• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

David X. Li

Status
Not open for further replies.

alien42

Lifer
http://www.defaultrisk.com/_pd...unction%20Approach.pdf

Wired has an interesting article that places the above publication at the heart of Wall Streets collapse.

"In 2000, while working at JPMorgan Chase, Li published a paper in The Journal of Fixed Income titled "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach." (In statistics, a copula is used to couple the behavior of two or more variables.) Using some relatively simple math?by Wall Street standards, anyway?Li came up with an ingenious way to model default correlation without even looking at historical default data. Instead, he used market data about the prices of instruments known as credit default swaps."

"The effect on the securitization market was electric. Armed with Li's formula, Wall Street's quants saw a new world of possibilities. And the first thing they did was start creating a huge number of brand-new triple-A securities. Using Li's copula approach meant that ratings agencies like Moody's?or anybody wanting to model the risk of a tranche?no longer needed to puzzle over the underlying securities. All they needed was that correlation number, and out would come a rating telling them how safe or risky the tranche was.

As a result, just about anything could be bundled and turned into a triple-A bond?corporate bonds, bank loans, mortgage-backed securities, whatever you liked. The consequent pools were often known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs. You could tranche that pool and create a triple-A security even if none of the components were themselves triple-A. You could even take lower-rated tranches of other CDOs, put them in a pool, and tranche them?an instrument known as a CDO-squared, which at that point was so far removed from any actual underlying bond or loan or mortgage that no one really had a clue what it included. But it didn't matter. All you needed was Li's copula function.

The CDS and CDO markets grew together, feeding on each other. At the end of 2001, there was $920 billion in credit default swaps outstanding. By the end of 2007, that number had skyrocketed to more than $62 trillion. The CDO market, which stood at $275 billion in 2000, grew to $4.7 trillion by 2006."


crazy to think that a single individual could have such an incidentally disasterous impact on the entire world yet have a wiki entry that is a single sentence and contains only the two references linked in this post.

the WSJ also published an article titled "How a Formula Ignited Market That Burned Some Big Investors" on 9-12-05 so they deserve some credit.
 
Absolutely fascinating. I recall vaguely hearing something about that, but not being a financial guy, passed over me.

it seems to show that just one small pinprick, failure of one small part of the whole system, and the rest just begins to implode.
 
The frailty has always been there. Unfortunately, it is putting all your eggs in one basket...it is a set up of failure with no fix. Common sense has been replaced by avarice.
 
What's hilarious is that we're told that us peons are too small minded to understand the world of high finance. Sounds like Wall Street was trusting a magical formula to tell them what to buy without actually knowing what they were buying.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
What's hilarious is that we're told that us peons are too small minded to understand the world of high finance. Sounds like Wall Street was trusting a magical formula to tell them what to buy without actually knowing what they were buying.

QFT. All these Harvard, Princeton, Yale MBAs were all doing nothing but buying stardust. And we still trust them to fix the problem.

It would be hilarious if it was not so scary.
 
The solution to the problem was actually pretty elegant, albeit misguided and ultimately wrong. First off, you get a problem of CDS driving the asset, not the asset driving the CDS. The problem with this is that you're ultimately depending on the CDS market to price the risks in appropriately. However, considering that the CDS market was new and unregulated (thanks to Clinton and the Reps in 2000), it wasn't very deep.

The problem isn't as much the fact that correlations were high, it was that the probability tables used for a default were evenly distributed, based upon a normal functioning market. Since nobody had seen a disfunctional market in the CDS area, they didn't know how it performed. Once the tails of the distribution were skewed by a non "normal" event, the whole correlation distribution went out the window.

Stupid, yes.

They threw out the tried and true methodology for evaluating collateral. Stratifications, rep lines, default curves, and stress multiples. Those have worked for 40 years, through massive upheavals, and the amount of data collected is huge.

You see, since CDOs of exotic RMBS of exotic mortgages didn't have much performance history, they needed something easy to evaluate them. Their solution was this formula.

Very stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top