The accuracy of alternative supervisory methodologies for the stress testing of credit risk Online publication date: Mon, 08-Jun-2020
by Michael Jacobs
International Journal of Financial Engineering and Risk Management (IJFERM), Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020
Abstract: Following the financial crisis approaches such as regulatory capital ratios have been supplanted by stress testing as a primary tool for managing systemic risks. Financial institutions are mandated to perform stress testing to forecast performance over stress scenarios. While in parallel supervisors conduct their tress tests to set minimum regulatory capital, nothing is revealed regarding the accuracy of such models. We investigate a modelling framework rather close to that of the regulators, projecting financial statement line items for an aggregated 'average' bank. We assess the accuracy of alternative stress testing models, simple single equation versus complex multiple equation approaches. Results show inaccuracies in stress test model forecasts for multi-equation models that do not account for the dependency structure amongst the model variables. This highlights the public policy need for reconsidering the existent regulatory stress tests, and the need for supervisory models to be subject to model validation standards.
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Financial Engineering and Risk Management (IJFERM):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com
Our Blog 
Follow us on Twitter 
Visit us on Facebook