SOVEREIGNS AND MUNICIPALS: NONCORPORATE ISSUERS
Finally, let's discuss modeling default risk from government issuers. While corporate credit modeling is primarily predicated on measuring a borrower's ability to pay, the key variable in most government credit analysis is measuring a government's willingness to pay back its creditors. Quantitative analysts do not have a particularly enviable record of predicting and modeling sovereign risk. The default by Russia in 1998 was widely considered the catalyst for the collapse of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), one of the most prominent quantitative hedge funds of that decade. The fund included Myron Scholes and Robert Merton (of Black-Scholes fame) on its board.
The primary distinction that is usually made for these types of issuers is whether the issuer has, or is supported by an actor that has, the power to print the currency that they are borrowing in. Sovereigns that borrow in their national currency (the United States, England, and Japan, for example) are considered very unlikely to actually default, as they have the ability to print money to meet their obligations. Sovereigns that do not have the ability to print the currencies that their debt is denominated in (countries in the Euro area and smaller countries that issue in U.S. dollars such as Grenada or Ecuador) are at much higher risk of default, and in some ways their situation is more akin to a state or city than it is to larger issuers.
While there have been attempts ...
Become an O’Reilly member and get unlimited access to this title plus top books and audiobooks from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers, thousands of courses curated by job role, 150+ live events each month,
and much more.
Read now
Unlock full access