4.7 Article

Bootstrap Bandwidth Selection and Confidence Regions for Double Smoothed Default Probability Estimation

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math10091523

关键词

bootstrap; censored data; credit risk; kernel method; survival analysis

资金

  1. MICINN through ERDF [PID2020-113578RB-100]
  2. Xunta de Galicia (Grupos de Referencia Competitiva) through ERDF [ED431C-2020-14]
  3. Centro Singular de Investigacion de Galicia through ERDF [ED431G 2019/01]
  4. ERDF through ERDF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an algorithm based on resampling methods to estimate the probability of default and calculate the confidence intervals. The method shows good behavior in extensive simulation studies and is applied to analyze a German credit dataset.
For a fixed time, t, and a horizon time, b, the probability of default (PD) measures the probability that an obligor, that has paid his/her credit until time t, runs into arrears not later that time t + b. This probability is one of the most crucial elements that influences the risk in credits. Previous works have proposed nonparametric estimators for the probability of default derived from Beran's estimator and a doubly smoothed Beran's estimator of the conditional survival function for censored data. They have also found asymptotic expressions for the bias and variance of the estimators, but they do not provide any practical way to choose the smoothing parameters involved. In this paper, resampling methods based on bootstrap techniques are proposed to approximate the bandwidths on which Beran and smoothed Beran's estimators of the PD depend. Bootstrap algorithms for the calculation of confidence regions of the probability of default are also proposed. Extensive simulation studies show the good behavior of the presented algorithms. The bandwidth selector and the confidence region algorithm are applied to a German credit dataset to analyze the probability of default conditional on the credit scoring.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据