Comparing debt characteristics and LGD models for different collections policies
This paper discusses the similarities and differences in the collection process between in-house and 3rd party collection. The objective is to show that, although the same type of modelling approach to estimating the Loss Given Default (LGD) can be used in both cases, the details will be significantly different. In particular, the form of the LGD distribution suggests that one needs to split the distribution in different ways in the two cases, as well as using different variables. The comparisons are made using two data sets of the collection outcomes from two sets of unsecured consumer defaulters.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:28:y:2012:i:1:p:196-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.