Contingencies For Measurement Of The Credit Risk
The Global Financial Crisis, which affected various banks, some of them very important banks, highlighted the importance of an accurate credit risk measurement in order to be able to overcome it. There are a variety of such credit risk measurement models, so we can say that banks face a real dilemma when having to choose the most appropriate one. The aim of this paper is to examine the most popular methods used to measure the credit risk and to identify the strengths and the weaknesses of each one of it. The research was accomplished from a double perspective, in which the conceptual methodological approach is correlated to a variety of references to practical actions aiming the measurement and the prevention of credit risk. The study includes the presentation of the objectives of credit risk analysis, the most appropriate moments for doing such an analysis, the steps that have to be done in order to measure the credit risk, the errors that can overcome in the credit risk measurement system, generated by the misclassifications of the studied company, and the presentation of the specific information of financial creditors. The findings expressed in this paper were mainly the result of a qualitative analysis which showed that there is no best model for credit risk measurement, each one having both strengths and weaknesses, some providing a comprehensive analysis of the individual customer’s financial strength others allowing banks permanently monitor fluctuating default risk and identify the possibly problems at an early stage.
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.:
- Franck Moraux & O. Renault, 2002. "30 ans de modèles structurels de risque de défaut," Post-Print halshs-00076643, HAL.
- Berkowitz, Jeremy, 2001. "Testing Density Forecasts, with Applications to Risk Management," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(4), pages 465-474, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pts:journl:y:2015:i:3:p:60-65. 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: (Logica Banica)
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.