Innovations in Derivatives Markets pp 251266  Cite as
Impact of MultipleCurve Dynamics in Credit Valuation Adjustments
Abstract
We present a detailed analysis of interest rate derivatives valuation under credit risk and collateral modeling. We show how the credit and collateral extended valuation framework in Pallavicini et al. (2011) can be helpful in defining the key market rates underlying the multiple interest rate curves that characterize current interest rate markets. We introduce the collateralized valuation measures and formulate a consistent realistic dynamics for the rates emerging from our analysis. We point out limitations of multiple curve models with deterministic basis considering valuation of particularly sensitive products such as basis swaps.
Keywords
Multiple curves Evaluation adjustments Basis swaps Collateral HJM model1 Introduction
After the onset of the crisis in 2007, all market instruments are quoted by taking into account, more or less implicitly, credit and collateralrelated adjustments. As a consequence, when approaching modeling problems one has to carefully check standard theoretical assumptions which often ignore credit and liquidity issues. One has to go back to market processes and fundamental instruments by limiting oneself to use models based on products and quantities that are available on the market. Referring to market observables and processes is the only means we have to validate our theoretical assumptions, so as to drop them if in contrast with observations. This general recipe is what is guiding us in this paper, where we try to adapt interest rate models for valuation to the current landscape.
A detailed analysis of the updated valuation problem one faces when including credit risk and collateral modeling (and further funding costs) has been presented elsewhere in this volume, see for example [6, 7]. We refer to those papers and references therein for a detailed discussion. Here we focus our updated valuation framework to consider the following key points: (i) focus on interest rate derivatives; (ii) understand how the updated valuation framework can be helpful in defining the key market rates underlying the multiple interest rate curves that characterize current interest rate markets; (iii) define collateralized valuation measures; (iv) formulate a consistent realistic dynamics for the rates emerging from the above analysis; (v) show how the framework can be applied to valuation of particularly sensitive products such as basis swaps under credit risk and collateral posting;(vi) point out limitations in some current market practices such as explaining the multiple curves through deterministic fudge factors or shifts where the option embedded in the credit valuation adjustment (CVA) calculation would be priced without any volatility. For an extended version of this paper we remand to [3]. This paper is an extended and refined version of ideas originally appeared in [24].
2 Valuation Equation with Credit and Collateral
Classical interestrate models were formulated to satisfy noarbitrage relationships by construction, which allowed one to price and hedge forwardrate agreements in terms of riskfree zerocoupon bonds. Starting from summer 2007, with the spreading of the credit crunch, market quotes of forward rates and zerocoupon bonds began to violate usual noarbitrage relationships. The main driver of such behavior was the liquidity crisis reducing the credit lines along with the fear of an imminent systemic breakdown. As a result the impact of counterparty risk on market prices could not be considered negligible any more.
2.1 Valuation Framework
In order to value a financial product (for example a derivative contract), we have to discount all the cash flows occurring after the trading position is entered. We follow the approach of [25, 26] and we specialize it to the case of interestrate derivatives, where collateralization usually happens on a daily basis, and where gap risk is not large. Hence we prefer to present such results when cash flows are modeled as happening in a continuous timegrid, since this simplifies notation and calculations. We refer to the two names involved in the financial contract and subject to default risk as investor (also called name “I”) and counterparty (also called name “C”). We denote by \(\tau _I\), and \(\tau _C\), respectively, the default times of the investor and counterparty. We fix the portfolio time horizon \(T>0\), and fix the riskneutral valuation model \((\varOmega ,\mathscr {G},\mathbb {Q})\), with a filtration \((\mathscr {G}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}\) such that \(\tau _C\), \(\tau _I\) are \((\mathscr {G}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}\)stopping times. We denote by \(\mathbb {E}_{t}\left[ \,\cdot \,\right] \) the conditional expectation under \(\mathbb {Q}\) given \(\mathscr {G}_t\), and by \(\mathbb {E}_{\tau _i}\left[ \,\cdot \,\right] \) the conditional expectation under \(\mathbb {Q}\) given the stopped filtration \(\mathscr {G}_{\tau _i}\). We exclude the possibility of simultaneous defaults, and define the first default event between the two parties as the stopping time \(\tau := \tau _C \wedge \tau _I \,\).
We will also consider the market subfiltration \(({\mathscr {F}}_t)_{t \ge 0}\) that one obtains implicitly by assuming a separable structure for the complete market filtration \(({\mathscr {G}}_t)_{t \ge 0}\). \({\mathscr {G}}_t\) is then generated by the pure defaultfree market filtration \({\mathscr {F}}_t\) and by the filtration generated by all the relevant default times monitored up to t (see for example [2]).

\(\pi _u\) is the coupon process of the product, without credit or debit risk and without collateral cash flows;

\(C_u\) is the collateral process, and we use the convention that \(C_u>0\) while I is the collateral receiver and \(C_u<0\) when I is the collateral poster. \(( r_u  c_u ) C_u\) are the collateral margining costs and the collateral rate is defined as \(c_t := c^+_t 1_{\{C_t>0\}} + c^_t 1_{\{C_t<0\}}\) with \(c^\pm \) defined in the CSA contract. In general we may assume the processes \(c^+,c^\) to be adapted to the defaultfree filtration \({\mathscr {F}}_t\).

\(\theta _{u}=\theta _{u}(C,\varepsilon )\) is the ondefault cash flow process that depends on the collateral process \(C_u\) and the closeout value \(\varepsilon _u\).^{1} It is primarily this term that originates the credit and debit valuation adjustments (CVA/DVA) terms, that may also embed collateral and gap risk due to the jump at default of the value of the considered deal (e.g. in a credit derivative), see for example [5].
Notice that the above valuation equation (2) is not suited for explicit numerical evaluations, since the righthand side is still depending on the derivative price via the indicators within the collateral rates and possibly via the closeout term, leading to recursive/nonlinear features. We could resort to numerical solutions, as in [11], but, since our goal is valuing interestrate derivatives, we prefer to further specialize the valuation equation for such deals.
2.2 The Master Equation Under Change of Filtration
Proposition 1
3 Valuing Collateralized InterestRate Derivatives
As we mentioned in the introduction, we will base our analysis on real market processes. All liquid market quotes on the money market (MM) correspond to instruments with daily collateralization at overnight rate (\(e_t\)), both for the investor and the counterparty, namely \(c_t \doteq e_t \,\).
Notice that the collateral accrual rate is symmetric, so that we no longer have a dependency of the accrual rates on the collateral price, as opposed to the general master equation case. Moreover, we further assume \(r_t \doteq e_t \,\).
This makes sense because \(e_t\) being an overnight rate, it embeds a low counterparty risk and can be considered a good proxy for the riskfree rate \(r_t\). We will describe some of these MM instruments, such as OIS and Interest Rate Swaps (IRS), along with their underlying market rates, in the following sections. For the remaining of this section we adopt the perfect collateralization approximation of Eq. (1) to derive the valuation equations for OIS and IRS products, hence assuming no gaprisk, while in the numeric experiments of Sect. 4 we will consider also uncollateralized deals. Furthermore, we assume that daily collateralization can be considered as a continuousdividend perfect collateralization. See [4] for a discussion on the impact of discretetime collateralization on interestrate derivatives.
3.1 Overnight Rates and OIS
3.2 LIBOR Rates, IRS and Basis Swaps
3.3 Modeling Constraints
4 InterestRate Modeling
We can now specialize our modeling assumptions to define a model for interestrate derivatives which is on one hand flexible enough to calibrate the quotes of the MM, and on the other hand robust. Our aim is to use an HJM framework using a single family of Markov processes to describe all the term structures and interest rate curves we are interested in.
In the literature many authors proposed generalizations of the HJM framework to include multiple yield curves. In particular, we cite the works of [12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23]. A survey of the literature can be found in [17].
In such works the problem is faced in a pragmatic way by considering each forward rate as a single asset without investigating the microscopical dynamics implied by liquidity and credit risks. However, the hypothesis of introducing different underlying assets may lead to overparametrization issues that affect the calibration procedure. Indeed, the presence of swap and basisswap quotes on many different yield curves is not sufficient, as the market quotes swaption premia only on few yield curves. For instance, even if the Euro market quotes one, three, six and twelvemonth swap contracts, liquidly traded swaptions are only those indexed to the threemonth (maturity oneyear) and the sixmonth (maturities from two to thirty years) Euribor rates. Swaptions referring to other Euribor tenors or to overnight rates are not actively quoted.
In order to solve such problem [23] introduces a parsimonious model to describe a multicurve setting by starting from a limited number of (Markov) processes, so as to extend the logic of the HJM framework to describe with a unique family of Markov processes all the curves we are interested in.
4.1 MultipleCurve Collateralized HJM Framework
 (i)
existence of OIS rates, which we can describe in terms of instantaneous forward rates \(f_t(T;e)\);
 (ii)
existence of LIBOR rates assigned by the market, typical underlyings of traded derivatives, with associated forwards \(F_t(T,x;e)\);
 (iii)
no arbitrage dynamics of the \(f_t(T;e)\) and the \(F_t(T,x;e)\) (both being (T, e)forward measure martingales);
 (iv)
possibility of writing both \(f_t(T;e)\) and \(F_t(T,x;e)\) as functions of a common family of Markov processes, so that we are able to build parsimonious yet flexible models.
4.2 Numerical Results
We apply our framework to simple but relevant products: an IRS and a basis swap. We analyze the impact of the choice of an interest rate model on the portfolio valuation, in particular we measure the dependency of the price on the correlations between interestrates and credit spreads, the socalled wrongway risk. We model the market risks by simulating the following processes in a multiplecurve HJM model under the pricing measure \(\mathbb {Q}\). The overnight rate \(e_t\) and the LIBOR forward rates \(F_t(T;e)\) are simulated according to the dynamics given in Sect. 4.1. Maintaining the same notation of the aforementioned section, we choose \(N=2\), and for our numerical experiments we use a HW model, a Ch model and an MP model, all calibrated to swaption atthemoney volatilities listed on the European market.
We now analyze the impact of wrongway risk on the bilateral adjustment, namely CVA plus DVA, of IRS and basis swaps when collateralization is switched off, namely we want to evaluate Eq. (1) when \(\alpha _t\doteq 0\). For an extended analysis see [3]. Wrongway risk is expressed with respect to the correlation between the default intensities and a proxy of market risk, namely the short rate \(e_t\).
In Fig. 1 we show the variation of the bilateral adjustment for a ten years IRS receiving a fix rate yearly and paying 6 m Libor twice a year and for a ten years basis swap receiving 3 m Libor plus spread and paying 6 m Libor. It is clear that for a product like the IRS, not subject to the basis dynamic, we have that the big difference among the models is the presence of a stochastic volatility. In fact we can see that the Ch model and the MP model are almost indistinguishable while the results of the HW model are different from the stochastic volatility ones. Moreover we can observe that all the models have the same trend, i.e. the bilateral adjustment grows as correlation increase. In fact this can be explained by the fact that a higher correlation means that the deal will be more profitable when it will be more risky (since we are receiving the fixed rate and paying the floating one), hence the bilateral adjustment will be bigger.
In the case of a basis swap instead, we see that, as said before, the HW model and the Ch model do not have a basis dynamic and hence the curve represented is almost flat. On the other hand the MP model is able to capture the dynamics of the basis and hence we can see that the more the overnight rate is correlated with the credit risk the smaller the bilateral adjustment becomes.
We conclude by pointing out that our analysis will be extended to partially collateralized deals in future work. In such a context funding costs enter the picture in a more comprehensive way. Some initial suggestions in this respect were given in [24].
Footnotes
 1.
The closeout value is the residual value of the contract at default time and the CSA specifies the way it should be computed.
 2.
 3.
Notice that we are only defining a price process for hypothetical collateralized zerocoupon bond. We are not assuming that collateralized bonds are assets traded on the market.
 4.
In the following we will consider Ndimensional vectors as \(N\times 1\) matrices. Moreover, given a matrix A, we will indicate \(A^*\) its transpose, and if B is another conformable matrix we indicate AB the usual matrix product.
Notes
Acknowledgements
The KPMG Center of Excellence in Risk Management is acknowledged for organizing the conference “Challenges in Derivatives Markets  Fixed Income Modeling, Valuation Adjustments, Risk Management, and Regulation”.
References
 1.Ametrano, F.M., Bianchetti, M.: Bootstrapping the illiquidity: multiple yield curves construction for market coherent forward rates estimation. In: Mercurio, F. (ed.) Modeling Interest Rates: Latest Advances for Derivatives Pricing. Risk Books, London (2009)Google Scholar
 2.Bielecki, T., Rutkowski, M.: Credit Risk: Modeling, Valuation and Hedging. Springer Finance. Springer, Berlin (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
 3.Bormetti, G., Brigo, D., Francischello, M., Pallavicini, A.: Impact of multiple curve dynamics in credit valuation adjustments under collateralization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.08779 (2015)
 4.Brigo, D., Capponi, A., Pallavicini, A., Papatheodorou, V.: Collateral margining in arbitragefree counterparty valuation adjustment including rehypothecation and netting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.3926 (2011)
 5.Brigo, D., Capponi, A., Pallavicini, A.: Arbitragefree bilateral counterparty risk valuation under collateralization and application to credit default swaps. Math. Financ. 24(1), 125–146 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 6.Brigo, D., Francischello, M., Pallavicini, A.: Invariance, existence and uniqueness of solutions of nonlinear valuation PDEs and FBSDEs inclusive of credit risk, collateral and funding costs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.00686 (2015). A refined version of this report by the same authors is being published in this same volume
 7.Brigo, D., Liu, Q., Pallavicini, A., Sloth, D.: Nonlinear valuation under collateral, credit risk and funding costs: a numerical case study extending BlackScholes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.7314 (2014). A refined version of this report by the same authors is being published in this same volume
 8.Brigo, D., Pallavicini, A.: Counterparty risk under correlation between default and interest rates. In: Miller, J., Edelman, D., Appleby, J. (eds.) Numerical Methods for Finance. Chapman Hall, Atlanta (2007)Google Scholar
 9.Brigo, D., Pallavicini, A.: Nonlinear consistent valuation of CCP cleared or CSA bilateral trades with initial margins under credit, funding and wrongway risks. J. Financ. Eng. 1(1), 1–61 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.Cheyette, O.: Markov representation of the Heath–Jarrow–Morton model. Available at SSRN 6073 (1992)Google Scholar
 11.Crépey, S., Gerboud, R., Grbac, Z., Ngor, N.: Counterparty risk and funding: the four wings of theTVA. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Financ. 16(2), 13500061–135000631 (2013)MATHGoogle Scholar
 12.Crépey, S., Grbac, Z., Nguyen, H.: A multiplecurve HJM model of interbank risk. Math. Financ. Econ. 6(3), 155–190 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 13.Crépey, S., Grbac, Z., Ngor, N., Skovmand, D.: A Lévy HJM multiplecurve model with application to CVA computation. Quant. Financ. 15(3), 401–419 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 14.Cuchiero, C., Fontana, C., Gnoatto, A.: A general HJM framework for multiple yield curve modeling. Financ. Stoch. 20(2), 267–320 (2016)Google Scholar
 15.Filipović, D., Trolle, A.B.: The term structure of interbank risk. J. Financ. Eng. 109(3), 707–733 (2013)Google Scholar
 16.Fujii, M., Takahashi, A.: Derivative pricing under asymmetric and imperfect collateralization and CVA. Quant. Financ. 13(5), 749–768 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 17.Henrard, M.: Interest Rate Modelling in the MultiCurve Framework: Foundations, Evolution and Implementation. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 18.Hull, J., White, A.: Pricing interestratederivative securities. Rev. Financ. Stud. 3(4), 573–592 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.Mercurio, F.: Interest rates and the credit crunch: New formulas and market models. Bloomberg Portfolio Research Paper (2009)Google Scholar
 20.Mercurio, F.: LIBOR market models with stochastic basis. Risk Mag. 23(12), 84–89 (2010)Google Scholar
 21.Mercurio, F., Xie, Z.: The basis goes stochastic. Risk Mag. 23(12), 78–83 (2012)Google Scholar
 22.Moreni, N., Pallavicini, A.: Parsimonious multicurve HJM modelling with stochastic volatility. In: Bianchetti, M., Morini, M. (eds.) Interest Rate Modelling After the Financial Crisis. Risk Books, London (2013)Google Scholar
 23.Moreni, N., Pallavicini, A.: Parsimonious HJM modelling for multiple yield curve dynamics. Quant. Financ. 14(2), 199–210 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 24.Pallavicini, A., Brigo, D.: Interestrate modelling in collateralized markets: multiple curves, creditliquidity effects, CCPs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.1397 (2013)
 25.Pallavicini, A., Perini, D., Brigo, D.: Funding valuation adjustment: FVA consistent with CVA, DVA, WWR, collateral, netting and rehyphotecation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.1521 (2011)
 26.Pallavicini, A., Perini, D., Brigo, D.: Funding, collateral and hedging: uncovering the mechanics and the subtleties of funding valuation adjustments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1210.3811 (2012)
 27.Pallavicini, A., Tarenghi, M.: Interestrate modelling with multiple yield curves. Available at SSRN 1629688 (2010)Google Scholar
 28.Ritchken, P., Sankarasubramanian, L.: Volatility structures of forward rates and the dynamics of the term structure. Math. Financ. 7, 157–176 (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
 29.Trolle, A., Schwartz, E.: A general stochastic volatility model for the pricing of interest rate derivatives. Rev. Financ. Stud. 22(5), 2007–2057 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and any changes made are indicated.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material.