Author
Listed:
- Kgotso Rudolf Moremoholo
(Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa)
- Sandile Charles Shongwe
(Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa)
- Frans Frederick Koning
(Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa
Fellow of the Actuarial Society of South Africa (FASSA) & Chartered Enterprise Risk Actuary (CERA).)
Abstract
To mitigate credit risk, banks are required to set aside a specific amount as a safety net to absorb the expected loss on a banks’ loan portfolio called loan loss provisions (LLPs) or provisions for bad debts. All banks worldwide had to adopt International Financial Reporting Standard 9 (IFRS 9) as the financial reporting standard. Unlike its predecessor (i.e., International Accounting Standard 39, IAS 39), IFRS 9 accelerates the recognition of losses by requiring provisions to cover both already-incurred losses and some losses expected in the future by calculating the expected credit loss (ECL). To evaluate if the obligor’s credit quality has deteriorated, the IFRS 9 standard requires banks to compare the obligor’s probability of default (PD) at the inception phase of the loan and at the reporting date. Thus, three methodologies are explored in this study (i.e., Cox proportional hazard (PH), Extended Cox PH, and Random Boosting Forest (RBF)) for computation of the PD term structures using Kaplan–Meier as the benchmark model under IFRS 9. The purpose of this research is to illustrate the application of three methodologies on the publicly available mortgage loan portfolio from Freddie Mac using different measures of goodness-of-fit and the predictive accuracy measure, i.e., the Concordance index (C-index). The comparison analysis reveals that the extended Cox PH and RBF models provide better predictive accuracy (higher C-index) but at the cost of increased complexity and potential overfitting (higher information criteria). However, Cox PH has shown the most efficient fit, and offers a stable and understandable hazard trajectory. Finally, for reproducibility, the SAS and R codes are included to illustrate how each of the results (in form of a table or figure) were obtained.
Suggested Citation
Kgotso Rudolf Moremoholo & Sandile Charles Shongwe & Frans Frederick Koning, 2026.
"Modeling the Probability of Default Term Structure Using Different Methodologies Under IFRS 9,"
IJFS, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-31, March.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijfss:v:14:y:2026:i:3:p:62-:d:1876523
Download full text from publisher
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:gam:jijfss:v:14:y:2026:i:3:p:62-:d:1876523. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.