Equity options can act as an alternative to credit default swaps for detecting a company’s credit risk. Photo via Getty Images

Up until the 2007-2009 financial crisis, credit default swaps (CDS) were a predominant method for predicting the probability of corporate default. CDS function like insurance for loan assets — if an asset defaults, the bank who purchased the CDS would recoup their loss. Higher-risk assets usually have higher premiums, and in this way the price of a CDS indicates the probability of default.

When the housing market crashed in 2007, the CDS market crashed along with it when banks had to pay out more than they had expected. The CDS market is not expected to ever return to its previous high, leaving a void in market-driven estimates for determining an asset’s default probability.

To fill that void, a team of researchers including Rice Business Professor Robert Dittmar created an alternative method for measuring default risk: equity options data. The team found that equity options not only correlate with CDS data in terms of accurate prediction of default but also provide additional insights on what types of assets are more likely to default, and when they will default.

There are two types of options, a call option, which is essentially a bet that a stock’s price will be higher than a contracted value (the strike price) and a put option, which is a bet that a stock’s price will be less than a contracted value.

A put is often viewed as an insurance contract — if you hold a stock, but also a put option on it, you limit your loss on the stock if the stock price falls.

“What we are looking at is essentially how expensive put options get,” says Dittmar. “If the market thinks a company is likely to default, it expects that its stock value will fall (almost to zero). As a result, put options, which represent insurance against this loss become more expensive. We are looking at how these option prices change to see if they inform us about the probabilities of default.”

According to Dittmar and his team, this approach has several advantages. 1) There are more stocks with options than CDS. 2) The CDS market is drying up whereas the option market remains liquid. And 3) Because of the nature of an option contract, and the fact that in principle equity holders have the lowest claim on a company’s assets, this approach may allow investors to predict losses in case of default.

The team looked at CDS quotes on 276 firms between 2002 and 2017, focusing attention on entities that had quote data available on one-year credit default swaps. The 15-year sample enabled the researchers to analyze the money lost through defaults over a longer period of time, including the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

Using equity options data as a predictor of default led to some interesting insights. First, there are two components that investors in corporate bonds think about when weighing default risk — the probability of default and (should there be a default) how much of the bond’s principal they will get back (i.e., recovery rate). “What we see is that credit ratings imply different levels of default thresholds, which may mean that investors believe that there are differences in the amount that debt holders will lose in the case of default,” says Dittmar.

Second, option-implied default probabilities correlate to historical changes in the economy. Default probabilities are higher in bad economic times and for firms with poorer credit ratings and financial positions. Default spikes are more likely during times of economic turbulence, such as the financial crisis of 2007-2009, which correlated with the decline of the CDS market after an onslaught of debt defaults during the recession. Assets are less likely to default during times of economic expansion. Over the period of 2013-2017, forecasted losses through defaults hovered around 15%.

The research sample ends in 2017, and the paper was published in 2020, about a month after the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Since then, there have been unprecedented changes in the economy, and some economists are anticipating another recession in 2023. With such instability in the market, multiple methods of predicting losses should be especially relevant. This research suggests that the equity options market may provide additional ways of finding the probability of these losses.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Robert Dittmar, professor of finance at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

2 leading Texas universities rank among world’s best for entrepreneurs

honor roll

The Lone Star State’s two biggest universities—the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University—rank among the world’s best schools for entrepreneurs.

PitchBook’s annual list of the world’s top 100 universities for entrepreneurs takes into account both undergraduate and graduate programs. PitchBook analyzed more than 222,000 startup founders whose startups are VC-backed.

UT’s “unique” advantage

UT Austin landed at No. 10 on the list, down from No. 8 last year. PitchBook identified 1,002 UT-alumni founders at 948 startups. Collectively, those startups have raised $34.7 billion, according to PitchBook.

Among the 948 UT Austin-affiliated startups, these five have raised the most capital:

  • No. 1 Tucson, Arizona-based World View, $2.8 billion
  • No. 2 Austin-based Apptronik, $966 million
  • No. 3 Mountain View, California-based Lightmatter, $821 million
  • No. 4 Austin-based Function Health, $807 million
  • No. 5. San Francisco-based Niantic, $779 million

“The unique UT Austin advantage is the alignment between the university and the city,” Foundra.ai says. “Unlike schools where the campus ecosystem and the local startup scene are disconnected, Austin’s startup community actively recruits UT students and alumni, and UT programs actively send students into the local ecosystem.”

Texas A&M’s “living laboratory”

UT Austin’s biggest in-state rival, Texas A&M, appeared at No. 79 on the list, down from No. 76 last year. PitchBook tallied 317 A&M-alumni founders at 295 startups. Collectively, those startups have raised $9.8 billion, according to PitchBook.

Among the 317 A&M-affiliated startups, these five have raised the most capital:

  • No. 1 Austin-based RigUp, $817 million
  • No. 2 Austin-based ICON, $543 million
  • No. 3 Scottsdale, Arizona-based HomeLight, $413 million
  • No. 4 Everett, Washington-based Zap Energy, $326 million
  • No. 5 San Diego-based Splice Therapeutics, $320 million

A cornerstone of Texas A&M’s entrepreneurship offerings is the Center for Applied Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Mays School of Business. The business school says the center “helps students explore, test, build, buy, and transform businesses in real markets.”

“Grounded in Texas as a living laboratory and guided by the Aggie core values, the center advances applied learning through industry engagement, AI-enabled experimentation, and collaboration across Mays and Texas A&M,” the business school says.

The most “exceptional” schools on PitchBook’s list

In announcing its rankings, PitchBook said: “Great entrepreneurs can come from anywhere, but some universities have a truly exceptional track record of attracting and producing future founders.”

The most exceptional universities, based on PitchBook’s criteria, are:

  • No. 1 University of California, Berkeley
  • No. 2 Stanford University
  • No. 3 Harvard University
  • No. 4 Cornell University
  • No. 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Planned KBR spinoff scores $1B NOAA deal for extreme weather forecasting

weather watch

Amid a major spinoff, Houston-based KBR's Mission Technology Solutions business has been awarded a five-year contract for up to $1.1 billion from NOAA’s National Weather Service to help predict and combat extreme weather conditions.

Under the follow-on Commercial Data Program National Mesonet Program (CDP NMP) contract, KBR will provide weather and observational data from commercial stations, university and research campuses, and other non-federal providers nationwide. The information collected will assist in predicting severe temperatures and high-impact weather conditions like extreme storms.

"This award underscores KBR's proven track record of delivering vital data that strengthens national forecasting capabilities," Todd May, KBR’s senior vice president of Mission Technology Solutions, said in a news release.

According to a separate release from NOAA, the contract expands upon KBR's existing relationship with the agency. KBR will work with about 70 private industry partners on services such as data recording, collection, aggregation and processing, and will lead the CDP NMP's "network of networks."

“NOAA gathers environmental information from a wide variety of sources, and a growing list of private industry partners have joined our agency to collect this vital data,” Ken Graham, director of NOAA’s National Weather Service, said in the release. “This agreement streamlines the process that turns raw data into the gold-standard forecasts that Americans depend on.”

KBR will utilize its Speed to Mission ImpactSM technology for the project to supply data from across regions, measurement types, and system configurations. Both KBR and NOAA say the expanded data collection contract will help the agency create more accurate and timely forecasts, particularly for severe weather and extreme events, while also creating a path for new weather-observation technologies.

KBR has supported the CDP NMP for more than 9 years. The program will be managed in Greenbelt, Maryland.

"We're driving expanded integration of commercial sensor and data sources into this platform and are honored to know our work helps forecasters give their communities earlier warnings and more time to prepare for dangerous weather,” May added in a release.

KBR’s Mission Technology Solutions business will be rebranded as Trinzic after its planned spin-off, the company announced last month. The spin-off is expected to close in January 2027.

Trinzic will work as an independent, publicly traded company focused on technology and engineering services for the space and national security sector. KBR will remain a separate publicly traded company that will focus on sustainable technology and services to support the energy transition.

This is the salary required to live comfortably in Texas in 2026

Money Matters

A new national report looking at the income it takes to live comfortably in each of the 50 states has revealed Texans need to earn slightly less now than a year ago.

SmartAsset analyzed what a single individual, as well as family of four, must earn to cover minimum basic needs adjusted using the 50/30/20 budgeting rule. The resulting estimate represents the annual, pre-tax income needed to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

A single, full-time worker needs to make $90,563 to live comfortably in the Lone Star State, the report found, which is down a meager 0.2 percent from last year ($90,771).

Under the 50/30/20 budgeting strategy, that means a single Texas earner would have $45,282 to spend on necessities like housing and utilities, $27,169 for discretionary spending, and $18,113 for emergencies or retirement savings.

Texas ranked 34th nationally in SmartAsset's list of states with the highest income needed for a single adult to live "in sustainable comfort" in 2026. Only five other states — Tennessee, Maryland, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Mississippi — saw a decline in the income needed to live comfortably this year.

For a family of four to live comfortably in Texas, income requirements change significantly, according to the findings. To support a two-child household, a family needs $203,424 in combined total household income to be considered financially stable. This is down slightly from 2025, when SmartAsset reported a family of four in needed $204,922 to live comfortably in Texas.

This is a comfortable lifestyle for a family of four in Texas, according to the report:

  • $101,712 dedicated to necessities and living expenses
  • $61,027 dedicated to discretionary spending
  • $40,685 dedicated to emergencies, savings, or debt repaymen

According to the report, a family of four now needs to make at least $200,000 to live comfortably in 40 U.S. states, a figure that is far out of reach for many American families.

"As housing, grocery, transportation and other essential costs pressure household budgets, earning a six-figure salary no longer guarantees financial comfort in much of the U.S.," the report said. "A single adult now needs at least $80,000 a year to live comfortably in every state, while the threshold exceeds $100,000 in nearly half of states. For a family of four, the income needed to live comfortably is as much as $329,000."

Still, earning the minimum income to live comfortably in Texas doesn't guarantee financial stability in the Lone Star State's major cities. Earlier this year, SmartAsset determined single residents in Houston need to make about $90,000 to qualify as financially stable, while families of four need around $205,000.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.