Search results

In this study, we systemically apply nine recent panel unit root tests to the same fourteen macroeconomic and financial series as those considered in the seminal paper by Nelson and Plosser (1982). The data cover OECD countries from 1950 to 2003. Our results clearly point out the difficulty that applied econometricians would face when they want to get a simple and clear-cut diagnosis with panel unit root tests. We confirm the fact that panel methods must be very carefully used for testing unit roots in macroeconomic or financial panels. More precisely, we find mitigated results under the cross-sectional independence assumption, since the unit root hypothesis is rejected for many macroeconomic variables. When international cross-correlations are taken into account, conclusions depend on the specification of these cross-sectional dependencies. Two groups of tests can be distinguished. The first group tests are based on a dynamic factor structure or an error component model. In this case, the non stationarity of common factors (international business cycles or growth trends) is not rejected, but the results are less clear with respect to idiosyncratic components. The second group tests are based on more general specifications. Their results are globally more favourable to the unit root assumption.

National audience. This article provides a summary of the literature on unitary root panel tests. Two main developments can be highlighted in this research path since the founding work of Levin and Lin (1992). On the one hand, there has been a trend since the late 90s to take account of the heterogeneity of the dynamic properties of the series studied, in particular with the work of Im, Pesaran and Shin (1997) and Maddala and Wu (1999). On the other hand, a second type of recent developments in this literature tends to introduce a dichotomy between two generations of tests: the first generation is based on an assumption of independence between individuals, which seems implausible, particularly in the case of certain macroeconomic applications. The second generation, currently under development, incorporates various possible forms of interpersonal dependencies (Bai and Ng (2001), Phillips and Sul (2003a), Moon and Perron (2004), Choi (2002), Pesaran (2003) and Chang (2002)). These two generations of tests are presented in this literature review. ; This article proposes an overview of the recent developments relating to panel unit root tests. After a brief review of the first generation panel unit root tests, this paper focuses on the tests belonging to the second generation. The latter category of tests is characterized by the rejection of the cross-sectional independence hypothesis. Within this second generation of tests, two main approaches are distinguished. The first one relies on the factor structure approach and includes the contributions of Bai and Ng (2001), Phillips and Sul (2003a), Moon and Perron (2004a), Choi (2002) and Pesaran (2003) among others. The second approach consists in imposing few or none restrictions on the residuals covariance matrix and has been adopted notably by Chang (2002, 2004), who proposed the use of nonlinear instrumental variables methods or the use of bootstrap approaches to solve the nuisanceparameter problem due to cross-sectional dependency. ; National audience. This ...

We propose a new approach for comparing Loss Given Default (LGD) models which is based on loss functions defined in terms of regulatory capital charge. Our comparison method improves the banks' ability to absorb their unexpected credit losses, by penalizing more heavily LGD forecast errors made on credits associated with high exposure and long maturity. We also introduce asymmetric loss functions that only penalize the LGD forecast errors that lead to underestimate the regulatory capital. We show theoretically that our approach ranks models differently compared to the traditional approach which only focuses on LGD forecast errors. We apply our methodology to six competing LGD models using a sample of almost 10,000 defaulted credit and leasing contracts provided by an international bank. Our empirical findings clearly show that models' rankings based on capital charge losses differ from those based on the LGD loss functions currently used by regulators, banks, and academics.

We propose a new approach for comparing Loss Given Default (LGD) models which is based on loss functions defined in terms of regulatory capital charge. Our comparison method improves the banks' ability to absorb their unexpected credit losses, by penalizing more heavily LGD forecast errors made on credits associated with high exposure and long maturity. We also introduce asymmetric loss functions that only penalize the LGD forecast errors that lead to underestimate the regulatory capital. We show theoretically that our approach ranks models differently compared to the traditional approach which only focuses on LGD forecast errors. We apply our methodology to six competing LGD models using a sample of almost 10,000 defaulted credit and leasing contracts provided by an international bank. Our empirical findings clearly show that models' rankings based on capital charge losses differ from those based on the LGD loss functions currently used by regulators, banks, and academics.

We propose a new approach for comparing Loss Given Default (LGD) models which is based on loss functions defined in terms of regulatory capital charge. Our comparison method improves the banks' ability to absorb their unexpected credit losses, by penalizing more heavily LGD forecast errors made on credits associated with high exposure and long maturity. We also introduce asymmetric loss functions that only penalize the LGD forecast errors that lead to underestimate the regulatory capital. We show theoretically that our approach ranks models differently compared to the traditional approach which only focuses on LGD forecast errors. We apply our methodology to six competing LGD models using a sample of almost 10,000 defaulted credit and leasing contracts provided by an international bank. Our empirical findings clearly show that models' rankings based on capital charge losses differ from those based on the LGD loss functions currently used by regulators, banks, and academics.

Bank credit to Egypt's private sector decreased over the last decade, despite a recapitalized banking system and high rates of economic growth. Recent macro-economic turmoil has reinforced the trend. This paper explains the decrease based on credit supply and demand considerations by 1) presenting stylized facts regarding the evolution of the banks' sources and fund use in 2005 to 2011, noting two different cycles of external capital flows, and 2) estimating private credit supply and demand equations using quarterly data from 1998 to 2011. The system of simultaneous equations is estimated both assuming continuous market clearing and allowing for transitory price rigidity entailing market disequilibrium. The main results are robust to the market clearing assumption. During the global financial crisis, a significant capital outflow stalled bank deposit growth, which in turn affected the private sector's credit supply. At the same time, the banking sector increased credit to the government. Both factors reduced the private sector's credit supply during the period under study. After the trough of the global crisis, capital flowed back into Egypt and deposit growth stopped being a drag on the supply side, but bank credit to the government continued to drive the decrease in the private sector's credit supply. Beginning in the final quarter of 2010, capital flows reversed in tandem with global capital markets, and in January 2011 the popular uprising that ousted President Hosni Mubarak added an Egypt-specific shock that accentuated the outflow. Lending capacity dragged again, accounting for 10% of the estimated fall in private credit. Credit to the government continued to drain resources, accounting for 70–80% of the estimated total decline. Reduced economic activity contributed around 15% of the total fall in credit. The relative importance of these factors contrasts with that of the preceding capital inflow period, when credit to the government accounted for 54% of the estimated fall, while demand factors accounted for a similar percentage.

This paper presents a new method to validate risk models: the Risk Map. This method jointly accounts for the number and the magnitude of extreme losses and graphically summarizes all information about the performance of a risk model. It relies on the concept of a super exception, which is de.ned as a situation in which the loss exceeds both the standard Value-at-Risk (VaR) and a VaR de.ned at an extremely low coverage probability. We then formally test whether the sequences of exceptions and super exceptions are rejected by standard model validation tests. We show that the Risk Map can be used to validate market, credit, operational, or systemic risk estimates (VaR, stressed VaR, expected shortfall, and CoVaR) or to assess the performance of the margin system of a clearing house.

This paper presents a new method to validate risk models: the Risk Map. This method jointly accounts for the number and the magnitude of extreme losses and graphically summarizes all information about the performance of a risk model. It relies on the concept of a super exception, which is de.ned as a situation in which the loss exceeds both the standard Value-at-Risk (VaR) and a VaR de.ned at an extremely low coverage probability. We then formally test whether the sequences of exceptions and super exceptions are rejected by standard model validation tests. We show that the Risk Map can be used to validate market, credit, operational, or systemic risk estimates (VaR, stressed VaR, expected shortfall, and CoVaR) or to assess the performance of the margin system of a clearing house.

This paper presents a new method to validate risk models: the Risk Map. This method jointly accounts for the number and the magnitude of extreme losses and graphically summarizes all information about the performance of a risk model. It relies on the concept of a super exception, which is de.ned as a situation in which the loss exceeds both the standard Value-at-Risk (VaR) and a VaR de.ned at an extremely low coverage probability. We then formally test whether the sequences of exceptions and super exceptions are rejected by standard model validation tests. We show that the Risk Map can be used to validate market, credit, operational, or systemic risk estimates (VaR, stressed VaR, expected shortfall, and CoVaR) or to assess the performance of the margin system of a clearing house.