On testing the hypothesis of population stability for credit risk scorecards

ORiON Pub Date : 2020-08-31 DOI:10.5784/36-1-678
J. D. Pisanie, I. Visagie
{"title":"On testing the hypothesis of population stability for credit risk scorecards","authors":"J. D. Pisanie, I. Visagie","doi":"10.5784/36-1-678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scorecards are models used in credit risk modelling. These models segments a population into various so-called \\risk buckets\" based on the risk  characteristics of the individual clients. Once a scorecard has been developed, the credit provider typically prefers to keep this model in use for an extended period. As a result, it is important to test whether or not the model still ts the population. To this end, the hypothesis of population stability is tested; this hypothesis speci es that the current proportions of the population in the various risk buckets are the same as was the case at the point in time at which the scorecard was developed. In practice, this assumption is usually tested using a measure known as the population stability index (which corresponds to the asymmetric Kullback-Leibler discrepancy between discrete distributions) together with a well-known rule of thumb. This paper considers the statistical motivation for the use of the population stability index. Numerical examples are provided in order to demonstrate the e\u000bect of the rule of thumb as well as other critical values. Although previous numerical studies relating to this statistic are available, the sample sizes are not realistic for the South African credit market. The paper demonstrates that the population stability index has little statisticalmerit as either a goodness-of- t statistic to test the hypothesis of population stability or as an intuitive discrepancy measure. As a result, a novel methodology for testing the mentioned hypothesis is proposed. This methodology includes a restatement of the hypothesis to specify a range of \\acceptable\" deviations from the speci ed model. An alternative test statistic is also employed as discrepancy measure; this measure has the advantage of having a simple heuristic interpretation in the context of credit risk modelling. \nKey words: Goodness-of- t testing, hypothesis testing, population stability, risk analysis.","PeriodicalId":30587,"journal":{"name":"ORiON","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ORiON","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5784/36-1-678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Scorecards are models used in credit risk modelling. These models segments a population into various so-called \risk buckets" based on the risk  characteristics of the individual clients. Once a scorecard has been developed, the credit provider typically prefers to keep this model in use for an extended period. As a result, it is important to test whether or not the model still ts the population. To this end, the hypothesis of population stability is tested; this hypothesis speci es that the current proportions of the population in the various risk buckets are the same as was the case at the point in time at which the scorecard was developed. In practice, this assumption is usually tested using a measure known as the population stability index (which corresponds to the asymmetric Kullback-Leibler discrepancy between discrete distributions) together with a well-known rule of thumb. This paper considers the statistical motivation for the use of the population stability index. Numerical examples are provided in order to demonstrate the e ect of the rule of thumb as well as other critical values. Although previous numerical studies relating to this statistic are available, the sample sizes are not realistic for the South African credit market. The paper demonstrates that the population stability index has little statisticalmerit as either a goodness-of- t statistic to test the hypothesis of population stability or as an intuitive discrepancy measure. As a result, a novel methodology for testing the mentioned hypothesis is proposed. This methodology includes a restatement of the hypothesis to specify a range of \acceptable" deviations from the speci ed model. An alternative test statistic is also employed as discrepancy measure; this measure has the advantage of having a simple heuristic interpretation in the context of credit risk modelling. Key words: Goodness-of- t testing, hypothesis testing, population stability, risk analysis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
信用风险记分卡的人口稳定性假设检验
记分卡是信用风险建模中使用的模型。这些模型根据个人客户的风险特征将人群划分为各种所谓的“风险桶”。一旦记分卡被开发出来,信贷提供者通常倾向于在较长一段时间内保持该模型的使用。因此,检验模型是否仍然是总体是很重要的。为此,对种群稳定性假设进行了检验;这一假设说明,目前人口在各种风险桶中的比例与计分卡开发时的情况相同。在实践中,这个假设通常是用一种被称为人口稳定指数(它对应于离散分布之间的不对称Kullback-Leibler差异)的测量方法和一个众所周知的经验法则来检验的。本文考虑了使用人口稳定指数的统计动机。为了证明经验法则和其他临界值的作用,给出了数值例子。虽然以前有关于这一统计数字的研究,但样本量对于南非信贷市场来说是不现实的。本文论证了人口稳定指数作为检验人口稳定假设的t优性统计量或作为直观的差异度量,在统计上几乎没有什么价值。因此,提出了一种新的方法来检验上述假设。这种方法包括对假设的重述,以指定与指定模型的“可接受”偏差的范围。另一种检验统计量也被用作差异度量;该措施的优点是在信用风险建模的背景下具有简单的启发式解释。关键词:t检验,假设检验,群体稳定性,风险分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Route overlap metrics to batch orders Anomaly detection using autoencoders with network analysis features On the calibration of stochastic volatility models to estimate the real-world measure used in option pricing Celebrating 50-years of OR in South Africa – a Bibliometric Analysis of contributions to International OR Literature Comments: Development of an early career academic supervisor in Statistics - a discussion on a guiding rubric
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1