Blog
Uncertainty meets its match
In brief Despite an upturn in the economic outlook, uncertainty remains ingrained into business operations today. As a result, most corporate treasuries are
Find out moreAt Zanders we have developed several Credit Rating models. These models are already being used at over 400 companies and have been tested both in practice and against empirical data. Do you want to know more about our Credit Rating models, keep reading.
During the development of these models an important step is the calibration of the parameters to ensure a good model performance. In order to maintain these models a regular re-calibration is performed. For our Credit Rating models we strive to rely on a quantitative calibration approach that is combined and strengthened with expert option. This article explains the calibration process for one of our Credit Risk models, the Corporate Rating Model.
In short, the Corporate Rating Model assigns a credit rating to a company based on its performance on quantitative and qualitative variables. The quantitative part consists of 5 financial pillars; Operations, Liquidity, Capital Structure, Debt Service and Size. The qualitative part consist of 2 pillars; Business Analysis pillar and Behavioural Analysis pillar. See A comprehensive guide to Credit Rating Modelling for more details on the methodology behind this model.
The model calibration process for the Corporate Rating Model can be summarized as follows:
Figure 1: Overview of the model calibration process
In steps (2) through (7), input from the Zanders expert group is taken into consideration. This especially holds for input parameters that cannot be directly derived by a quantitative analysis. For these parameters, first an expert-based baseline value is determined and second a model performance optimization is performed to set the final model parameters.
In most steps the model performance is accessed by looking at the AUC (area under the ROC curve). The AUC metric is one of the most popular metrics to quantify the model fit (note this is not necessarily the same as the model quality, just as correlation does not equal causation). The AUC metric indicates, very simply put, the number of correct and incorrect predictions and plots them in a graph. The area under that graph then indicates the explanatory power of the model
The first step covers the selection of data from an extensive database containing the financial information and default history of millions of companies. Not all data points can be used in the calibration and/or during the performance testing of the model, therefore data filters are applied. Furthermore, the data set is categorized in 3 different size classes and 18 different industry sectors, each of which will be calibrated independently, using the same methodology.
This results in the master dataset, in addition data statistics are created that show the data availability, data relations and data quality. The master dataset also contains derived fields based on financials from the database, these fields are based on a long list of quantitative risk drivers (financial ratios). The long list of risk drivers is created based on expert option. As a last step, the master dataset is split into a calibration dataset (2/3 of the master dataset) and a test dataset (1/3 of the master dataset).
The risk driver selection for the qualitative variables is different from the risk driver selection for the quantitative variables. The final list of quantitative risk drivers is selected by means of different statistical analyses calculated for the long list of quantitative risk drivers. For the qualitative variables, a set of variables is selected based on expert opinion and industry practices.
Scoring functions are calibrated for the quantitative part of the model. These scoring function translate the value and trend value of each quantitative risk driver per size and industry to a (uniform) score between 0-100. For this exercise, different possible types of scoring functions are used. The best-performing scoring function for the value and trend of each risk driver is determined by performing a regression and comparing the performance. The coefficients in the scoring functions are estimated by fitting the function to the ratio values for companies in the calibration dataset. For the qualitative variables the translation from a value to a score is based on expert opinion.
The overall score of the quantitative part of the model is combined by summing the value and trend scores by applying weights. As a starting point expert opinion-based weights are applied, after which the performance of the model is further optimized by iteratively adjusting the weights and arriving at an optimal set of weights. The weights of the qualitative variables are based on expert opinion.
To estimate the mapping from final scores to a rating class, a standardized methodology is created. The buckets are constructed from a scoring distribution perspective. This is done to ensure the eventual smooth distribution over the rating classes. As an input, the final scores (based on the quantitative risk drivers only) of each company in the calibration dataset is used together with expert opinion input parameters. The estimation is performed per size class. An optimization is performed towards a central tendency by adjusting the expert opinion input parameters. This is done by deriving a target average PD range per size class and on total level based on default data from the European Banking Authority (EBA).
The qualitative variables are included by performing an external benchmark on a selected set of companies, where proxies are used to derive the score on the qualitative variables.
The final input parameters for the mapping are set such that the average PD per size class from the Corporate Rating Model is in line with the target average PD ranges. And, a good performance on the external benchmark is achieved.
The override framework consists of two sections, Level A and Level B. Level A takes country, industry and company-specific risks into account. Level B considers the possibility of guarantor support and other (final) overriding factors. By applying Level A overrides, the Interim Credit Risk Rating (CRR) is obtained. By applying Level B overrides, the Final CRR is obtained. For the calibration only the country risk is taken into account, as this is the only override that is based on data and not a user input. The country risk is set based on OECD country risk classifications.
For the testing and benchmarking the performance of the model is analysed based on the calibration and test dataset (excluding the qualitative assessment but including the country risk adjustment). For each dataset the discriminatory power is determined by looking at the AUC. The calibration quality is reviewed by performing a Binomial Test on Individual Rating Classes to check if the observed default rate lies within the boundaries of the PD rating class and a Traffic Lights Approach to compare the observed default rates with the PD of the rating class.
Concluding, the methodology applied for the (re-)calibration of the Corporate Rating Model is based on an extensive dataset with financial and default information and complemented with expert opinion. The methodology ensures that the final model performs in-line with the central tendency and an performs well on an external benchmark.
In brief Despite an upturn in the economic outlook, uncertainty remains ingrained into business operations today. As a result, most corporate treasuries are
Find out moreAfter a long period of negative policy rates within Europe, the past two years marked a period with multiple hikes of the overnight rate by central banks in Europe, such as the European
Find out moreOn the 22nd of August, SAP and Zanders hosted a webinar on the topic of optimizing your treasury processes with SAP S/4HANA, with the focus on how the benefit from S/4HANA for the cash &
Find out moreIn the high-stakes world of private equity, where the pressure to deliver exceptional returns is relentless, the playbook is evolving. Gone are the days when financial engineering—relying
Find out moreThe Basel IV reforms, which are set to be implemented on 1 January 2025 via amendments to the EU Capital Requirement Regulation, have introduced changes to the Standardized Approach for
Find out moreWith the introduction of the updated Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR3), which has entered into force on 9 July 2024, the European Union's financial landscape is poised for significant
Find out moreThe heightened fluctuations observed in the commodity and energy markets from 2021 to 2022 have brought Treasury's role in managing these risks into sharper focus. While commodity prices
Find out moreVaR has been one of the most widely used risk measures in banks for decades. However, due to the non-additive nature of VaR, explaining the causes of changes to VaR has always been
Find out moreThe Covid-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented market volatility, causing widespread failures in banks' internal risk models. These backtesting failures threatened to increase capital
Find out moreChallenges with backtesting Expected Shortfall Recent regulations are increasingly moving toward the use of Expected Shortfall (ES) as a measure to capture risk. Although ES fixes many
Find out moreAcross the whole of Europe, banks apply different techniques to model their IFRS9 Expected Credit Losses on a best estimate basis. The diverse spectrum of modelling techniques raises the
Find out moreAs organizations continue to adapt to the rapidly changing business landscape, one of the most pivotal shifts is the migration of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to the cloud.
Find out moreWhile many business and SAP users are familiar with its core functionalities, such as limit management applying different limit types and the core functionality of attributable amount
Find out moreIn brief: Prevailing uncertainty in geopolitical, economic and regulatory environments demands a more dynamic approach to default modelling. Traditional methods such as logistic
Find out moreThe recent periods of commodity price volatility have brought commodity risk management to the spotlight in numerous companies, where commodities constitute a substantial component of the
Find out moreIn brief Prepayment modelling can help institutions successfully prepare for and navigate a rise in prepayments due to changes in the financial landscape. Two important prepayment
Find out moreThe corporate landscape is continuously reshaped by strategic realignments such as mergers, divestments, and other M&A activities, wherein a company divests a portion of its business
Find out moreThe evolving economic landscape has placed a spotlight on the critical role of treasury in value creation. Our latest roundtable, themed ‘Treasury’s Role in Value Creation,’ delved
Find out moreThis article highlights key points mentioned in our whitepaper: Treasury 4.x - The age of productivity, performance and steering. You can download the full whitepaper here. Summary:
Find out moreWhether a corporate operates through a decentralized model, shared service center or even global business services model, identifying which invoices a customer has paid and in some cases,
Find out moreIn a continued effort to ensure we offer our customers the very best in knowledge and skills, Zanders has acquired Fintegral.
In a continued effort to ensure we offer our customers the very best in knowledge and skills, Zanders has acquired Optimum Prime.
You need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information