IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aud/audfin/v19y2021i162p384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Credit Scoring – General Approach in the IFRS 9 Context

Author

Listed:
  • Luminita-Georgiana ACHIM

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

  • Elena MITOI

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

  • Marian Valentin MOLDOVEANU

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

  • Codrut-Ioan TURLEA

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

Abstract

With the coming into force of the standard IFRS 9 – Financial Instruments, in January 2018, financial institutions passed from an incurred loss model to a forward-looking model for the computation of impairment losses. As such, the IFRS 9 models use point-in-time, estimates of Probability of Default and Loss Given Default and provide a more faithful representation of the credit risk at a given as they are based on past experiences as well as the most recent and forecasted economic conditions. However, given the short-term fluctuations in the macroeconomic conditions, the final outcome of the Expected credit loss models is highly volatile due to their sensitivity to the business cycle. With regard to Probability of Default estimation under IFRS 9, the most commonly methods are: Markov Chains, Survival Analysis and single-factor models (Vasicek and Z-Shift). The development of the score-cards is still the same as in the case of the Internal Ratings Based Probability of Default models, encouraging institutions to use the already available credit rating systems and perform adjustment to the calibration. This paper outlines a non-exhaustive list of quantitative validation tests would satisfy the requirements of the IFRS 9 standard.

Suggested Citation

  • Luminita-Georgiana ACHIM & Elena MITOI & Marian Valentin MOLDOVEANU & Codrut-Ioan TURLEA, 2021. "Credit Scoring – General Approach in the IFRS 9 Context," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 19(162), pages 384-384, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:aud:audfin:v:19:y:2021:i:162:p:384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://revista.cafr.ro/temp/Article_9672.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Bill Huajian, 2017. "Point-in-time PD term structure models for multi-period scenario loss projection: Methodologies and implementations for IFRS 9 ECL and CCAR stress testing," MPRA Paper 76271, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Gordy, Michael B., 2003. "A risk-factor model foundation for ratings-based bank capital rules," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 199-232, July.
    3. Claudio Borio & Philip Lowe, 2001. "To provision or not to provision," BIS Quarterly Review, Bank for International Settlements, September.
    4. Gordy, Michael B., 2000. "A comparative anatomy of credit risk models," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 119-149, January.
    5. Zoltán Novotny-Farkas, 2016. "The Interaction of the IFRS 9 Expected Loss Approach with Supervisory Rules and Implications for Financial Stability," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 197-227, May.
    6. Pool, Sebastiaan & de Haan, Leo & Jacobs, Jan P.A.M., 2015. "Loan loss provisioning, bank credit and the real economy," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 124-136.
    7. Gunther Gebhardt & Zoltan Novotny-Farkas, 2011. "Mandatory IFRS Adoption and Accounting Quality of European Banks," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3-4), pages 289-333, April.
    8. Robert M. Bushman & Christopher D. Williams, 2015. "Delayed Expected Loss Recognition and the Risk Profile of Banks," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 511-553, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Noor Hashim & Weijia Li & John O'Hanlon, 2019. "Reflections on the development of the FASB’s and IASB’s expected-loss methods of accounting for credit losses," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(6), pages 682-725, September.
    2. Joohyung Ha, 2021. "Bank accounting conservatism and bank loan quality," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3-4), pages 498-532, March.
    3. Carole Bernard & Ludger Rüschendorf & Steven Vanduffel & Ruodu Wang, 2017. "Risk bounds for factor models," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 631-659, July.
    4. García Osma, Beatriz & Mora, Araceli & Porcuna-Enguix, Luis, 2019. "Prudential supervisors’ independence and income smoothing in European banks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 156-176.
    5. Emrah Arbak, 2017. "Identifying the provisioning policies of Belgian banks," Working Paper Research 326, National Bank of Belgium.
    6. Marc Gürtler & Dirk Heithecker, 2006. "Modellkonsistente Bestimmung des LGD im IRB-Ansatz von Basel II," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 554-587, August.
    7. Manuela M. Dantas & Kenneth J. Merkley & Felipe B. G. Silva, 2023. "Government Guarantees and Banks' Income Smoothing," Papers 2303.03661, arXiv.org.
    8. Arndt Claußen & Sebastian Löhr & Daniel Rösch, 2014. "An analytical approach for systematic risk sensitivity of structured finance products," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-37, April.
    9. Magdalena Pisa & Dennis Bams & Christian Wolff, 2012. "Modeling default correlation in a US retail loan portfolio," LSF Research Working Paper Series 12-19, Luxembourg School of Finance, University of Luxembourg.
    10. Ambrocio, Gene & Jokivuolle, Esa, 2017. "Should bank capital requirements be less risk-sensitive because of credit constraints?," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 10/2017, Bank of Finland.
    11. Caballero, Diego & Lucas, André & Schwaab, Bernd & Zhang, Xin, 2020. "Risk endogeneity at the lender/investor-of-last-resort," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 283-297.
    12. MITOI Elena & ACHIM Luminita & DESPA Madalin & TURLEA Codrut, 2020. "Ifrs 9 And The Interaction With Basel Iii Regulation Pillars," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(2), pages 213-222, December.
    13. Anisa Caja & Frédéric Planchet, 2014. "Modeling Cycle Dependence in Credit Insurance," Risks, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Düllmann, Klaus & Kunisch, Michael & Küll, Jonathan, 2008. "Estimating asset correlations from stock prices or default rates: which method is superior?," Discussion Paper Series 2: Banking and Financial Studies 2008,04, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    15. Kund, Arndt-Gerrit & Rugilo, Daniel, 2023. "Does IFRS 9 increase banks’ resilience?," Working Paper Series 2792, European Central Bank.
    16. Maria Stefanova, 2012. "Recovery Risiko in der Kreditportfoliomodellierung," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-8349-4226-5, December.
    17. Carling, Kenneth & Rönnegård, Lars & Roszbach, Kasper, 2004. "Is Firm Interdependence within Industries Important for Portfolio Credit Risk?," Working Paper Series 168, Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden).
    18. Gürtler, Marc & Heithecker, Dirk, 2004. "Modellkonsistente Bestimmung des LGD im IRB-Ansatz von Basel II," Working Papers FW08V3, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institute of Finance.
    19. Yagüe Gurucharri, Miguel & García-Hiernaux, Alfredo & Jerez, Miguel, 1974. "Rethinking Basel III and beyond: a theory model to understand credit allocation and real state bubbles," MPRA Paper 119559, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Dec 2023.
    20. Bernardi, Enrico & Falangi, Federico & Romagnoli, Silvia, 2015. "A hierarchical copula-based world-wide valuation of sovereign risk," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 155-169.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    IFRS 9; credit scoring; statistic tests; financial institutions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M21 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics - - - Business Economics

    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:aud:audfin:v:19:y:2021:i:162:p:384. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Dumitru Valentin Florentin (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://revista.cafr.ro/ .

    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.