2008•The Journal of Fixed IncomeRequires access

Empirical Evidence on CDO Performance

Daniel Aureliano Newman, Frank J. Fabozzi, Douglas J. Lucas, Laurie S. Goodman

Open publisher page 15 citations

Abstract

Despite the recent infamy of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), there is a dearth of literature quantifying the performance of this fixed-income product. While performance is usually measured in terms of return relative to a benchmark, lack of pricing information necessitates an alternative methodology for assessing CDO performance. In this article, we use rating changes (principally downgrades) to assess 10 types of CDOs across 11 vintages, analyzing 4,328 CDOs and 13,333 tranches in total. We find the following: Asset-backed CDOs have performed far worse than other CDOs issued 1999–2007. Market value CDOs are the second-worse performers. Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and CDOs backed by emerging market bonds, investment-grade bonds, and high-yield bonds have significantly outperformed other types of CDOs over the last four years of issuance. TOPICS: CLOs, CDOs, and other structured credit , information providers/credit ratings , performance measurement

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Despite the recent infamy of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), there is a dearth of literature quantifying the performance of this fixed-income product. While performance is usually measured in terms of return relative to a benchmark, lack of pricing information necessitates an alternative methodology for assessing CDO performance. In this article, we use rating changes (principally downgrades) to assess 10 types of CDOs across 11 vintages, analyzing 4,328 CDOs and 13,333 tranches in total. We find the following: Asset-backed CDOs have performed far worse than other CDOs issued 1999–2007. Market value CDOs are the second-worse performers. Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and CDOs backed by emerging market bonds, investment-grade bonds, and high-yield bonds have significantly outperformed other types of CDOs over the last four years of issuance. TOPICS: CLOs, CDOs, and other structured credit , information providers/credit ratings , performance measurement

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 15 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Despite the recent infamy of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), there is a dearth of literature quantifying the performance of this fixed-income product. While performance is usually measured in terms of return relative to a benchmark, lack of pricing information necessitates an alternative methodology for assessing CDO performance. In this article, we use rating changes (principally downgrades) to assess 10 types of CDOs across 11 vintages, analyzing 4,328 CDOs and 13,333 tranches in total. We find the following: Asset-backed CDOs have performed far worse than other CDOs issued 1999–2007. Market value CDOs are the second-worse performers. Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and CDOs backed by emerging market bonds, investment-grade bonds, and high-yield bonds have significantly outperformed other types of CDOs over the last four years of issuance. TOPICS: CLOs, CDOs, and other structured credit , information providers/credit ratings , performance measurement

Key concepts: Empirical evidence, Business, Philosophy, Epistemology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Empirical Evidence on CDO Performance — Research Paper | ScholarLens