arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 2202.02273q-fin.RM
收藏

所有信用违约互换数据库是否相同?

Are all Credit Default Swap Databases equal?

Sergio Mayordomo, Juan Ignacio Peña, Eduardo S. Schwartz

摘要:

我们比较了企业信用违约互换价格的五个主要来源:GFI、Fenics、路透社、CMA和Markit,使用2004年至2010年iTraxx和CDX指数中流动性最强的单一名称5年期CDS。不同数据库中的价格偏离共同趋势不是随机的,而是由特殊因素、融资成本、全球风险和其他交易因素解释的。CMA报价引导价格发现过程。此外,我们发现,有没有一个完全一致的数据库之间的价格发现分析结果之间的股票和CDS回报。

英文摘要:

We compare the five major sources of corporate Credit Default Swap prices: GFI, Fenics, Reuters, CMA, and Markit, using the most liquid single name 5-year CDS in the iTraxx and CDX indexes from 2004 to 2010. Deviations from the common trend among prices in the different databases are not random but are explained by idiosyncratic factors, financing costs, global risk, and other trading factors. The CMA quotes lead the price discovery process. Moreover, we find that there is not a full agreement among databases in the results of the price discovery analysis between stock and CDS returns.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑