Research PaperNo Access

COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK IN A CLEARING NETWORK

School of Business Informatics and Mathematics, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219024920500351Cited by:0 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

In this paper, we offer a network model that derives the expected counterparty risk of an arbitrary market after netting in a closed-form expression. Graph theory is used to represent market participants and their relationship among each other. We apply the powerful theory of characteristic functions (c.f.) and Hilbert transforms to determine the expected counterparty risk. The latter concept is used to express the c.f. of the random variable (r.v.) $max (Y, 0)$ in terms of the c.f. of the r.v. $Y$ . This paper applies this concept for the first time in mathematical finance in order to generalize results of Duffie & Zhu (2011), in several ways. The introduced network model is applied to study the features of an over-the-counter and a centrally cleared market. We also give a more general answer to the question of whether it is more advantageous for the overall counterparty risk to clear via a central counterparty or classically bilateral between the two involved counterparties.

Keywords:

References

U. Cherubini et al. (2010) Fourier Transform Methods in Finance, first edition. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
R. Cont & T. Kokholm (2014) Central clearing of OTC derivative: Bilateral vs. multilateral netting, Statistics and Risk Modeling 31 (1), 3–22. Crossref, Google Scholar
R. Diestel (2005) Graph Theory, first edition. Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
D. Duffie & H. Zhu (2011) Does a central counterparty reduce counterparty risk?, Review of Asset Pricing Studies 1 (1), 74–95. Crossref, Google Scholar
European Central Bank (2010) Europen Oversight Report, https://academic.oup.com/raps/article-abstract/1/1/74/1528254?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Google Scholar
J. Gregory (2010) Graph Theory, first edition. Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
F. King (2009a) Hilbert Transform, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
F. King (2009b) Hilbert Transform, Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
F. H. Knight (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Google Scholar
F. Liming & Linetsky (2008) Pricing discretly monitored barrier options and defaultable bonds in Lvy process models: A Fast Hilbert Transform approach, Mathematical Finance 18 (3), 337–384, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9965.2008.00338. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
E. Lukacs (1970) Characteristic Functions, second edition. Charles Griffin. Google Scholar
F. W. Olver, D. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert & C. Winthrop Clark (2010) NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions, first edition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
I. Pinelis (2013) On the characteristic function of the positive part and absolute value of a random variable, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5928v1.pdf. Google Scholar
R. Remmert (1991) Theory of Complex Functions. Springer. Crossref, Google Scholar
D. W. R. Rosenthal (2010) Market structure, counterparty risk, and systemic risk, European Economic Review 48 (4), 827–849. Google Scholar
C. Upper & A. Worms (2004) Estimating bilateral exposure in the German interbanking market: Is there a danger of contagion?, European Economic Review 48 (4), 827–849. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar