Vasicek’s Single-Factor Model for Portfolio Credit Losses
Summary
The document explains how Vasicek’s single-factor model uses a shared economic variable and firm-specific residual risk to represent default. A firm defaults when its latent asset variable falls below a threshold. The unconditional probability of default determines that threshold, while the economic factor shifts the firm’s conditional default probability as economic conditions change.
For a large, homogeneous portfolio, idiosyncratic risk diversifies across firms. Conditional on the common factor, the portfolio loss fraction therefore becomes predictable, so the distribution of aggregate losses is driven by the possible realizations of that factor. This resolves the apparent contradiction in the question: unconditional default probabilities parameterize the model, whereas conditional probabilities connect the factor state to portfolio losses. The account is conceptual and does not provide calibration procedures, numerical examples, or discussion of heterogeneous exposures and finite-portfolio effects.
Key ideas
- Vasicek’s single-factor model combines systematic economic risk with firm-specific risk.
- An asset threshold is set using its unconditional probability of default.
- The common economic factor determines conditional default probabilities.
- In a large homogeneous portfolio, idiosyncratic variation diversifies and aggregate losses depend on the common factor.
- The explanation does not address calibration or the effects of heterogeneous and finite portfolios.
Tags
Full text
# A little help with the Single Factor model for credit risk
# A little help with the Single Factor model for credit risk
I'm studying the "single factor model" in Malz text "Financial Risk Management - Models, History and Institutions". He only refers to it as such and gives it no proper name.
The model:
$a_{i} = \beta_{i}m+(\sqrt{1-\beta^2})\epsilon_{i}$
$\beta$ is the correlation of the firm to the state of the economy
$m$ is the state of the economy
I'm a bit confused here. The author first says we can use the model to convert an unconditional probability of default into one conditional on the state of the economy
and then further says "The unconditional probability of a particular loss level (the fraction of the portfolio that defaults) is equal to the probability that the market factor return that leads to that loss level is realized"
We find both probabilities in the same way:
$p(m) = \phi( \frac{k_{i}-\beta_{i}m}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}} )$
Where $k = \phi^{-1}(\pi)$
and $\pi$ = unconditional probability of default in the first usage and probability of realizing the market factor leading to observed the loss level in the second usage.
These sound opposite to me. In one usage we are finding a conditional PD and in another what is described as an unconditional.
## Answer by user9403 (score 4)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/21118
The name for the model is Vasicek's single factor model.
The model is very similar to CAPM: each asset has idiosyncratic and systemic risk with systemic risk driven by a single factor. Default occurs when an asset has a realization that is below some threshold. The level of this threshold doesn't matter; we can solve for it if we know the unconditional probability of default for the asset.
Much like CAPM, the idiosyncratic risk can be "diversified" away. In a large portfolio of homogenous assets the only "risk" (that is, variability around the expected loss) comes from the systemic variable. Without this variable the distribution converges to a Dirac-delta function around the expected loss. Hence the final output (the distribution of loss) from the model is solely dependent on the systemic variable.
To summarize, the unconditional default is used to parameterize the model, while the conditional is used to determine the output.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.