Quantitative Validation of Rating Models for Low Default Portfolios through Benchmarking: Basel II
Quantitative Validation of Rating Models for Low Default Portfolios through Benchmarking
The new capital adequacy framework (Basel II) is one of the most fiercely debated topics the financial sector has seen in the recent past. Following a consultation process that lasted several years, the regulations formally took effect on January 1, 2007. The advanced approaches (the advanced internal ratings-based, or A-IRB, approach and the advanced measurement approach, or AMA) are scheduled to become operational on January 1, 2008. The new framework allows banks to use the IRB approach for the calculation of the assessment base for credit risk. Use of the IRB approach is subject to regulatory approval, which can only be obtained if the internal rating systems meet certain requirements. One of these requirements is that the models employed must have good predictive power. Banks must review this predictive power once a year by performing a qualitative and quantitative validation of the models. The statistical methods used to perform quantitative validation require a significant amount of default data to derive valid statements about the model, but such data are typically scarce in the case of rating models for so-called low default portfolios (LDPs), i.e. portfolios for which banks have little default history. In this paper, we first deal with the general problems of LDPs under the IRB approach and cover the problems of validating rating models for LDPs. We then present an alternative method for the quantitative validation of such models, based on the idea of benchmarking. Finally, we provide an example of the application of the proposed validation method. JEL classification: G20, C19 Keywords: rating models, validation, benchmarking, low default portfolios
Markus Ricke, Georg von Pföstl
1 Introduction Following a consultation process that lasted several years, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published the revised framework “International Convergence of
The new capital adequacy framework (Basel II) is one of the most fiercely debated topics the financial sector has seen in the recent past. Following a consultation process that lasted several years, the regulations formally took effect on January 1, 2007. The advanced approaches (the advanced internal ratings-based, or A-IRB, approach and the advanced measurement approach, or AMA) are scheduled to become operational on January 1, 2008. The new framework allows banks to use the IRB approach for the calculation of the assessment base for credit risk. Use of the IRB approach is subject to regulatory approval, which can only be obtained if the internal rating systems meet certain requirements. One of these requirements is that the models employed must have good predictive power. Banks must review this predictive power once a year by performing a qualitative and quantitative validation of the models. The statistical methods used to perform quantitative validation require a significant amount of default data to derive valid statements about the model, but such data are typically scarce in the case of rating models for so-called low default portfolios (LDPs), i.e. portfolios for which banks have little default history. In this paper, we first deal with the general problems of LDPs under the IRB approach and cover the problems of validating rating models for LDPs. We then present an alternative method for the quantitative validation of such models, based on the idea of benchmarking. Finally, we provide an example of the application of the proposed validation method. JEL classification: G20, C19 Keywords: rating models, validation, benchmarking, low default portfolios
Markus Ricke, Georg von Pföstl
1 Introduction Following a consultation process that lasted several years, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published the revised framework “International Convergence of
References: Amato, J. and C. Furfine. 2004. Are Credit Ratings Procyclical? In: Journal of Banking and Finance 28. 2641–2677. Amato, J. and E. Remolona. 2003. The Credit Spread Puzzle. In: BIS Quarterly Review. December. 51–63. Bangia, A., F. Diebold, A. Kronimus, C. Schagen and T. Schuermann. 2002. Ratings Migration and the Business Cycle, with Application to Credit Portfolio Stress Testing. In: Journal of Banking and Finance 26. 445–474. BBA and ISDA – British Bankers’ Association, London Investment Banking Association and International Swaps and Derivatives Association. 2005. Low Default Portfolios. Joint Industry Working Group Discussion Paper. BCBS – Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 2005a. Validation of LowDefault Portfolios in the Basel II Framework. Basel Committee Newsletter 6. September. BCBS – Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. 2005b. Studies on the Validation of Internal Rating Systems. Working Paper 14. Cantor, R. 2001. Moody’s Investors Service Response to the Consultative Paper Issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision “A New Capital Adequacy Framework”. In: Journal of Banking and Finance 25. 171–185. CEBS – Committee of European Banking Supervisors. 2006. Guidelines on the Implementation, Validation and Assessment of Advanced Measurement (AMA) and Internal Ratings Based (IRB) Approaches. April. Deutsche Bank. 2007. Finanzmarktmonitoring – CDS Spreads. Deutsche Bank Research. http://www.dbresearch.com/servlet/reweb2.ReWEB?rwkey=u727019 (as of July 6, 2007). Deutsche Bundesbank. 2003. Approaches to the Validation of Internal Rating Systems. In: Monatsbericht September. Frankfurt am Main. 59–71. Elton, E., M. Gruber, D. Agrawal and C. Mann. 2001. Explaining the Rate Spread on Corporate Bonds. In: Journal of Finance 56. 247–277. Emond, E. and D. Mason. 2002. A New Rank Correlation Coefficient with Application to the Consensus Ranking Problem. In: Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11. 17–28. Fons, J., F. Cantor and C. Mahoney. 2002. Understanding Moody’s Corporate Bond Ratings and Rating Process. Special Comment. Moody’s Investors Services. Hornik, K., R. Jankowitsch, M. Lingo, S. Pichler and G. Winkler. 2006. Validation of Credit Rating Systems Using Multi-Rater Information. Working Paper. November. Löffler, G. 2006. Can Rating Agencies look Through the Cycle? Working Paper. University of Ulm. Nickell, P., W. Perraudin and S. Varotto. 2000. Stability of Rating Transitions. In: Journal of Banking and Finance 24. 203–227. OeNB and FMA – Oesterreichische Nationalbank and Finanzmarktaufsicht. 2004. Leitfadenreihe zum Kreditrisiko: Ratingmodelle und -validierung. Vienna. Standard & Poor’s. 2006. Corporate Ratings Criteria. New York. Treacy, W. and M. Carey. 1998. Credit Risk Rating at Large U.S. Banks. In: Federal Reserve Bulletin. November. 897–921. Weber, M., J. Krahnen and F. Vossmann. 1999. Risikomessung im Kreditgeschäft: Eine empirische Analyse bankinterner Ratingverfahren. In: Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung. Sonderheft 41. 117–142. Zhu, H. 2004. An Empirical Comparison of Credit Spreads between the Bond Market and the Credit Default Swap Market. BIS Working Paper 160. Basel. Financial Stabilit y Report 14 ◊ 125