## C52 Model Evaluation and Selection

### Refine

#### Document Type

- Working Paper (8)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Report (1)

#### Keywords

- Kreditrisiko (3)
- Gütefunktion (2)
- Parametertest (2)
- Portfoliomanagement (2)
- Signifikanzniveau (2)
- Statistischer Test (2)
- Testtheorie (2)
- bank regulation (2)
- credit risk (2)
- model validation (2)

- Evaluating internal credit rating systems depending on bank size (2003)
- Under a new Basel capital accord, bank regulators might use quantitative measures when evaluating the eligibility of internal credit rating systems for the internal ratings based approach. Based on data from Deutsche Bundesbank and using a simulation approach, we find that it is possible to identify strongly inferior rating systems out-of time based on statistics that measure either the quality of ranking borrowers from good to bad, or the quality of individual default probability forecasts. Banks do not significantly improve system quality if they use credit scores instead of ratings, or logistic regression default probability estimates instead of historical data. Banks that are not able to discriminate between high- and low-risk borrowers increase their average capital requirements due to the concavity of the capital requirements function.

- The new keynesian approach to dynamic general equilibrium modeling: models, methods, and macroeconomic policy evaluation (2012)
- This chapter aims to provide a hands-on approach to New Keynesian models and their uses for macroeconomic policy analysis. It starts by reviewing the origins of the New Keynesian approach, the key model ingredients and representative models. Building blocks of current-generation dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models are discussed in detail. These models address the famous Lucas critique by deriving behavioral equations systematically from the optimizing and forward-looking decision-making of households and firms subject to well-defined constraints. State-of-the-art methods for solving and estimating such models are reviewed and presented in examples. The chapter goes beyond the mere presentation of the most popular benchmark model by providing a framework for model comparison along with a database that includes a wide variety of macroeconomic models. Thus, it offers a convenient approach for comparing new models to available benchmarks and for investigating whether particular policy recommendations are robust to model uncertainty. Such robustness analysis is illustrated by evaluating the performance of simple monetary policy rules across a range of recently-estimated models including some with financial market imperfections and by reviewing recent comparative findings regarding the magnitude of government spending multipliers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of important objectives for on-going and future research using the New Keynesian framework.

- Surprising comparative properties of monetary models : results from a new model database (2012)
- In this paper we investigate the comparative properties of empirically-estimated monetary models of the U.S. economy using a new database of models designed for such investigations. We focus on three representative models due to Christiano, Eichenbaum, Evans (2005), Smets and Wouters (2007) and Taylor (1993a). Although these models differ in terms of structure, estimation method, sample period, and data vintage, we find surprisingly similar economic impacts of unanticipated changes in the federal funds rate. However, optimized monetary policy rules differ across models and lack robustness. Model averaging offers an effective strategy for improving the robustness of policy rules.

- Evaluating credit risk models: a critique and a new proposal (2001)
- Evaluating the quality of credit portfolio risk models is an important question for both banks and regulators. Lopez and Saidenberg (2000) suggest cross-sectional resampling techniques in order to make efficient use of available data and to produce measures of forecast accuracy. We first show that their proposal disregards crosssectional dependence in simulated subportfolios, which renders standard statistical inference invalid. We proceed by suggesting another evaluation methodology which draws on the concept of likelihood ratio tests. Specifically, we compare the predictive quality of alternative models by comparing the probabilities that observed data have been generated by these models. The distribution of the test statistic can be derived through Monte Carlo simulation. To exploit differences in cross-sectional predictions of alternative models, the test can be based on a linear combination of subportfolio statistics. In the construction of the test, the weight of a subportfolio depends on the difference in the loss distributions which alternative models predict for this particular portfolio. This makes efficient use of the data, and reduces computational burden. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the power of the tests is satisfactory. JEL classification: G2; G28; C52

- Evaluating credit risk models : a critique and a proposal (2001)
- Evaluating the quality of credit portfolio risk models is an important issue for both banks and regulators. Lopez and Saidenberg (2000) suggest cross-sectional resampling techniques in order to make efficient use of available data. We show that their proposal disregards cross-sectional dependence in resampled portfolios, which renders standard statistical inference invalid. We proceed by suggesting the Berkowitz (1999) procedure, which relies on standard likelihood ratio tests performed on transformed default data. We simulate the power of this approach in various settings including one in which the test is extended to incorporate cross-sectional information. To compare the predictive ability of alternative models, we propose to use either Bonferroni bounds or the likelihood-ratio of the two models. Monte Carlo simulations show that a default history of ten years can be sufficient to resolve uncertainties currently present in credit risk modeling.

- Marginalized predictive likelihood comparisons of linear Gaussian state-space models with applications to DSGE, DSGE-VAR, and VAR models (2014)
- he predictive likelihood is of particular relevance in a Bayesian setting when the purpose is to rank models in a forecast comparison exercise. This paper discusses how the predictive likelihood can be estimated for any subset of the observable variables in linear Gaussian state-space models with Bayesian methods, and proposes to utilize a missing observations consistent Kalman filter in the process of achieving this objective. As an empirical application, we analyze euro area data and compare the density forecast performance of a DSGE model to DSGE-VARs and reduced-form linear Gaussian models.

- Impulse response matching estimators for DSGE models (2014)
- One of the leading methods of estimating the structural parameters of DSGE models is the VAR-based impulse response matching estimator. The existing asympotic theory for this estimator does not cover situations in which the number of impulse response parameters exceeds the number of VAR model parameters. Situations in which this order condition is violated arise routinely in applied work. We establish the consistency of the impulse response matching estimator in this situation, we derive its asymptotic distribution, and we show how this distribution can be approximated by bootstrap methods. Our methods of inference remain asymptotically valid when the order condition is satisfied, regardless of whether the usual rank condition for the application of the delta method holds. Our analysis sheds new light on the choice of the weighting matrix and covers both weakly and strongly identified DSGE model parameters. We also show that under our assumptions special care is needed to ensure the asymptotic validity of Bayesian methods of inference. A simulation study suggests that the frequentist and Bayesian point and interval estimators we propose are reasonably accurate in finite samples. We also show that using these methods may affect the substantive conclusions in empirical work.

- Value-at-Risk and expected shortfall for rare events (2008)
- We show that the use of correlations for modeling dependencies may lead to counterintuitive behavior of risk measures, such as Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Expected Short- fall (ES), when the risk of very rare events is assessed via Monte-Carlo techniques. The phenomenon is demonstrated for mixture models adapted from credit risk analysis as well as for common Poisson-shock models used in reliability theory. An obvious implication of this finding pertains to the analysis of operational risk. The alleged incentive suggested by the New Basel Capital Accord (Basel II), amely decreasing minimum capital requirements by allowing for less than perfect correlation, may not necessarily be attainable.

- New Keynesian versus old Keynesian government spending multipliers (2009)
- Renewed interest in fiscal policy has increased the use of quantitative models to evaluate policy. Because of modeling uncertainty, it is essential that policy evaluations be robust to alternative assumptions. We find that models currently being used in practice to evaluate fiscal policy stimulus proposals are not robust. Government spending multipliers in an alternative empirically-estimated and widely-cited new Keynesian model are much smaller than in these old Keynesian models; the estimated stimulus is extremely small with GDP and employment effects only one-sixth as large.

- Surprising comparative properties of monetary models: results from a new data base (2009)
- In this paper we investigate the comparative properties of empirically-estimated monetary models of the U.S. economy. We make use of a new data base of models designed for such investigations. We focus on three representative models: the Christiano, Eichenbaum, Evans (2005) model, the Smets and Wouters (2007) model, and the Taylor (1993a) model. Although the three models differ in terms of structure, estimation method, sample period, and data vintage, we find surprisingly similar economic impacts of unanticipated changes in the federal funds rate. However, the optimal monetary policy responses to other sources of economic fluctuations are widely different in the different models. We show that simple optimal policy rules that respond to the growth rate of output and smooth the interest rate are not robust. In contrast, policy rules with no interest rate smoothing and no response to the growth rate, as distinct from the level, of output are more robust. Robustness can be improved further by optimizing rules with respect to the average loss across the three models.