Author
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compare nine different models to evaluate consumer credit risk, which are the following: Logistic Regression (LR), Naive Bayes (NB), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), k-Nearest Neighbor (k-NN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Classification and Regression Tree (CART), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Random Forest (RF) and Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT) in Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Lending. Design/methodology/approach - The author uses data from P2P Lending Club (LC) to assess the efficiency of a variety of classification models across different economic scenarios and to compare the ranking results of credit risk models in P2P lending through three families of evaluation metrics. Findings - The results from this research indicate that the risk classification models in the 2013–2019 economic period show greater measurement efficiency than for the difficult 2007–2012 period. Besides, the results of ranking models for predicting default risk show that GBDT is the best model for most of the metrics or metric families included in the study. The findings of this study also support the results of Tsaiet al.(2014) and Teplý and Polena (2019) that LR, ANN and LDA models classify loan applications quite stably and accurately, while CART, k-NN and NB show the worst performance when predicting borrower default risk on P2P loan data. Originality/value - The main contributions of the research to the empirical literature review include: comparing nine prediction models of consumer loan application risk through statistical and machine learning algorithms evaluated by the performance measures according to three separate families of metrics (threshold, ranking and probabilistic metrics) that are consistent with the existing data characteristics of the LC lending platform through two periods of reviewing the current economic situation and platform development.
Suggested Citation
Lua Thi Trinh, 2024.
"A comparative analysis of consumer credit risk models in Peer-to-Peer Lending,"
Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(58), pages 346-365, June.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:jefasp:jefas-04-2021-0026
DOI: 10.1108/JEFAS-04-2021-0026
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:jefasp:jefas-04-2021-0026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.