Skip to content
All library documents

Structural Modeling of Convertible Bonds Through Firm Assets

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Carl Zeiss

Summary

The note addresses a circularity concern in structural convertible-bond valuation: the bond is described through firm value, while firm value is written as debt plus equity. The answers clarify that classical structural models take the firm’s assets as the underlying stochastic variable. Equity is then valued as a claim on those assets, and the convertible is valued from the resulting equity and bond payoffs rather than by treating the bond price as an input to asset value.

One proposed approach builds a tree on firm assets and works backward through stock and convertible values, with conversion, redemption, and possible bankruptcy recovery represented in the payoffs. A separate answer gives a simple lognormal asset-value simulation but warns that this simplified treatment may not fit markets well or correctly capture the equity payoff when assets fall below debt. The discussion outlines modeling logic rather than supplying calibrated parameters or a full implementation; dilution, coupons, exercise features, and recovery assumptions require careful specification.

Key ideas

  • In structural models, firm asset value is the fundamental stochastic state variable.
  • Equity can be valued as a contingent claim on firm assets, and a convertible depends on the resulting equity value and bond payoff.
  • A backward tree can value the stock and convertible across asset-value states, including conversion and redemption outcomes.
  • Bankruptcy barriers and recovery values may need to be included in the model.
  • A simple lognormal simulation is presented as limited and potentially inadequate for serious valuation.

Tags

Full text
# Pricing of convertible bonds


# Pricing of convertible bonds












I'm trying to evaluate a convertible bond using the structural approach : the price of convertible bond is an option (call) on the firm value. We suppose that the firm value is equal to the sum of the debt (in this case, convertible bond) and number of stocks multiplied by their market price : $$ V(t) = B(t) + NS(t) $$ The authors of the book where I found this method explain that, at the maturity, the price of the convertible is equal to $B(T) = max[min(V(T), D), \kappa V(T)]$ where $D$ is redemption price and $\kappa$ is the inverse of dilution coefficient. Thus, it the bond price at $t=0$ can be calculated using binomial tree method.

There is one thing that I don't inderstand, the CB price is equal to the option on firm value, but the firm value depends on CB price, too. How can I estimate the firm value $V(T)$ ?

Thank you in advance for your help !

## Answer by Brian B (score 2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/29712

In classical structural modeling, we have that the firm asset value $A(t)$ is the fundamental stochastic variable, following an SDE like the one presented by @Dom

$$ \frac{dA}{A} = \mu_A d\,t + \sigma_A d\,W $$

The stock price is then itself an option on the asset value at some horizon $T_H$,

$$ S_t = S(A(t), \mu_A, \sigma_A, T_H) $$

and the convertible bond price, being an option on $S$, can then be viewed as a compound option, with a payoff in the $S$ options. In particular at bond maturity time $T \leq T_H$

$$ CB(T) = \max( \rho \tilde{S}(A(T), \mu_A, \sigma_A, T), F) $$

where $\rho$ is conversion ration, $F$ is the final coupon plus face value and $\tilde{S}$ is diluted stock value.

Thus, to do pricing we run a binomial tree backwards on $A$ and $S$, from $T_H$ to $T$, find bond prices on the nodes at $T$, and then continue to backwardate from $T$ to time zero. (American exercise adds only minor complexity to the calculations.)

Note that we typically also have a bankruptcy barrier condition, namely that there exists some $L$ such that if any $A(t)<L$ then the stock value drops to zero and the bond value drops to some bankruptcy recovery value.

## Answer by Dom (score 1)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/29706

You can copy the Merton model which assumes that the firm value evolves according to

$dV = \mu V dt + \sigma V dW$

So you can simulate from $t=0$ to $T$ to get $V(T)$ in one step using.

$V(T) = V(0) \exp \left( (\mu-\sigma^2/2) T + \sigma W_T \right)$

You have to get $V(0)$.

I am not sure I like this model. It will be hard to make it fit the market and the payoff at expiry is not handled correctly as the terminal stock price is a call option on the future firm value, e.g. it should be zero if $V(T)<D$.

And there are more problems too. Do not use it for anything serious.

## Answer by dm63 (score 0)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/28149

I think the point of this approach is to model the firm value $V(t) $ using some appropriate probability distribution, then deduce the dustribution of the CB price. Thus the CB price depends on the firm value, but not vice versa.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.