Contributions published at Quantitative Finance (Marc Chesney)

null

This book builds on a decade-long experience with mechanisms provided by the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It discusses the challenges of climate finance in the context of the post-Copenhagen negotiations and provides a long-term outlook of how climate finance in developing countries could develop. Written by climate finance experts from academia, carbon finance businesses and international organizations, the book provides background, firsthand insights, case studies and analysis into the complex subject area of climate finance.

In this paper, we build a bridge between different reduced-form approaches to pricing defaultable claims. In particular, we show how the well-known formulas by Duffie, Schroder, and Skiadas and by Elliott, Jeanblanc, and Yor are related. Moreover, in the spirit of Collin Dufresne, Hugonnier, and Goldstein, we propose a simple pricing formula under an equivalent change of measure. Two processes will play a central role: the hazard process and the martingale hazard process attached to a default time. The crucial step is to understand the difference between them, which has been an open question in the literature so far. We show that pseudo-stopping times appear as the most general class of random times for which these two processes are equal. We also show that these two processes always differ when $\tau$ is an honest time, providing an explicit expression for the difference. Eventually we provide a solution to another open problem: we show that if $\tau$ is an arbitrary random (default) time such that its Azéma's supermartingale is continuous, then $\tau$ avoids stopping times.

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

null

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing our planet in the foreseeable future anddespite the urgency of the situation global GHG emissions are still increasing. In this context,and since future climate changes appear now unavoidable to some extent, adaptation measureshave recently gained a new political momentum as an important component of climate policies.Contrary to mitigation options, adaptation measures do not reduce emission levels but reducetheir impacts. To assess the relationship and effects on the global economy of both mitigationand adaptation, we use in this paper an integrated assessment model (IAM) that includes bothproactive adaptation strategies and access to “green” investments (clean technologies) for mitigation.We find that the relationship between adaptation and mitigation is complex and largelydependent on their respective attributes, with weakly effective adaptation acting as a late complementto mitigation efforts. As its effectiveness increases, adaptation becomes more and morea substitute for mitigation. Sensitivity analysis on the potential magnitude of damages also indicatesthat scientific efforts to better describe GHG impacts will have immediate and importantconsequences on the sequence of mitigation and adaptation strategies.

null