigo and Fabio Mercurio.Interest Rate Models — Theory and Practice: With Smile, Inflation and Credit.Jan.2006. isbn:978-3-540-22149-4. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-540-34604-3

    2006

  17. [25]

    Estimating and Interpreting Forward Interest Rates: Sweden 1992- 1994

    Lars Svensson. “Estimating and Interpreting Forward Interest Rates: Sweden 1992- 1994”. In: 1994/114 (1994).url: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:imf: imfwpa:1994/114. 23 A. Models Parameters The model parameters for the analysis carried out in section 3 are shown in Table 4...

    1994

  18. [1308]

    url: https : / / ideas

    Banco de España, May 2013. url: https : / / ideas . repec . org / p / bde / wpaper/1308.html

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.