The Valuation of Financial Derivatives Subject to Counterparty Risk and Credit Value Adjustment

This article presents a generic model for pricing financial derivatives subject to counterparty credit risk. Both unilateral and bilateral types of credit risks are considered. Our study shows that credit risk should be modeled as American style options in most cases, which require a backward induction valuation. To correct a common mistake in the literature, we emphasize that the market value of a defaultable derivative is actually a risky value rather than a risk-free value. Credit value adjustment (CVA) is also elaborated. A practical framework is developed for pricing defaultable derivatives and calculating their CVAs at a portfolio level.

1 A broad range of financial instruments bear credit risk. Credit risk may be unilateral or bilateral. Some derivatives such as, debt instruments (e.g., loans, bills, notes, bonds, etc), by nature contain only unilateral credit risk because only the default risk of one party appears to be relevant. Whereas some other derivatives, such as, over the counter (OTC) derivatives and securities financing transactions (SFT), bear bilateral credit risk because both parties are susceptible to default risk.
In the market, risk-free values are quoted for most financial derivatives. In other words, credit risk is not captured. Historical experience shows that credit risk often leads to significant losses. Therefore, it is obvious to all market participants that credit risk should be taken into account when reporting the fair value of any defaultable derivative. The adjustment to the risk-free value is known as the credit value adjustment (CVA). CVA offers an opportunity for banks to dynamically price credit risk into new trades and has become a common practice in the financial industry, especially for trading books.
By definition, CVA is the difference between the risk-free value and the true (or risky or defaultable) value that takes into account the possibility of default. The risk-free value is what brokers quote or what trading systems or models normally report. The risky value, however, is a relatively less explored and less transparent area, which is the main challenge and core theme for credit risk measurement and management.
There are two primary types of models that attempt to describe default processes in the literature: structural models and reduced-form (or intensity) models. The structural models, studied by Merton (1974) and Longstaff and Schwartz (1995), regard default as an endogenous event, focusing on the capital structure of a firm. The reduced-form models introduced by Jarrow and Turnbull (1995) and Duffie and Singleton (1999) do not explain the event of default endogenously, but instead characterize it exogenously as a jump process. For pricing and hedging, reduced-form models are the preferred methodology.
Three different recovery models exist in the literature. The default payoff is either 1) a fraction of par (Madan and Unal (1998)), 2) a fraction of an equivalent default-free bond (Jarrow and Turnbull 2 (1995)), or 3) a fraction of market value (Duffie and Singleton (1999)). The last one is most commonly used in the market. In their paper, Duffie and Singleton (1999) do not clearly state whether the market value of a defaultable derivative is a risky value or a risk-free value. Instead, the authors implicitly treat the market value as a risky value because the market price therein evolves in a defaultable manner.
Otherwise, they cannot obtain the desired result. However, most of the later papers in the literature mistakenly think that the market value of a defaultable derivative is a risk-free value. Consequently, the results are incorrect. For instance, the current most popular CVA model described by Pykhtin and Zhu (2007), and Gregory (2009) is inappropriate in theory because the authors do not distinguish risky value and risk-free value when they conduct a risky valuation (i.e. valuing a defaultable derivative). In fact, the model has never been rigorously proved.
In this paper, we present generic models for valuing defaultable financial derivatives. For completeness, our study covers various cases: unilateral and bilateral, single payment and multiple payments, positive and negative payoffs. Although a couple of simple cases have been studied before by other authors, e.g. Duffie and Singleton (1999), Duffie and Huang (1996), who only provide heuristic derivations in a non-rigorous manner; analytic work on the other cases is novel. In contrast with the current recursive integral solution (see Duffie and Huang (1996)), our theory shows that the valuation of defaultable derivatives in most situations requires a backward induction procedure.
There is an intuitive way of understanding these backward induction behaviours: We can think that any defaultable derivative with bilateral credit risk embeds two default options. In other words, when entering a defaultable financial transaction, one party grants the other party an option to default and, at the same time, also receives an option to default itself. In theory, default may occur at any time. Therefore, default options are American style options that normally require a backward induction valuation.
We explicitly indicate that, within the context of risky valuation, the market value of a defaultable derivative is actually a risky value rather than a risk-free value, because a firm may default at any future time even if it survives today. An intuitive explanation is that after charging the upfront CVA, one already converted the market value of a defaultable derivative from the risk-free value to the risky value.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 From a practical perspective, we propose a novel framework to perform the bilateral risky valuation and calculate the bilateral CVA at a portfolio level, which incorporates netting and margin (or collateral) agreements and captures wrong/right way risk.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Basic setup is provided in Section 1; pricing unilateral defaultable derivatives and their unilateral CVAs is discussed in Section 2; valuing bilateral asymmetric defaultable derivatives and their bilateral CVAs is elaborated on in Section 3; a practical framework that embraces netting agreements, margining agreements, and wrong/right way risk is proposed in Section 4, and the numerical results are presented in Section 5. The conclusions are given in Section 6.

Basic Setup
We consider a filtered probability space (  , F ,   0 , P ) satisfying the usual conditions, where  denotes a sample space, F denotes a  -algebra, P denotes a probability measure, and denotes a filtration.
The default model is based on the reduced-form approach proposed by Duffie and Singleton (1999) and Jarrow and Turnbell (1994), which does not explain the event of default endogenously, but characterizes it exogenously by a jump process. The stopping (or default) time  is modeled as a Cox arrival process (also known as a doubly stochastic Poisson process) whose first jump occurs at default with a stochastic hazard rate or arrival intensity It is well-known that the survival probability, conditional on a realization path, from time t to s in this framework is defined by where Z is the firm-specific state process that helps forecast that firm's default. The default probability, conditional on the realization path, for the period (t, s) in this framework is defined by Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 Applying the law of iterated expectations, we express the expected survival probability for the  is the expectation conditional on the t F . The expected default probability for the period (t, s) is expressed as There are three different recovery models in the literature. The default payoff is either 1) a fraction of par, 2) a fraction of an equivalent default-free bond, or 3) a fraction of market value. We use the recovery model of market value in our study. itself. Therefore, the risky value of the derivative, conditional on the realization path, is the discounted expectation of the payoffs, given by where ) , ( s t D denotes the stochastic risk-free discount factor at t for the maturity s and ) (u r denotes the risk-free short rate at time u ( Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 If the derivative survives at time s, the survival value is equal to the market value. However, the derivative may default at any time after s. Therefore, the present survival value or the market value at time s is a risky value. In other words, for risk-free valuations, the market value is a risk-free value, but for risky valuations, the market value is actually a risky value. An intuitive explanation is that one already converted the market value from the risk-free value to the risky value after charging the upfront CVA.

Unilateral Defaultable Derivatives Valuation and Unilateral CVA
Unilateral risky valuation can be applied to two cases. By nature, the derivatives in case 1 involve only unilateral credit risk. In case 2, the derivatives actually bear bilateral credit risk, but people sometimes may treat bilateral defaultable derivatives as unilateral ones for simplicity.
Two parties are denoted as A and B. The unilateral credit risk assumes that only one party is defaultable and the other one is default-free. In this section, we assume that party A is default-free, whereas party B is defaultable. All calculations are from the perspective of party A. Let the valuation date be t. We study single payment cases first.

Single Payment Cases
Consider a defaultable derivative that promises to pay a T X from party B to party A at maturity date T, and nothing before date T. The payoff T X may be positive or negative, i.e. the derivative may be either an asset or a liability to each party. The risk-free value of the derivative at valuation date t is given by is the risk-free discount factor defined in (3b).
We divide the time period (t, T) into n very small time intervals ( t  ) and assume that a default may occur only at the end of each very small period.

Proposition 1: The unilateral risky value of the single payment derivative is given by
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 is called the credit spread or the short credit spread.
Compared to the risk-free valuation (4), the risky valuation (5) The proof of this corollary becomes straightforward, according to Proposition 1, by taking the limit as t  approaches zero.
Proposition 1 provides a general form for pricing a unilateral defaultable single payment derivative. Applying it to a particular situation in which we assume that the payoff T X is non-negative, we derive the following corollary:

Corollary 1.2:
If the payoff T X is non-negative, the risky value of the single payment derivative under the CTM is given by The proof of this corollary is easily obtained according to (6) by setting 0 is also non-negative.
8 Equation (7) is the same as Equation (10) in Duffie and Singleton (1999). In their heuristic derivation, the authors implicitly treat the market value of a defaultable derivative as a risky value because the market price therein evolves in a defaultable manner. Otherwise, they would not have been able to obtain the desired result.
The risky valuation becomes quite simple when the payoff is non-negative. This corollary says that a single non-negative payment defaultable derivative can be priced using the present value of the promised payoff T X discounted by the risk-adjusted discount rate ) (u c B  instead of the risk-free rate ) (u r .
By definition, the corresponding CVA of the single non-negative payment derivative can be expressed as Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 Proof: See the Appendix.
Here we may consider ) , ( T t G B as the risk-adjusted discount factor. Proposition 2 states that the unilateral risky valuation of the single payoff derivative has a dependence on the sign of the payoff. If the payoff is positive, the risky value is equal to the risk-free value minus the discounted potential loss.
Otherwise, the risky value is equal to the risk-free value.
The corresponding unilateral CVA of the single payment derivative under the DTM can be expressed as Equation (10) shows that if the payoff is in the money, the CVA is a credit charge equal to the discounted potential loss. If the payoff is out of the money, the CVA is zero.
Proposition 2 has a general form that applies in a particular situation in which we assume that the payoff T X is non-negative.
The proof of this corollary is straightforward according to Proposition 2 by setting 0  T X . Equations (11) are consistent with equations (3).

Multiple Payments Cases
Suppose that a defaultable derivative has m cash flows. Any of these cash flows may be positive or negative. Let the m cash flows be represented as 1 X ,…, m X with payment dates 1 T ,…, m T . The riskfree price of the derivative is given by Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 We divide any payment date period ( assume that a default may occur only at the end of each very small period.

Proposition 3:
The unilateral risky value of the multiple payments derivative is given by Proposition 3 says that the pricing process of a multiple payments derivative has a backward nature since there is no way of knowing which risk-adjusted discounting rate should be used without knowledge of the future value. In other words, the present value takes into account the results of all future decisions. On the final payment date, the value of a derivative and the decision strategy are clear.
Therefore, the evaluation must be done in a backward fashion, working from the final payment date towards the present. This type of valuation process is referred to as backward induction.
If we model default in a continuous-time setting, the Proposition 3 can be further expressed as follows.

Corollary 3.1: The unilateral risky value of the multiple payments derivative under the CTM is given by
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 The proof of this corollary is easily obtained, according to Proposition 3, by taking the limit as t  approaches zero.
Proposition 3 has a general form that applies in a particular situation in which we assume that all the payoffs are non-negative.

Corollary 3.2:
If all the payoffs are non-negative, the risky value of the multiple payments derivative under the CTM is given by The proof of this corollary is straightforward, according to (14), by setting 0 This is the formula for pricing defaultable bonds in the market. Corollary 3.2 says that if all the payoffs are positive, we can evaluate each payoff separately and sum the corresponding results. In other words, payoffs in this case can be treated as independent.
If we assume that a default may occur only on the payment dates, the result is the following proposition in a discrete-time setting.

Proposition 4:
The unilateral risky value of the multiple payments derivative under the DTM is given by Proof: See the Appendix.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 Similar to Proposition 3, the individual payoffs under Proposition 4 cannot be evaluated separately. The current risky value depends on the future risky value. This type of problem is usually solved using backward induction algorithms.
Proposition 4 has a general form that applies in a particular situation where we assume that all payoffs are non-negative.
The proof of this corollary is easily obtained according to Proposition 4 by setting

Bilateral Defaultable Derivative Valuation and Bilateral CVA
A critical ingredient of the pricing of a bilateral defaultable derivative is the rules for settlement in default. There are two rules in the market. The one-way payment rule was specified by the early International Swap Dealers Association (ISDA) master agreement. The non-defaulting party is not obligated to compensate the defaulting party if the remaining market value of the derivative is positive for the defaulting party. The two-way payment rule is based on current ISDA documentation. In the event of default, if the contract has positive value to the non-defaulting party, the defaulting party pays a fraction of the market value of the derivative to the non-defaulting party. If the contract has positive value to the defaulting party, the non-defaulting party will pay the full market value of the derivative to the defaulting party. Within the context of risky valuation, one should consider the market value of a defaultable derivative as a risky value.

Joint Distribution
Marginal Distribution

Single Payment Cases
Consider a defaultable derivative that promises to pay a T X from party B to party A at maturity date T and nothing before date T. The payoff may be either an asset or a liability to each party.
We divide the time period (t, T) into n very small time intervals ( t  ) and assume that a default may occur only at the end of each very small period.

Proposition 5:
The bilateral risky value of the single payment derivative is given by where Electronic copy available at: https: . Similar to Proposition 1, the valuation process given by Proposition 5 builds on itself in a backward recursive fashion and requires a backward induction valuation.
Proposition 5 provides a general form for pricing a bilateral risky single payment derivative.
Applying it to a particular situation in which we assume that parties A and B do not default simultaneously and have independent default risks, i.e.  =0 and AB  =0, we derive the following corollary.
The proof of this corollary becomes straightforward according to Proposition 5 by setting  =0 and AB  =0, taking the limit as t  approaches zero, and having for very small t  .
Corollary 5.1 is the same as equation (2.5') in Duffie and Huang (1996), but their derivation is heuristic rather than rigorous.
The corresponding bilateral CVA of the single payment derivative in this case can be expressed , the bilateral CVA may be positive or negative depending on the sign of the payoff. In other words, the CVA may be either a credit charge or a credit benefit. A credit charge that is the value of a default loss comes from the scenario of one's counterparty Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 defaulting when one is in the money, while a credit benefit is the value of a default gain in the scenario of one's own default when one is out of money.
If we assume that a default may occur only on the payment dates, the default options become either European options or Bermudan options.

Proposition 6:
The bilateral risky value of the single payment derivative under the DTM is given by as the risk-adjusted discount factor. Proposition 6 tells us that the bilateral risky price of a single payment derivative can be expressed as the present value of the payoff discounted by a risk-adjusted discount factor that has a switching-type dependence on the sign of the payoff.
Proposition 6 has a general form that applies in a particular situation where we assume that parties A and B do not default simultaneously and have independent default risks, i.e.  =0 and AB  =0.
where Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 The proof of this corollary is easily obtained according to Proposition 6 by setting  =0 and AB  =0.

Multiple Payments Cases
Suppose that a defaultable derivative has m cash flows. Let the m cash flows be represented as assume that a default may occur only at the end of each very small period.

Proposition 7:
The bilateral risky value of the multiple payments derivative is given by Proof: See the Appendix.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 Similar to Proposition 3, the individual payoffs under Proposition 7 are coupled and cannot be evaluated separately. The process requires a backward induction valuation.
Proposition 7 provides a general form for pricing a bilateral multiple payment derivative.
Applying it to a particular situation in which we assume that parties A and B do not default simultaneously and have independent default risks, i.e.  =0 and AB  =0, we derive the following corollary.
The proof of this corollary becomes straightforward according to Proposition 7 by setting  =0 and AB  =0, taking the limit as t  approaches zero, and having The default options of a defaultable derivative under the CTM are American style options, while the default options under the DTM are Bermudan style ones.

Proposition 8:
The bilateral risky value of the multiple payments derivative under the DTM is given by T  T  T  T  T  T  T  Q  T  T  Q  T   T  T  Q  T  T  S  T  T  T  S  T  T  Q  T  T  T  S  T  T  S  T  T T  T  T  T  T  T  T  Q  T  T  Q  T   T  T  Q  T  T  S  T  T  T  S  T  T  Q  T  T  T  S  T  T  S  T  T The proof of this corollary is easily obtained according to Proposition 8 by setting  =0 and AB  =0.

A Practical Framework For Bilateral Risky Valuation and CVA
This work was sponsored by FinPricing (2019). The risky valuation theory described above can be applied to any defaultable derivatives. In this section, we develop a practical framework to demonstrate how to perform the risky valuation and how to calculate the bilateral CVA at a portfolio level. The framework incorporates netting and margin agreements and captures right/wrong way risk. We use the DTM as an example. Switching to the CTM is quite straightforward, but requires more granular simulation time steps, e.g. daily.
Two parties are denoted as A and B. All calculations are from the perspective of party A. Let the valuation date be t. The risky valuation and CVA computation procedure consists of the following steps.

Risk-Neutral Monte Carlo Scenario Generation
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 One core element of a counterparty credit risk management system is the Monte Carlo scenario generation (market evolution). This must be able to run a large number of scenarios for each risk factor with flexibility over parameterization of processes and treatment of correlation between underlying factors. Credit exposure may be calculated under a real probability measure, while CVA may be conducted under a risk-neutral probability measure.
Due to the extensive computational intensity of pricing counterparty credit risk, there will inevitably be some compromise regarding limiting the number of market scenarios (paths) and the number of simulation dates (also called "time buckets" or "time nodes"). The time buckets are normally designed as fine-granularity at the short end and coarse-granularity at the far end. The details of scenario generation are beyond the scope of this paper.

Cash Flow Generation
For ease of illustration, we choose a vanilla interest rate swap as an example. For most banks, interest rate swaps account for more than half of their derivative business.
Assume that party A pays a fixed rate, while party B pays a floating-rate. We are considering that fixed rate payments and floating-rate payments occur at the same payment dates and with the same daycount conventions, and ignoring the swap funding spread. Though the generalization to different payment dates, day-count conventions and swap funding spreads is straightforward, we prefer to present a simplified version to ease the notation.
denotes the risk-free discount factor based on the interest rate curve simulated at k T .
Cash flow generation for products without early-exercise provision is quite straightforward. For early-exercise products, one can use the approach proposed by Longstaff and Schwartz (2001) to obtain the optimal exercise boundaries, and then the payoffs.

Aggregation and Netting Agreements
After generating cash flows for each deal, we need to aggregate them at the counterparty portfolio level for each scenario and at each time bucket. The cash flows are aggregated by either netting or nonnetting based on the netting agreements. A netting agreement is a provision that allows the offset of settlement payments and receipts on all contracts between two counterparties. Another important use of netting is close-out netting, which allows the offset of close-out values.
For netting, we add all cash flows together in the same scenario and at the same time bucket to recognize offsetting. The aggregated cash flow under netting at scenario j and time bucket k is given by For non-netting, we divide cash flows into positive and negative groups and add them separately.
In other words, offsetting is not recognized. The aggregated cash flows under non-netting at scenario j and time bucket k are given by

Margin (or Collateral) Agreements
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 Under a margin agreement, the collateral is called as soon as the counterparty exposure rises above the given collateral threshold H , or more precisely, above the threshold (TH) plus minimum transferable amount (MTA). This would result in a reduction of exposure by the collateral amount held  .
Consequently, there would be no exposure above the threshold H if there were no time lags between collateral calling, posting, liquidating, and closing out. However, these lags, which are actually the margin period of risk, do exist in practice. The collateral can depreciate or appreciate in value during this period. These lags expose the bank to additional exposure above the threshold, which is normally referred to as collateralized exposure. Clearly, the longer the margin period of risk, the larger the collateralized exposure.
Assume that the collateral margin period of risk is  . The collateral methodology consists of the following procedures: First, for any time bucket

Wrong or Right Way Risk
Wrong way risk occurs when exposure to a counterparty is adversely correlated with the credit quality of that counterparty, while right way risk occurs when exposure to a counterparty is positively correlated with the credit quality of that counterparty. For example, in wrong way risk, exposure tends to increase when counterparty credit quality worsens, while in right way risk, exposure tends to decrease when counterparty credit quality declines. Wrong/right way risk, as an additional source of risk, is rightly of concern to banks and regulators.
To capture wrong/right way risk, we need to correlate the credit quality (credit spreads or hazard rates) with other market risk factors, e.g. equities, commodities, etc., in the scenario generation.

CVA Calculation
After aggregating all cash flows via netting and margin agreements, one can price a portfolio in the same manner as pricing a single deal. We assume that the reader is familiar with the regression-based Monte Carlo valuation model proposed by Longstaff and Schwartz (2001) and thus do not repeat some well-known procedures for brevity.

Risk-Free Valuation
We first calculate the risk-free present value of a counterparty portfolio. The risk-free value at scenario j is given by The final risk-free portfolio value is the average (expectation) of all scenarios given by

Risky Valuation
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 The risky valuation procedure is performed iteratively, starting at the last effective time bucket m T , and then working backwards towards the present. We know the value of the portfolio at the final effective time bucket, which is equal to the last cash flow, i.e.
We conduct the backward induction process, performed by iteratively rolling back a series of long jumps from the final effective time bucket m T across time nodes until we reach the valuation date.
Then, the present value at scenario j is The final true/risky portfolio value is the average (expectation) of all scenarios, given by CVA is by definition the difference between the risk-free portfolio value and the true (or risky or defaultable) portfolio value given by

Numerical Results
In this section, we present some numerical results for risky valuations and CVA calculations based on the theory and the practical framework described above.

Comparison Between the CTM and the DTM
The theoretical study of this article is conducted under both the CTM and the DTM. The CTM assumes that a default may occur at any time, while the DTM assumes that a default may only happen at discrete payment dates.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 Here we use unilateral credit risk as an example. Assume that party B has an 'A' rating and a constant default recovery rate of 70%. Party A is default-free. All calculations are from the perspective of party A.
Let us consider single payment derivatives first. We use a 6-month zero-coupon bond and a 1- year zero-coupon bond to analog single payment instruments. Under the CTM, the derivatives are continuously defaultable, whereas under the DTM, the derivatives may default only at 6 months or 1 year.
The principals are a unit, and the hazard rates are bootstrapped from CDS spreads. The risk-free and risky values and the CVAs are calculated according to Corollary 1.2 and Corollary 2.1, shown in Table 2 and Then, we use a 10-year semi-annual fixed rate coupon bond to analog a multiple payments instrument. Assume that the principal is a unit and that the annual coupon rate of the fixed-rate coupon bond is 4%. The risk-free and risky values and the CVAs are calculated according to Corollary 3.2 and Corollary 4.1, shown in Table 4. The results confirm that the DTM and the CTM produce very close results.

Table 2. The Numerical Results of a 6-month Maturity Single Payment Derivative
This table shows the present risk-free and unilateral risky values, and the unilateral CVAs of a 6-month maturity single payment derivative calculated under both the CTM and the DTM. The derivative has only one payoff at 6-month maturity and a unit principal. Difference of CVA = 1 -DTM-CVA / CTM-CVA.

Impact of Margin Agreements
In this section, we use a portfolio to study the impact of margin agreements. The portfolio consists of a number of derivatives on interest rate, equity, and foreign exchange. In the real world, it is very rare that a portfolio is positive all the time and in all scenarios. The number of simulation scenarios (or paths) is 20,000. The time buckets are set weekly. If the computational requirements exceed the system limit, one can reduce both the number of scenarios and the number of time buckets. The time buckets can be designed as fine-granularity at the short end, and coarse-granularity at the far end, e.g.
daily, weekly, monthly and yearly, etc. The rationale is that calculations become less accurate due to accumulated errors from simulation discretization and inherited errors from the calibration of the underlying models, such as those due to a change in macro-economic climate. The collateral margin period of risk is assumed to be 14 days (2 weeks).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 We use the CIR (Cox-Ingersoll-Ross) models for interest rate and hazard rate scenario generations, the modified GBM (Geometric Brownian Motion) models for equity and collateral evolutions, and the BK (Black Karasinski) models for foreign exchange dynamics. increases. This reflects the bilateral impact of the collaterals on the bilateral CVA. The impact is mixed in Table 7 when both parties have finite collateral thresholds.

Impact of Wrong or Right Way Risk
We use an equity swap as an example. Assume the correlation between the underlying equity price and the credit quality (hazard rate) of party B is  . The impact of the correlation on the CVA is show in Table 8. The results state that the CVA increases when the absolute value of the negative correlation increases.
At time t t   the derivative either defaults or survives. The risky value of the derivative at t is given by where Y  is an indicator function that is equal to one if Y is true and zero otherwise; and Similarly, we have Electronic copy available at: https: variable is a random variable whose value is known at time t t   . Based on the taking out what is known and tower properties of conditional expectation, we have , the price can be expressed as Proof of Proposition 2: Under the unilateral credit risk assumption, we only consider the default risk when the derivative is in the money. Assume that a default may only occur on the payment date. Therefore, the risky value of the derivative at t is given by According to Proposition 1, the risky value of the derivative at t is given by According to the taking out what is known and tower properties of conditional expectation, we have By recursively deriving from 2 T forward over Proof of Proposition 4: Let 0 T t  . Assume that a default may only occur on the payment dates.
On the first payment date 1 T , let ) ( 1 T V D denote the risky value of the derivative excluding the current cash flow 1 X . According to Proposition 2, the risky value of the derivative at t is given by Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3438704 According to the taking out what is known and tower properties of conditional expectation, we have Proof of Proposition 5: We divide the time period (t, T) into n very small intervals ( t  ) and use the approximation   y y   1 exp for very small y. The survival and the default probabilities of party j (j=A, B) for the period (t, t t   ) are given by

At time
t t   , there are four possible states: 1) both A and B survive, 2) A defaults but B survives, 3) A survives but B defaults, and 4) both A and B default. The joint distribution of A and B is shown in Table 1. Depending on whether the market value of the derivative is an asset or a liability at Note that By recursively deriving from t forward over T, where , the price can be expressed as: Proof of Proposition 6: We assume that a default may only occur on the payment date. At time T, there are four possible states: 1) both A and B survive, 2) A defaults but B survives, 3) A survives but B defaults, and 4) both A and B default. The joint distribution of A and B is shown in Table 1. Depending on whether the payoff is in the money or out of the money at T, we have