A cash or nothing call is one that pays a fixed amount if the underlying exceeds a certain threshold, or nothing. An asset or nothing call is the same as the cash or nothing call except that instead of paying a fixed amount, it 'pays' the asset. Therefore the payoff profile of a long asset or nothing call has the same payoff as a long cash or nothing call and a long vanilla call.

This is best considered by building payoff diagrams which will show how the two positions are economically equivalent. Choice 'd' is the correct answer, and the rest are not.

The correct answer is Choice 'd'. The following is a brief description of the major approaches available to model credit risk, and the analysis that underlies them:

1. CreditMetrics: based on the credit migration framework. Considers the probability of migration to other credit ratings and the impact of such migrations on portfolio value.

2. CreditPortfolio View: similar to CreditMetrics, but adds the impact of the business cycle to the evaluation.

3. The contingent claims approach: uses option theory by considering a debt as a put option on the assets of the firm.

4. KMV's EDF (expected default frequency) based approach: relies on EDFs and distance to default as a measure of credit risk.

5. CreditRisk+: Also called the 'actuarial approach', considers default as a binary event that either happens or does not happen. This approach does not consider the loss of value from deterioration in credit quality (unless the deterioration implies default).

Losses due to credit risk include the loss of value from credit migration and default events (which can be considered a migration to the 'default' category). Therefore Choice 'd' is the correct answer. Changes in spreads or interest rates are examples of market risk events.

[Discussion: It may be argued that losses from spreads changing could be categorized as credit risk and not market risk. The distinction between credit and market risk is never really watertight.

The reason I have called it market risk in this question is because spreads can change due to two reasons: first, due to the individual issuer going down in their credit rating (whether issued or perceived, as we have witnessed in Europe sovereign debt), and second due to the spread for the overall category changing due to macro fundamentals with nothing changing for the individual issuer. For example the spread between municipal bonds and treasuries may be small during boom times and may expand during recessions - regardless of how the individual issuer has been doing. Clearly, the first case is credit risk and the second is probably market risk.

A change in overall corporate bond spreads is something I would consider akin to a rate change - which is why I have called it as not a part of credit risk. But an alternative perspective may not be incorrect either.]