Comparing two approaches for modelling the loss given default of credit cards: Run-off triangles vs regression
Abstract
The use of run-off triangles (ROTs) is a common industry practice in estimating the loss given default (LGD) risk parameter when predicting credit losses in banking. We benchmark this industry practice using credit card data against a more sophisticated (though classical) regression-based approach, which is able to leverage various types of input variables in producing loan-level LGD-estimates. This regression-based approach can demonstrably recover the typical characteristics of the'U-shaped'empirical LGD-distribution, which the ROT-based approach cannot do. First, we critically review the ROT-based approach and identify multiple demerits using data-driven diagnostics. We then estimate a two-stage regression-based LGD-model and favourably assess the model performance of each component (or'stage'). Finally, we aggregate the LGD-estimates produced by each approach over time, and compare each time series to the mean empirical loss rate over time. The ROT-based aggregates diverge substantially from the empirical rate over most time periods, whilst the regression-based aggregates follow the empirical trends much closer. These results underscore the greater prediction accuracy of the regression-based LGD-model, relative to the ROT-based one. By implication, the former approach is probably better than the latter ROT-based approach when estimating the LGD under the IFRS 9 accounting framework, which prioritises accuracy.