December 7th, 2006, 11:46 am
I think I was typing faster than I was thinking.. My dilemma is this:I was reading through Vasicek's legendary paper: Probabilty of Loss on Loan PortfolioIn his paper he assumes that a company defaults if the value of its assets A at time T, t>0 fall below a certain threshhold D (=the level of debt), Aka A(T)<D. Now, in my opinion a company defaults if the value of its assets drop below the threshold (=barrier) at any time during 0<t<T, aka min(0<=t<=T)A<D. This seems much more logical: If A is close to D at time 0 with, say, a reasonable amount of volatility, then Vasicek's PD will be close to 0.5, while the barrier-assumption will be close to 1.So what I was really pondering was this: If Vasicek's Loss-formula was built around a PD equation measuring the probability of crossing the D barrier before time T, as opposed to measuring the probability of ending up below the level D at T, how would this impact the pdf at the end? Ie. would it be the identical, less or more skewed as opposed to the result he gets?
Last edited by
va1210 on December 6th, 2006, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.