IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/2161300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discriminatory power and predictions of defaults of structural credit risk models

Author

Listed:
  • Tak-Chuen Wong
  • Cho-hoi Hui
  • Chi-fai Lo

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper studies the discriminatory power and calibration quality of the structural credit risk models under the "exogenous default boundary" approach including those proposed by Longstaff and Schwartz (1995) and Collin-Dufresne and Goldstein (2001), and the "endogenous default boundary" approach in Leland and Toft (1996) based on 2,050 non-financial companies in 46 economies during the period 1998-2005. Their discriminatory power in terms of differentiating defaulting and non-defaulting companies is adequate and the differences among them are not material. In addition, the calibration quality of the three models is similar, although limited evidence is found that the Longstaff and Schwartz model marginally outperforms the others in some subsamples. Overall, no significant difference in the capability of measuring credit risk between the "exogenous default boundary" and "endogenous default boundary" approaches is found.

Suggested Citation

  • Tak-Chuen Wong & Cho-hoi Hui & Chi-fai Lo, . "Discriminatory power and predictions of defaults of structural credit risk models," Journal of Risk Model Validation, Journal of Risk Model Validation.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:2161300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk-model-validation/2161300/discriminatory-power-and-predictions-of-defaults-of-structural-credit-risk-models
    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:journ5:2161300. 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-risk-model-validation .

    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.