BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Massimo Morini

Massimo Morini contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
q-fin.PRq-fin.RM

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2011arXiv

Impact of the first to default time on Bilateral CVA

We compare two different bilateral counterparty valuation adjustment (BVA) formulas. The first formula is an approximation and is based on subtracting the two unilateral Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA)'s formulas as seen from the two different parties in the transaction. This formula is only a simplified representation of bilateral risk and ignores that upon the first default closeout proceedings are ignited. As such, it involves double counting. We compare this formula with the fully specified bilateral risk formula, where the first to default time is taken into account. The latter correct formula depends on default dependence between the two parties, whereas the simplified one does not. We also analyze a candidate simplified formula in case the replacement closeout is used upon default, following ISDA's recommendations, and we find the simplified formula to be the same as in the risk free closeout case. We analyze the error that is encountered when using the simplified formula in a couple of simple products: a zero coupon bond, where the exposure is unidirectional, and an equity forward contract where exposure can go both ways. For the latter case we adopt a bivariate exponential distribution due to Gumbel to model the joint default risk of the two parties in the deal. We present a number of realistic cases where the simplified formula differs considerably from the correct one.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Dangers of Bilateral Counterparty Risk: the fundamental impact of closeout conventions

We analyze the practical consequences of the bilateral counterparty risk adjustment. We point out that past literature assumes that, at the moment of the first default, a risk-free closeout amount will be used. We argue that the legal (ISDA) documentation suggests in many points that a substitution closeout should be used. This would take into account the risk of default of the survived party. We show how the bilateral counterparty risk adjustment changes strongly when a substitution closeout amount is considered. We model the two extreme cases of default independence and co-monotonicity, which highlight pros and cons of both risk free and substitution closeout formulations, and allow us to interpret the outcomes as dramatic consequences on default contagion. Finally, we analyze the situation when collateral is present.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access