Loss Rate Forecasting Framework Based on Macroeconomic Changes:\n Application to US Credit Card Industry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major part of the balance sheets of the largest US banks consists of credit\ncard portfolios. Hence, managing the charge-off rates is a vital task for the\nprofitability of the credit card industry. Different macroeconomic conditions\naffect individuals' behavior in paying down their debts. In this paper, we\npropose an expert system for loss forecasting in the credit card industry using\nmacroeconomic indicators. We select the indicators based on a thorough review\nof the literature and experts' opinions covering all aspects of the economy,\nconsumer, business, and government sectors. The state of the art machine\nlearning models are used to develop the proposed expert system framework. We\ndevelop two versions of the forecasting expert system, which utilize different\napproaches to select between the lags added to each indicator. Among 19\nmacroeconomic indicators that were used as the input, six were used in the\nmodel with optimal lags, and seven indicators were selected by the model using\nall lags. The features that were selected by each of these models covered all\nthree sectors of the economy. Using the charge-off data for the top 100 US\nbanks ranked by assets from the first quarter of 1985 to the second quarter of\n2019, we achieve mean squared error values of 1.15E-03 and 1.04E-03 using the\nmodel with optimal lags and the model with all lags, respectively. The proposed\nexpert system gives a holistic view of the economy to the practitioners in the\ncredit card industry and helps them to see the impact of different\nmacroeconomic conditions on their future loss.\n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it