IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/irvfin/v19y2019i4p731-758.html

Predicting Default More Accurately: To Proxy or Not to Proxy for Default?

Author

Listed:
  • Koresh Galil
  • Neta Gilat

Abstract

Previous studies targeting accuracy improvement of default models mainly focused on the choice of the explanatory variables and the statistical approach. We alter the focus to the choice of the dependent variable. We particularly explore whether the common practice (in the literature) of using proxies for default events (bankruptcy or delisting) to increase sample size indeed improves accuracy. We examine four definitions of financial distress and show that each definition carries considerably different characteristics. We discover that rating agencies effort to measure correctly the timing of default is valuable. Our main conclusion is that one cannot improve default prediction by making use of other distress events.

Suggested Citation

  • Koresh Galil & Neta Gilat, 2019. "Predicting Default More Accurately: To Proxy or Not to Proxy for Default?," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 731-758, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:irvfin:v:19:y:2019:i:4:p:731-758
    DOI: 10.1111/irfi.12197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/irfi.12197
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/irfi.12197?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Koresh Galil & Margalit Samuel & Offer Moshe Shapir & Wolf Wagner, 2023. "Bailouts and the modeling of bank distress," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 46(1), pages 7-30, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G17 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Financial Forecasting and Simulation
    • G33 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Bankruptcy; Liquidation

    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:bla:irvfin:v:19:y:2019:i:4:p:731-758. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1369-412X .

    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.