IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ1/7516241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Current expected credit loss procyclicality: it depends on the model

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph L. Breeden
  • Maxim Vaskouski

Abstract

The new guidelines for loan loss reserves, current expected credit loss (CECL), were initially proposed so that lenders’ loss reserves would be forward-looking. Some recent studies have suggested that CECL could be procyclical, meaning that loss reserves would peak at the peak of a crisis. Although it is better than seeing failure only after it has happened, being required to raise liquidity at the peak of a crisis could still fail to save the lender from collapse, and it may even facilitate the latter. However, previous procyclicality studies have explained all losses using macro- economic factors, ignoring the changes in credit risk and other portfolio drivers that preceded the recession. The current work looks at a wide range of models to test the degree to which CECL is procyclical for different types of model. The tests were also run using real historical macroeconomic scenarios, flat scenarios or mean-reverting scenarios. All tests were conducted on publicly available data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac using publicly disclosed models. Our study found that CECL lifetime loss estimates were only marginally sensitive to the quality of the economic scenario but changed dramatically with different modeling techniques. Some methods predicted increased loss reserve requirements as early as 2006, while others only saw the recession as it happened or even afterward. Therefore, procyclicality under CECL will be strongly influenced by the choices of the lender.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ1:7516241
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2020-03/jcr_breeden_web.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

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:rsk:journ1:7516241. 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: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-credit-risk .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.