IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/7678501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking loss given default discount rates

Author

Listed:
  • Harald Scheule
  • Stephan Jortzik

Abstract

This paper provides a theoretical and empirical analysis of alternative discount rate concepts for computing loss given default (LGD) rates using historical bank workout data. It benchmarks five discount rate concepts for workout recovery cashflows in order to derive observed LGDs in terms of economic robustness and empirical implications: contract rate at origination, loan-weighted average cost of capital, return on equity (ROE), market return on defaulted debt and market equilibrium return. The paper develops guiding principles for LGD discount rates and argues that the weighted average cost of capital and market equilibrium return dominate the popular contract rate method. The empirical analysis of data provided by Global Credit Data (GCD) shows that declining risk-free rates are in part offset by increasing market risk premiums. Common empirical discount rates lie between the risk-free rate and the ROE. The variation in empirical LGDs is moderate for the various discount rate approaches. Further, a simple correction technique for resolution bias is developed and increases observed LGDs for all periods, particularly recent periods.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:7678501
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2020-10/Benchmarking_LGD_discount_rates_final.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:journ5:7678501. 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.