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.
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: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.