Moody's ---How Social Performance Impacts Financial Resilience and Default Probabilities
-
Upload
microcredit-summit-campaign -
Category
Economy & Finance
-
view
61 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Moody's ---How Social Performance Impacts Financial Resilience and Default Probabilities
Probability of Default for Microfinance Institutions
May 2014
Probability of Default Modeling 2
Overview
1
Probability of Default Modeling 3
Probability of Default by Moody’s Grade
Importance of Calculating PD
Pricing loans
Investor return
Portfolio risk
Probability of Default Modeling 4
Hurts Accuracy
Helps Accuracy
4
Developing a ModelM
arg
inal
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
n t
o A
ccu
racy
4 8 12 16 20 n
Number of Factors in Scorecard
0
Pos
Neg
Recommended Range
Deciding on Number of Factors for Scorecard
For model building purposes, we may want to have more
factors initially, with understanding that some will
be discarded
Probability of Default Modeling 5
Data Preparation
2
Probability of Default Modeling 6
Overview of Data Preparation
Data preparation involves collection of the required data, and deciding sources and systems to extract data. It also involves cleansing the data by removing financial statements that do not satisfy the following criteria:
» Ratio checks: running the dataset through a series of data cleansing rules
» Default definition: consistent definition of default has to be determined to properly classify the obligors of the underlying data into defaulters and non-defaulters
» Determine the default horizon: determining a time window to classify the financial statements into defaults and non-defaults
Above criteria ensure that the data contains information of all obligors and the information is consistent with the business segment for which the model is being built .
Probability of Default Modeling 7
Defining DefaultMethodology for tagging financial statements as default
» If financial statements were less than 3 month before default event then these statements were removed from the model development
» If 2 statements were available from 4 to 21 months before default event then statement closer to default event was kept and tagged as default and other statement was dropped
» If a defaulted obligor had a statement that was more than 21 months before default event then the statement was tagged as non-default
> 21 months
Tag as non-default Remove statement Tag as default Remove statement
4 - 21 months <= 3 months Default Event
Financial Statement
Financial Statement
Financial Statement
Financial Statement
Probability of Default Modeling 8
Basic ChecksAll statements were passed through a series of filtering criteria
» Total Assets <=0
» Total Liabilities < =0
» Total Revenue <=0
» Total assets do not match to the sum of total liabilities and total equity reserves (a threshold of 2% was used)
» Cash and Equivalents < 0
1. Refer appendix 11 for details of basic check analysis
FINAL DATA SAMPLE (Before Basic Checks)
Total Statements: 868
Unique MFIs: 293
Defaults: 16 (1.84%)
Basic Checks1
34 (3.9%) statements dropped
FINAL SAMPLE FOR MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Total Statements: 834
Unique MFIs: 292
Defaults: 16 (1.92%)
» Total Current Assets < 0
» Total Non Current Assets < 0
» Depreciation and Amortization < 0
» Total Operating Expenses < 0
» Total Long Term Liabilities < 0
Probability of Default Modeling 9
Candidate Quantitative Factors: Single Factor Analysis
3
Probability of Default Modeling 10
The available data yields 46 potential factors for single factor analysis
Category Factor Name Calculation
Sustainability/Profitability
GrossMargin (Total_Revenue - Financial_Costs) / Total_Revenue
OperatingMargin (Total_Revenue - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense)/Total_Revenue
ROE(Total_Revenue - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense)/(Total_Assets-Total_Liabs)
ROA (Total_Revenue - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense)/Total_Assets
Operational_self_sufficiency Total_Revenue/(Financial_Costs + Loan_Loss_Provision + Operating_Expense)
InterestCoverage Total_Revenue/Interest and fee expense on all funding liabilities (v3210 )CashtoLiabs Cash & Cash Equivalents – Audited (v1110)/Total_Liabs
Asset/Liability Management
Yield_on_Loan_Portfolio(Total_Revenue - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense)/Gross_Loan_Portfolio
Gross_Yield_on_Loan_Portfolio(Total_Revenue + Non_Operating_Income - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense - Non_Operating_Expense)/Gross_Loan_Portfolio
CurrentRatio Current_Assets/Current_LiabsFunding_expense_ratio Interest and fee expense on all funding liabilities (v3210 )/Gross_Loan_PortfolioLiabtoNetWorth Total_Liabs/(Total_Assets-Total_Liabs)LiabtoAssets Total_Liabs/Total_Assets
LiabtoEBITDATotal_Liabs/(Total_Revenue - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense + Depreciation and Amortization(v3530))
RevenuetoTotalAsts Total_Revenue/Total_Assets
GrowthTotal_RevenueGrowth (Total_Revenue-Total_Revenue_Prev)/Total_Revenue_Prev
GrossPortfolioGrowth (Gross_Loan_Portfolio-Gross_Loan_Portfolio_Prev)/Gross_Loan_Portfolio_Prev
SizeLoanPortfolio_CPIAdj (229.601/CPI_INDEX)*Gross_Loan_PortfolioTotal_Assets_CPIAdj (229.601/CPI_INDEX)*Total_AssetsAvg_outstanding_loansize (229.601/CPI_INDEX)*Gross_Loan_Portfolio/nb outstanding loans (v8040)
Different sources were considered to come up with a list of candidate factors for model development
» Microfinance Handbook by Joanna Ledgerwood
» Microfinance Consensus Guidelines Published by CGAP/The World Bank Group, September 2003
Probability of Default Modeling 11
The available data yields 46 potential factors for single factor analysis (cont’d)
Category Factor Name Calculation
Efficiency/Productivity
Loan_officer_productivity number of active borrowers (v8050)/ number of loan officers (v8010)
Personnel_productivity number of active borrowers (v8050)/ Number of employees (v8020)
Branch_Productivity number of active borrowers (v8050)/ Number of branches (v8030)
PBT_per_loan_officer(229.601/CPI_INDEX)*(Total_Revenue + Non_Operating_Income - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense - Non_Operating_Expense)/number of loan officers (v8010)
PBT_per_employee(229.601/CPI_INDEX)*(Total_Revenue + Non_Operating_Income - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense - Non_Operating_Expense)/ Number of employees (v8020)
PBT_per_branch(229.601/CPI_INDEX)*(Total_Revenue + Non_Operating_Income - Financial_Costs - Loan_Loss_Provision - Operating_Expense - Non_Operating_Expense)/Number of branches (v8030)
loans_per_borrower Number of loans outstanding(v8040)/number of active borrowers (v8050)Operating_expense_ratio Operating_Expense/Gross_Loan_PortfolioFinancial_Expense_ratio Financial_Costs/Gross_Loan_PortfolioCost_per_borrower (229.601/CPI_INDEX)*Operating_Expense/number of active borrowers (v8050)Avg_portfolio_per_credit_officer (229.601/CPI_INDEX)*Gross_Loan_Portfolio/number of loan officers (v8010)
Portfolio quality
PAR_30_Ratio Portfolio at risk above 30 days (v7030)/Gross_Loan_PortfolioPAR_180_Ratio Of which portfolio at risk above 180 days (v7100)/Gross_Loan_PortfolioOnTime_Portfolio On-time portfolio (v7010)/Gross_Loan_PortfolioWriteoff_Ratio Write offs (v7140)/Gross_Loan_PortfolioRisk_coverage_ratio Loan loss reserve – Audited (v1220)/ Portfolio at risk above 30 days (v7030)LoanLossReserve_Ratio Loan loss reserve – Audited (v1220)/Gross_Loan_PortfolioArrears_rate Portfolio in arrears (v7130)/Gross_Loan_PortfolioPct_Refinanced reprogrammed and refinanced loans (v7115)/Gross_Loan_Portfolio
Others
Avg_maturity_of_loans mean(v8174,v8184,v7914,v7924,v7934,v7944)
Pct_Urban_Clients_Volumesum(Urban clients - volume of portfolio (v8410), Semi-Urban clients - volume of portfolio (v8420),0)/Gross_Loan_Portfolio
Pct_Female_Clients_Volume Female clients - volume of portfolio (v8320)/Gross_Loan_PortfolioPct_Revenue_From_Investments Financial revenue from investments – Audited (v3120)/Total_Revenue
Pct_Group_Loanssum(Self-help groups (v8250), Solidarity groups (v8260), Communal banks loans/Self-help groups – volume (v8270))/Gross_Loan_Portfolio
Type_Of_Loans 6-nmiss(v8110,v8120,v8130,v8140,v8150,v8160)
Loans_to_Ind_Types 10-nmiss(v8510,v8520,v8530,v8540,v8542,v8544,v8546,v8548,v8549,v8550)
Probability of Default Modeling 12
In general, factors are evaluated on the following set of criteria
» Position Analysis: There must be enough observations. Observations where many values are missing typically indicate that the information is difficult to obtain. This information should therefore not be included in the final model
» Factors must be intuitive. Experienced credit analysts should be familiar with the factor and its relationship with credit risk given the credit culture in which they operate
» Factors must be consistent with expectations. Factor behaviour should be consistent with business judgment and any deviations in expectations should be easily explained
» Factors must be powerful. The ultimate list of factors incorporated into the model should exhibit a high degree of discriminatory power on the basis of credit risk
Probability of Default Modeling 13
Single Factor Analysis Performance: 21 factors recommended for further exploration in MFA
*AR = Accuracy Ratio
Category Factor Name AR*Default Rate Relationship
Missing %
Recommendation
Comments
Sustainability/Profitability
GrossMargin 36% Good 2%
OperatingMargin -13% Counterintuitive 2%
ROE -5% Counterintuitive 3%
ROA -7% Counterintuitive 3%
Operational_self_sufficiency -11% Counterintuitive 2%
InterestCoverage 37% Good 2%
Asset/Liability Management
Yield_on_Loan_Portfolio -5% Counterintuitive 2%
Gross_Yield_on_Loan_Portfolio -9% Counterintuitive 2%
CurrentRatio -28% Counterintuitive 2%
Funding_expense_ratio 39% Strong 1% High correlation with LiabtoAssets
Financial_Expense_ratio 46% Strong 1%
LiabtoNetWorth 12% Good 2% High correlation with LiabtoAssets
LiabtoAssets 13% Good 2%
LiabtoEBITDA -7% Counterintuitive 2%
CashtoLiabs 19% Good 0%
GrowthTotal_RevenueGrowth 39% High missing %
GrossPortfolioGrowth 38% High missing %
Size
LoanPortfolio_CPIAdj -13% Counterintuitive 0% Total_Assets_CPIAdj -14% Counterintuitive 2% Avg_outstanding_loansize 4% Weak 5% Used as a proxy for Income level of the borrowers
Probability of Default Modeling 14
Single Factor Analysis Performance : 21 factors recommended for further exploration in MFA (cont’d)
Category Factor Name AR*Default Rate Relationship
Missing %
Recommendation
Comments
Efficiency/Productivity
Loan_officer_productivity 23% Good 5%
Personnel_productivity 27% Good 5%
Branch_Productivity 18% Good 6%
PBT_per_loan_officer -8% Counterintuitive 6%
PBT_per_employee -17% Counterintuitive 6% PBT_per_branch 3% Moderate 7% RevenuetoTotalAsts 12% Moderate 2% Operating_expense_ratio 28% Good 0% Cost_per_borrower 19% Good 5%
Avg_portfolio_per_credit_officer 6% Good 4%
Portfolio Quality
PAR_30_Ratio -8% Counterintuitive 4%
PAR_180_Ratio -32% Counterintuitive 8%
OnTime_Portfolio 1% Good 4%
Writeoff_Ratio 8% Moderate 7%
Risk_coverage_ratio 11% Moderate 6%
LoanLossReserve_Ratio -1% Moderate 2%
Arrears_rate -2% Weak 9%
Pct_Refinanced 14% High missing %
Others
Avg_maturity_of_loans 23% High missing %
loans_per_borrower 32% Strong 6% Used as a proxy for Debt to Income ratio of borrowers
Pct_Urban_Clients_Volume 23% Good 0% Pct_Female_Clients_Volume 29% Good 5% Pct_Revenue_From_Investments -1% Counterintuitive 1% Pct_Group_Loans 20% High missing %
Type_Of_Loans 3% Moderate 0% Low diversity of responses and very low accuracy ratio
Loans_to_Ind_Types 10% Good 0% Used as a proxy for portfolio diversity
Probability of Default Modeling 15
PAR 30 RatioKey statistics: Relative Entropy 0.96, Accuracy Ratio -8%
» This factor performs inadequately with no discriminatory power
» Counterintuitive relationship between the responses and the default rate
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250missing 0.05 to High 0.025 to 0.05 0.01 to 0.025 0 to 0.01
Def
ault
Rate
Freq
uenc
y
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for PAR_30_Ratio
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
% D
efau
lt
% Population
CAP Curve of PAR_30_Ratio
Probability of Default Modeling 16
PAR 180 RatioKey statistics: Relative Entropy 0.96, Accuracy Ratio -32%
» Counterintuitive relationship between the responses and the default rate
0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0%5.5%6.0%6.5%7.0%7.5%
0
50
100
150
200
250missing 0.012 to High 0.003 to 0.012 >0 to 0.003 0 to 0
Def
ault
Rate
Freq
uenc
y
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for PAR_180_Ratio
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
% D
efau
lt
% Population
CAP Curve of PAR_180_Ratio
Probability of Default Modeling 17
Avg_outstanding_loansizeKey statistics: Relative Entropy 0.95, Accuracy Ratio 4% ?
» This factor performs inadequately with low discriminatory power
» Weak relationship between the responses and the default rate i.e. higher the score lower the default rate
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
% D
efau
lt
% Population
CAP Curve of Avg_outstanding_loansize
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
0
50
100
150
200
250missing < 500 500 to 1500 1500 to 2500 2500 to 4000 4000 to High
Def
ault
Rate
Freq
uenc
y
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for Avg_outstanding_loansize
Probability of Default Modeling 18
Candidate Quantitative Factors: Multi Factor Analysis
4
Probability of Default Modeling 19
Starting with 21 Candidate Factors from SFA
Section Factor Name ARDefault Rate Relationship
Comments
Sustainability/Profitability
GrossMargin 36% Good
InterestCoverage 37% Good
Asset/Liability Management
Financial_Expense_ratio 46% Strong
LiabtoAssets 13% Good CashtoLiabs 19% Good
Size Avg_outstanding_loansize 4% Weak Used as a proxy for Income level of the borrowers
Efficiency/Productivity
Loan_officer_productivity 23% Good Personnel_productivity 27% Good Branch_Productivity 18% Good PBT_per_branch 3% Moderate RevenuetoTotalAsts 12% Moderate Operating_expense_ratio 28% Good Cost_per_borrower 19% Good
Avg_portfolio_per_credit_officer 6% Good
Portfolio QualityOnTime_Portfolio 1% Good Writeoff_Ratio 8% Moderate Risk_coverage_ratio 11% Moderate
Others
loans_per_borrower 32% Strong Used as a proxy for Debt to Income ratio of borrowers
Pct_Urban_Clients_Volume 23% Good
Pct_Female_Clients_Volume 29% Good
Loans_to_Ind_Types 10% Good Used as a proxy for portfolio diversity
» As number of defaults are very low i.e. 16, we kept all the factors with positive accuracy ratio for MFA
» Return ratios e.g. ROA and ROE are not present in the candidate factors list because MFIs typically operate on low return and higher base i.e. large assets
Probability of Default Modeling 20
Pct_Female_Clients_VolumeKey statistics: Relative Entropy 0.88, Accuracy Ratio 29%
» This factor performs adequately with moderate discriminatory power
» Good relationship between the responses and the default rate i.e. higher the score lower the default rate
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
% D
efau
lt
% Population
CAP Curve of Pct_Female_Clients_Volume
0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600missing 0 to 0.35 0.35 to High
Def
ault
Rate
Freq
uenc
y
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for Pct_Female_Clients_Volume
Probability of Default Modeling 21
Candidate Factor Correlation Matrix
GrossMargin
InterestCoverage
CashtoLiabs
Funding_expense_ratio
LiabtoNetWorth
LiabtoAssets
RevenuetoTotalAsts
Avg_outstanding_loansize
Loan_officer_productivity
Personnel_productivity
Branch_Productivity
PBT_per_branch
loans_per_borrower
Operating_expense_ratio
Financial_Expense_ratio
Cost_per_borrower
portfolio_per_credit_officer
OnTime_Portfolio
Writeoff_Ratio
Risk_coverage_ratio
Pct_Urban_Clients_Volume
Pct_Female_Clients_Volume
Loans_to_Ind_Types
GrossMargin 100% 62% 10% 34% 48% 48% 50% -27% 11% 22% 9% 1% 21% -10% 58% 27% 29% 1% -10% 11% 0% 15% -4%
InterestCoverage 62% 100% 27% 73% 18% 17% 13% 5% 10% 13% 8% 13% 5% -19% 53% 5% -9% -11% -7% 14% 15% 2% -3%
CashtoLiabs 10% 27% 100% 13% 5% 6% -2% -2% 6% 1% 4% -6% -3% -12% -1% -15% -7% -9% -10% -7% 13% -7% 7%
Funding_expense_ratio 34% 73% 13% 100% 3% 3% -32% 26% 8% 5% 6% 15% -7% -9% 75% -7% -30% -4% 12% 14% 11% -8% -1%
LiabtoNetWorth 48% 18% 5% 3% 100% 97% 34% -32% -3% 4% -7% -18% 26% -7% 25% 13% 30% 1% -5% -5% -7% 14% -4%
LiabtoAssets 48% 17% 6% 3% 97% 100% 34% -30% -1% 6% -4% -15% 24% -7% 26% 13% 30% 0% -5% -5% -6% 15% -4%
RevenuetoTotalAsts 50% 13% -2% -32% 34% 34% 100% -41% 3% 20% 12% 0% 22% -8% -15% 33% 46% -5% -24% 4% -2% 20% -8%
Avg_outstanding_loansize -27% 5% -2% 26% -32% -30% -41% 100% -8% -14% -16% 14% -19% 3% 7% -29% -48% -17% -1% 0% 15% -41% -10%
Loan_officer_productivity 11% 10% 6% 8% -3% -1% 3% -8% 100% 47% 22% 18% -6% 2% 10% 23% -4% -6% -2% 3% -1% 7% -4%
Personnel_productivity 22% 13% 1% 5% 4% 6% 20% -14% 47% 100% 26% 18% 2% 6% 9% 35% 7% -7% -9% 7% -3% 13% -10%
Branch_Productivity 9% 8% 4% 6% -7% -4% 12% -16% 22% 26% 100% 18% -13% -2% 11% 17% 3% 1% -10% 10% 3% 17% -1%
PBT_per_branch 1% 13% -6% 15% -18% -15% 0% 14% 18% 18% 18% 100% -15% 5% 7% 22% -17% 11% 16% 26% 5% 2% -8%
loans_per_borrower 21% 5% -3% -7% 26% 24% 22% -19% -6% 2% -13% -15% 100% -10% 3% 12% 33% 14% 8% 2% -19% 5% -1%
Operating_expense_ratio -10% -19% -12% -9% -7% -7% -8% 3% 2% 6% -2% 5% -10% 100% -5% 0% 11% 4% 0% 2% -2% -1% 6%
Financial_Expense_ratio 58% 53% -1% 75% 25% 26% -15% 7% 10% 9% 11% 7% 3% -5% 100% 5% -7% 7% 16% 16% 3% 5% -3%
Cost_per_borrower 27% 5% -15% -7% 13% 13% 33% -29% 23% 35% 17% 22% 12% 0% 5% 100% 24% 7% -3% 16% -13% 26% -9%
portfolio_per_credit_officer 29% -9% -7% -30% 30% 30% 46% -48% -4% 7% 3% -17% 33% 11% -7% 24% 100% 16% -4% 1% -13% 20% 1%
OnTime_Portfolio 1% -11% -9% -4% 1% 0% -5% -17% -6% -7% 1% 11% 14% 4% 7% 7% 16% 100% 43% 43% -13% 9% 9%
Writeoff_Ratio -10% -7% -10% 12% -5% -5% -24% -1% -2% -9% -10% 16% 8% 0% 16% -3% -4% 43% 100% 14% -9% -8% -3%
Risk_coverage_ratio 11% 14% -7% 14% -5% -5% 4% 0% 3% 7% 10% 26% 2% 2% 16% 16% 1% 43% 14% 100% 1% 1% 5%
Pct_Urban_Clients_Volume 0% 15% 13% 11% -7% -6% -2% 15% -1% -3% 3% 5% -19% -2% 3% -13% -13% -13% -9% 1% 100% -2% -4%
Pct_Female_Clients_Volume 15% 2% -7% -8% 14% 15% 20% -41% 7% 13% 17% 2% 5% -1% 5% 26% 20% 9% -8% 1% -2% 100% 2%
Loans_to_Ind_Types -4% -3% 7% -1% -4% -4% -8% -10% -4% -10% -1% -8% -1% 6% -3% -9% 1% 9% -3% 5% -4% 2% 100%
Probability of Default Modeling 22
Logistic Regression Models
1. For estimated coefficients and p value refer appendix 1
2. AR = Accuracy Ratio
Model Number of Factors Significance Level1 AR2 Comments
Model 1 5 P Value <= 0.05 69.5%
Model 2 8 P Value <= 0.1 77.8%
Model 3 6 P Value <= 0.1 73.4% Best model after dropping Pct_Urban_Clients_Volume
Model 4 4 P Value <= 0.05 65.5% Best model after dropping Avg_outstanding_loansize
Model 5 5 P Value <= 0.1 69.4% Best model after dropping Avg_outstanding_loansize
» Due to low number of defaults we also considered models with 90% significance level of estimated coefficients
» Pct_Urban_Clients_Volume represents percentage of urban and semi-urban borrowers of an MFI’s portfolio. Though this factors comes significant at 90% significance but we recommend not to include this factor in the model because MFIs typically have semi-urban and rural borrowers. Model should not penalize an MFI for having large base of rural clients
» Avg_outstanding_loansize was used as a proxy for income level of borrowers of MFIs. But given low accuracy ratio of this factor we also considered models after dropping this factor which resulted in a drop of 6% in AR for model 4 and 11% for model 5 compared to model 1 and model 2 respectively
Probability of Default Modeling 23
Beta Model – Factor WeightsSection Factor Name Factor AR Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Sustainability/ProfitabilityGrossMargin 36% InterestCoverage 37%
Asset/Liability ManagementFinancial_Expense_ratio 46% 22.4% 14.0% 18.2% 32.1% 26.7%LiabtoAssets 13% CashtoLiabs 19% 7.9% 11.6%
Size Avg_outstanding_loansize 4% 15.5% 13.7% 14.8%
Efficiency/Productivity
Loan_officer_productivity 23% Personnel_productivity 27% Branch_Productivity 18% 8.6% PBT_per_branch 3% RevenuetoTotalAsts 12% Operating_expense_ratio 28% 17.8% 14.0% 16.0% 25.1% 21.2%Cost_per_borrower 19% Avg_portfolio_per_credit_officer 6%
Portfolio QualityOnTime_Portfolio 1% Writeoff_Ratio 8% Risk_coverage_ratio 11%
Others
loans_per_borrower 32% 17.6% 14.4% 15.2% 19.5% 18.2%Pct_Urban_Clients_Volume 23% 7.8% 14.6%Pct_Female_Clients_Volume 29% 26.7% 19.5% 24.2% 23.4% 19.3%Loans_to_Ind_Types 10%
Number of Factors 5 8 6 4 5Model AR 69.5% 77.8% 73.4% 65.5% 69.4%
» All models do not give any weight to sustainability/profitability and portfolio quality factors
Probability of Default Modeling 24
Candidate Social Factors
5
Probability of Default Modeling 25
New Data Preparation
Quantitative (non SPA Data)Total Statements: 731
Unique MFIs: 249
Defaults: 16
Qualitative (SPA Data)Total Statements : 167
Unique MFIs: 167
Defaults: 10
Total Statements: 506
Unique MFIs: 161
Defaults: 10 (1.98%)
Quantitative model prepared as before. Data for ‘Total Revenue Growth’ and ‘Gross Portfolio Growth’ updated for missing values
Remove statements from the quantitative data where MFI’s are not common to SPA (Qualitative) data
225 (30.8%) statements dropped
Combined Model has been estimated on this data
6 MFI dropped due to no exact match with quant data
Merging two datasets
1. Quantitative Models have been estimated on 731 records and 16 defaults
2. Qualitative Models for have been estimated on 161 records and 10 defaults
3. The combined model uses 506 records and 10 defaults
Total Statements : 161
Unique MFIs: 161
Defaults: 10Qualitative Model was prepared on this data
Probability of Default Modeling 26
Candidate Social Factors
Variable ProbChiSq AR
Pricing Transparency Practices 0.463 6%
Disclosure of components of pricing 0.383 9%
Manner of communication of pricing 0.106 16%
Debt Collection Practices 0.059 27%
Specific debt collection policies 0.218 17%
Definition of acceptable and unacceptable collection practices 0.218
17%
Voluntarily adopted consumer protection standards 0.060
27%
Range of Products offered 0.159 24%
Policies included in Code of Ethics 0.351 15%
Written policies on hiring women 0.111 18%
Corruption Score 0.098 19%
Probability of chance occurrence is high
Low AR
Candidate social factors were based on availability of reliable data. Data sourced from the MIX and analyzed with Moody’s SPA
Probability of Default Modeling 27
27
Rejected Social Variables
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0102030405060708090
100
Less than equal to0.5 0.5 to 0.9 Greater than 0.9
Def
ault R
ate
Fre
quen
cy
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for Pricing Transparency Practices
Pricing Transparency
0%
5%
10%
15%
01020304050607080
Less thanequal to 0.2 0.2 to 0.6 0.6 to 0.9
Greater than0.9
Def
ault R
ate
Fre
quen
cy
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for Policies included in Code of Ethics
Code of Ethics
Probability of Default Modeling 28
28
Accepted Social Variables
Debt Collection Practices
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0102030405060708090
100
Less thanequal to 0.1 0.1 to 0.45 0.45 to 0.9
Greater than0.9
Def
ault R
ate
Fre
quen
cy
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for Debt Collection Practices
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
% D
efau
lt
% Population
CAP Curve of Debt Collection Practices
0%
5%
10%
01020304050607080
Less thanequal to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.6 0.6 to 0.8
Greaterthan 0.8
Def
ault R
ate
Fre
quen
cy
Answer
Frequencies and Default Rates for Range of Products offered
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
% D
efau
lt
% Population
CAP Curve of Range of Products offered
Range of Products Offered
Probability of Default Modeling 29
29
Combined Model
Combining the Quantitative and Qualitative factors give an AR of 79.0%
Section Section Weight Factor Factor Weight Final WeightCash to Liabilities 13.77% 8.9%Loans per borrower 16.48% 10.6%Operating expense ratio 22.62% 14.6%Financial Expense ratio 26.19% 16.9%Percent Female Clients Volume 20.94% 13.5%Debt Collection Practices 38.9% 13.9%Range of Products offered 61.1% 21.8%
Qualitative Score 35.6%
Quantitative Score 64%
Probability of Default Modeling 30
Structural Component
6
Probability of Default Modeling 31
Qualitative factors are not necessarily judgmental, but cannot be empirically confirmed by the data
FranchiseOperating
EnvironmentSystems
» Market position and sustainability
» Market size and geographic diversification
» Asset concentration and earnings diversification
» Macroeconomic stability
» Regulatory strength
» Legal system and corruption
» Audit process
» Board independence and governance
» Financial reporting and transparency
» Strength of credit scoring and risk management
» Access to alternative funding sources
Probability of Default Modeling 32
© 2012 Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or its licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. Under no circumstances shall MOODY’S have any liability to any person or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by, resulting from, or relating to, any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost profits), even if MOODY’S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use, any such information. The credit ratings, financial reporting analysis, projections, and other observations, if any, constituting part of the information contained herein are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each rating or other opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein, and each such user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation of each security and of each issuer and guarantor of, and each provider of credit support for, each security that it may consider purchasing, holding, or selling.