IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/2335495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A proposed framework for backtesting loss given default models

Author

Listed:
  • Gert Loterman, Michiel Debruyne, Karlien Vanden Branden, Tony Van Gestel and Christophe Mues

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Basel Accords require financial institutions to regularly validate their loss given default (LGD) models. This is crucial so banks are not misestimating the minimum required capital to protect them against the risks they are facing through their lending activities. The validation of an LGD model typically includes backtesting, which involves the process of evaluating to what degree the internal model estimates still correspond with the realized observations. Reported backtesting examples have typically been limited to simply measuring the similarity between model predictions and realized observations. It is however not straightforward to determine acceptable performance based on these measurements alone. Although recent research led to advanced backtesting methods for PD models, the literature on similar backtesting methods for LGD models is much scarcer. This study addresses this literature gap by proposing a backtesting framework using statistical hypothesis tests to support the validation of LGD models. The proposed statistical hypothesis tests implicitly define reliable reference values to determine acceptable performance and take into account the number of LGD observations, as a small sample may affect the quality of the backtesting procedure. This workbench of tests is applied to an LGD model fitted to real-life data and evaluated through a statistical power analysis.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:2335495
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/import/digital_assets/7634/jrmv_loterman_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:journ5:2335495. 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.