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.
Volume (Year): 28 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Somers, Mark & Whittaker, Joe, 2007. "Quantile regression for modelling distributions of profit and loss," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(3), pages 1477-1487, December.
- Stefano Caselli & Stefano Gatti & Francesca Querci, 2008. "The Sensitivity of the Loss Given Default Rate to Systematic Risk: New Empirical Evidence on Bank Loans," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-34, August.