IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/oprepe/v9y2022ics2214716021000324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Bayesian inspection game for non-performing loan problems

Author

Listed:
  • Widodo, Erwin
  • Rochmadhan, Oryza Akbar
  • Lukmandono,
  • Januardi,

Abstract

This study compiled a Bayesian inspection game as a branch in game theory to deal with non-performing loans (NPLs). Three types of games are analyzed, which are false alarm (FA), non-detection (ND), and bull's eye (BE). A Bayesian Nash equilibrium calculation process took place to formulate the player's strategy proportion. The equilibrium solution indicates the causative factors and develops the strategies to anticipate NPLs. The identified factors causing NPLs include customers' utility and disutility, inspection error in the form of false alarm and non-detection, operational costs to conduct an inspection, and bank utility related to inspection. The results showed that some examinations of type I and II errors to the game model could provide more comprehensive and interesting insights in managing NPL problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Widodo, Erwin & Rochmadhan, Oryza Akbar & Lukmandono, & Januardi,, 2022. "Modeling Bayesian inspection game for non-performing loan problems," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:9:y:2022:i:c:s2214716021000324
    DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2021.100218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716021000324
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.orp.2021.100218?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roland Kirstein, 2014. "Doping, the Inspection Game, and Bayesian Enforcement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 15(4), pages 385-409, August.
    2. Welburn, Jonathan W. & Hausken, Kjell, 2015. "A game theoretic model of economic crises," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 266(C), pages 738-762.
    3. Phung, Manh-Trung & Cheng, Cheng-Ping & Guo, Chuanyin & Kao, Chen-Yu, 2020. "Mixed Network DEA with Shared Resources: A Case of Measuring Performance for Banking Industry," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    4. Luciano Andreozzi, 2004. "Rewarding Policemen Increases Crime. Another Surprising Result from the Inspection Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(1), pages 69-82, October.
    5. Csóka, Péter & Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Kóczy, László Á., 2009. "Stable allocations of risk," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 266-276, September.
    6. Tsebelis, George, 1989. "The Abuse of Probability in Political Analysis: The Robinson Crusoe Fallacy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 77-91, March.
    7. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Canty, Morton John, 2005. "Playing for time: A sequential inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(2), pages 475-492, December.
    8. Welburn, Jonathan William & Hausken, Kjell, 2015. "A Game-Theoretic Model with Empirics of Economic Crises," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2015/7, University of Stavanger.
    9. Kloosterman, Andrew & Schotter, Andrew, 2016. "Complementary institutions and economic development: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 186-205.
    10. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    11. Koutanaei, Fatemeh Nemati & Sajedi, Hedieh & Khanbabaei, Mohammad, 2015. "A hybrid data mining model of feature selection algorithms and ensemble learning classifiers for credit scoring," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 11-23.
    12. Palit, Niladri & Brint, Andrew, 2020. "A win-win supply chain solution using project contracts with bargaining games," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    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. Berno Buechel & Eike Emrich & Stefanie Pohlkamp, 2016. "Nobody’s Innocent," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(8), pages 767-789, December.
    2. Guy Elaad & Artyom Jelnov, 2018. "Cheating in a contest with strategic inspection," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 375-387, October.
    3. Dong, Xiaoqing & Li, Chaolin & Li, Ji & Wang, Jia & Huang, Wantao, 2010. "A game-theoretic analysis of implementation of cleaner production policies in the Chinese electroplating industry," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1442-1448.
    4. John Bone & Dominic Spengler, 2014. "Does Reporting Decrease Corruption?," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 26(1-2), pages 161-186, January.
    5. Guizhou Wang & Kjell Hausken, 2021. "Governmental Taxation of Households Choosing between a National Currency and a Cryptocurrency," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-24, April.
    6. Nourinejad, Mehdi & Gandomi, Amir & Roorda, Matthew J., 2020. "Illegal parking and optimal enforcement policies with search friction," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    7. Owen Q. Wu & Volodymyr Babich, 2012. "Unit-Contingent Power Purchase Agreement and Asymmetric Information About Plant Outage," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 245-261, April.
    8. Manfred J. Holler & Barbara Klose-Ullmann, 2008. "Wallenstein’s Power Problem and Its Consequences," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(3), pages 197-218, December.
    9. Anthony Rossiter & Susan M Hester, 2017. "Designing Biosecurity Inspection Regimes to Account for Stakeholder Incentives: An Inspection Game Approach," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(301), pages 277-301, June.
    10. Dominic Spengler, 2012. "Endogenising Detection in an Asymmetric Penalties Corruption Game," Discussion Papers 12/20, Department of Economics, University of York.
    11. Roland Kirstein, 2014. "Doping, the Inspection Game, and Bayesian Enforcement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 15(4), pages 385-409, August.
    12. Gianfranco Gambarelli & Daniele Gervasio & Francesca Maggioni & Daniel Faccini, 2022. "A Stackelberg game for the Italian tax evasion problem," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 295-307, June.
    13. Deutsch, Yael & Goldberg, Noam & Perlman, Yael, 2019. "Incorporating monitoring technology and on-site inspections into an n-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 627-637.
    14. Fandel, G. & Trockel, J., 2013. "Avoiding non-optimal management decisions by applying a three-person inspection game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 85-93.
    15. A. Antoci & S. Borghesi & G. Iannucci, 2016. "Green licenses and environmental corruption: a random matching model," Working Paper CRENoS 201615, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    16. Kirstein, Roland, 2005. "Bayesian Monitoring," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2005-06, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    17. Rimawan Pradiptyo, 2015. "A Certain Uncertainty; Assessment of Court Decisions in Tackling Corruption in Indonesia," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: R N Ghosh & M A B Siddique (ed.), CORRUPTION, GOOD GOVERNANCE and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Contemporary Analysis and Case Studies, chapter 10, pages 167-215, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Jonathan William Welburn & Kjell Hausken, 2017. "Game Theoretic Modeling of Economic Systems and the European Debt Crisis," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 49(2), pages 177-226, February.
    19. Spengler Dominic, 2014. "Endogenous Detection of Collaborative Crime: The Case of Corruption," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Buechel, Berno & Emrich, Eike & Pohlkamp, Stefanie, 2013. "Nobody's innocent: the role of customers in the doping dilemma," MPRA Paper 44627, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:eee:oprepe:v:9:y:2022:i:c:s2214716021000324. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/operations-research-perspectives .

    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.