IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/5587081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smoothing algorithms by constrained maximum likelihood: methodologies and implementations for Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review stress testing and International Financial Reporting Standard 9 expected credit loss estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Bill Huajian Yang

Abstract

In the process of loan pricing, stress testing, capital allocation, modeling of probability of default (PD) term structure and International Financial Reporting Standard 9 expected credit loss estimation, it is widely expected that higher risk grades carry higher default risks, and that an entity is more likely to migrate to a closer nondefault rating than a more distant nondefault rating. In practice, sample estimates for the rating-level ;default rate or rating migration probability do not always respect this monotonicity rule, and hence the need for smoothing approaches arises. Regression and interpolation ;techniques are widely ;used for this purpose. A common issue with these, however, is that the risk scale for the estimates is not fully justified, leading to a possible bias in credit loss estimates. In this paper, we propose smoothing algorithms for rating-level PD and rating migration probability. The smoothed estimates obtained by these approaches are optimal ;in the sense of constrained maximum likelihood, with a fair risk scale determined by constrained maximum likelihood, leading to more robust credit loss estimation. The proposed algorithms can be easily implemented by a modeler using, for example, the SAS procedure PROC NLMIXED. ;The approaches proposed in this paper will provide an effective and useful smoothing tool for practitioners in the field of risk modeling.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:5587081
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2018-06/Smoothing_algorithms_by_constrained_maximum_likelihood.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:journ5:5587081. 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.