BIS published a working paper that examines how machine learning and non-traditional data affect credit scoring. The paper compares the predictive power of credit scoring models based on machine learning techniques, as used by fintech companies, with that of traditional loss and default models typically used by banks. The results show that the model based on machine learning and non-traditional data used by the fintech company is better able to predict losses and defaults than traditional models in the presence of a negative shock to the aggregate credit supply.
Using proprietary transaction-level data from a leading fintech company in China for the period between May and September 2017, the authors tested the performance of different models to predict losses and defaults, both in normal times and when the economy is subject to a shock. They analyzed the case of an (exogenous) change in regulation policy on shadow banking in China that caused lending to decline and credit conditions to deteriorate. The main conclusions of the paper can be summarized as follows:
- The machine learning-based credit scoring models outperform traditional empirical models (using both traditional and non-traditional information) in predicting borrowers’ losses and defaults.
- Non-traditional information improves the predictive power of the model.
- While the models perform similarly well in normal times, the model based on machine learning is better able to predict losses and defaults following a negative shock to the aggregate credit supply. One possible reason for this is that machine learning can better mine the non-linear relationship between variables in the event of a shock.
- The predictive power of all the models improves when the length of the relationship between bank and customer increases. However, the comparative advantage of the model that uses the fintech credit scoring technique based on machine learning tends to decline when the length of the relationship increases.
Keywords: International, China, Banking, Machine Learning, Credit Scoring, Fintech, Credit Risk, Big Data, BIS
APRA announced the standardization of quarterly reporting due dates for authorized deposit-taking institutions.
Bundesbank published a list of "EntryPoints" that are accepted in its reporting system; the list provides taxonomy version and name of the module against each EntryPoint.
The private sector working group of ECB on euro risk-free rates published the recommendations to address events that would trigger fallbacks in the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR)-related contracts, along with the €STR-based EURIBOR fallback rates (rates that could be used if a fallback is triggered).
EBA published the phase 1 of its reporting framework 3.1, with the technical package covering the new reporting requirements for investment firms (under the implementing technical standards on investment firms reporting).
Asia Pacific Australia Banking APS 111 Capital Adequacy Regulatory Capital Basel RBNZ APRA
ESMA published the final guidelines on outsourcing to cloud service providers.
EBA published annual data for two key concepts and indicators in the Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) Directive—available financial means and covered deposits.
OSFI has set out the schedule for release of draft guidance on the management of technology risks by federally regulated financial institutions and private pension plans.
MAS updated rules for new housing loans by banks and finance companies.
HKMA published a statement on the 100% Personal Loan Guarantee Scheme and a guideline on the Green and Sustainable Finance Grant Scheme (GSF Grant Scheme) as announced in the 2021-22 Budget.