Published at : 07 Dec 2020
Volume : IJtech
Vol 11, No 6 (2020)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v11i6.4424
Sergei Grishunin | National Research University, Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, 101000, Russia |
Svetlana Suloeva | Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 29 Politechnicheskaya Ulitsa, St. Petersburg, 195251, Russia |
Alexandra Egorova | National Research University, Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, 101000, Russia |
Ekaterina Burova | Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 29 Politechnicheskaya Ulitsa, St. Petersburg, 195251, Russia |
The
quantitative assessment of the credit quality of manufacturing companies is a
task of great interest to researchers and practitioners. This is underpinned by
the elevated credit risk of these companies stemming from rapid technological
changes. However, few studies have addressed this issue specifically for
manufacturing companies. This study aimed to fill this research gap by
comparing the predictive power of various methods in reproducing manufacturing
companies’ public credit ratings from available financial and non-financial
data. The sample included 109 manufacturing companies from developed and
emerging markets over the period 2005–2016. The analysis included three
methods: ordered logistic regression (OLR) and two machine learning techniques,
random forest and gradient boosting. The results showed that machine learning
techniques outperformed OLR in terms of predictive power. In the best
specification model, random forest had an accuracy of 50%, followed by gradient
boosting (47%) and OLR (25%). We also tested two types of sampling in the
training and test sets: random and time-dependent. The results showed that the
models’ predictive power was greater with random sampling. The inclusion of
macroeconomic variables did not improve the models’ predictive power due to the
rating agencies’ preferred through-the-cycle rating approach. The study’s
findings have implications for the development of manufacturing firms’ internal
credit ratings. They can also be useful for researchers exploring the accuracy
of empirical models in predicting industrial firms’ insolvency and
creditworthiness.
Credit rating; Machine learning; Manufacturing companies; Rating agencies; Risk management
Over the last decade, the manufacturing industry has been influenced by a new wave of scientific and technological progress, which has been called “the fourth industrial revolution” (Liao et al., 2017). However, these opportunities come with new threats that increase the credit risks of manufacturing firms. Thus, selecting the credit risk assessment model with the highest accuracy has become increasingly important. For manufacturing firms, these models are used by investors to make funding decisions. They are also needed for the calculation of bad debt provisions as required by Basel III (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 2017) or the international accounting standard IFRS9. Lastly, they are used by manufacturing firms’ stakeholders to control, diagnose, and monitor their credit quality (Cuny and Dube, 2017).
Public
credit ratings (PCRs) are the most common measure of creditworthiness. These
ratings are assigned by domestic and international rating agencies, such as
Moody’s Investors Service, Fitch Ratings, and Standard & Poor’s Financial
Services (Karminsky and Peresetsky, 2009).
The ratings provide a consistent global framework for accurate assessment and
comparison of companies’ and countries’ credit quality (Karminsky and Polozov, 2016). However, ratings are often
assigned to large, diversified manufacturers mainly from developed markets.
This is due to the high cost of the rating, the need to provide agencies with a
large amount of information, and the reluctance of small companies to publish
low ratings. Other limitations of PCRs are their long update intervals, as well
as errors and inefficiencies of rating agencies which were found by various
studies (Langohr and Langohr, 2008). The
errors included maintenance ratings at the investment grade level for companies
with high credit risks or slow response to the credit crisis. To address these
issues, investors develop internal credit rating models (ICRs). A common
approach is to reproduce the PCRs of unrated companies from available financial
and non-financial data using empirical methods. ICRs have proven to be
objective and low-cost. However, their predictive power varies significantly
depending on the underlying models (Karminsky and
Peresetsky, 2007). The task of comparing various models and selecting
the optimal one has therefore become extremely important.
The
aims of this study were: (1) to compare the predictive power of various
empirical methods in reproducing Moody’s ratings specifically for manufacturing
firms; and (2) to identify the optimal model in terms of data availability,
forecast accuracy, and outcome interpretability. We also examined whether the
addition of macroeconomic factors to the set of explanatory variables increases
the models’ prediction accuracy. This study contributes to the literature in
several ways. First, it focuses on manufacturing companies, which are not the
focus of most studies. Second, it applies explanatory variables that match
those used in Moody’s methodology. Third, it uses data spanning a long period
(from 2005 to 2016). The study’s findings have implications for the development
of manufacturing firms’ internal credit ratings. The results can be useful for
researchers exploring the ability of empirical models to predict industrial
firms’ insolvency and creditworthiness.
In this study, we compared the accuracy of OLR, RF,
and GB in reproducing global manufacturing companies’ PCRs. RF and GB
outperformed OLR by a factor of almost 2. Random sampling yielded higher
predictive power than time-dependent sampling. The inclusion of macroeconomic
variables did not improve the models’ predictive power. The predictive power of
our models is consistent with the literature. We conclude that ML techniques can
be effective in reproducing manufacturing companies’ PCRs. Future research should
examine how the addition of non-financial metrics can improve models’
predictive power. Such metrics include indicators of market and operational
performance, corporate governance and quality of management, and companies’
intellectual capital. Future studies should also determine and compare sets of
explanatory factors for reproducing credit ratings for diverse non-financial
industries, such as oil and gas, metal and mining, chemical, automotive, and fast-moving
consumer goods companies. Determining the best sets of explanatory factors for
each industry will help improve the models’ predictive power.
This
research was supported by the Academic Excellence Project 5-100 proposed by
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University.
Abdi,
H., Williams, L.J., 2010. Principal Component Analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, Volume
2(4), pp. 433–459
Altman, E., Haldeman, R., Narayanan, P., 1977. ZETATM
Analysis. A New Model to Identify Bankruptcy Risk of Corporations. Journal of Banking & Finance, Volume
1(1), pp. 29–54
Amato,
J., Furfine, C., 2004. Are Credit Ratings Procyclical?. Journal of Banking & Finance, Volume 28(11), pp. 2641–2677
Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision, 2017. Basel III: Finalising Post-Crisis
Reforms. Bank for International Settlements. Available Online at https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d424.pdf,
Accessed on July 20, 2020
Bhushan,
S., Reddy, C., 2016. A Four-Level Linear Discriminant Analysis-based Service
Selection in the Cloud Environment. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 7(5), pp. 859–870
Cuny,
?., Dube, S., 2017. When Transparency Pays: The Moderating Effect of Disclosure
Quality on Changes in the Cost of Debt. Hutchins Center, Working Paper No. 34
Chopra,
A., Bhilare, P., 2018. Application of Ensemble Models in Credit Scoring Models.
Business Perspective and Research,
Volume 6(2), pp. 129–141
Demeshev,
B., Tikhonova, A., 2014. Default Prediction for Russian Companies:
Intersectoral Comparison. Economic
Journal of Higher School of Economics, Volume 18(3), pp. 359–386
Fachrurrazi,
H.S., Munirwansyah, H., 2017. The Subcontractor
Selection Practice using ANN-Multilayer. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 8(4), pp. 761–772
Hossin,
M., Sulaiman, M.N., 2015. A Review on Evaluation Metrics for Data
Classification Evaluations. International
Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Management Process, Volume 5(2), pp.
1–11
Huang, Z., Chen, H., Hsu, C.J., Chen, W.H., Wu, S., 2004.
Credit
Rating Analysis with Support Vector Machines and Neural Networks: A Market
Comparative Study. Decision Support
Systems, Volume 37(4), pp. 543–558
Langohr,
H., Langohr, P., 2008. The Rating
Agencies and Their Credit Ratings: What They Are, How They Work, and Why They
are Relevant. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Liao,
Y., Loures, E., Deschamps, F., Ramos, L.F., 2017. Past, Present and Future of
Industry 4.0 – A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda Proposal. International Journal of Production Research,
Volume 55(12), pp. 3609–3639
Lee,
Y.C., 2007. Application of Support Vector Machines to Corporate Credit Rating
Prediction. Expert Systems with
Applications, Volume 33(1), pp. 67–74
Kamstra,
M., Kennedy, P., Suan, T., 2001. Combining Bond Rating Forecasts using Logit. Financial Review, Volume 36(2), pp.
75–96
Karminsky,
A., 2011. Corporate Rating Models for Emerging Markets. Journal of Corporate Finance Research, Volume 5(3),
pp. 19–29
Karminsky,
A., Peresetsky, A., 2007. Rating Models of International Agencies. Applied Econometrics, Volume 1(5), pp.
3–19
Karminsky,
A., Peresetsky, A., 2009. Ratings as Measure of Financial Risk: Evolution,
Function and Usage. Journal of the New
Economic Association, Volumes 1–2, pp. 86–104
Karminsky,
A., Polozov, A., 2016. Handbook of
Ratings: Approaches to Ratings in the Economy, Sports, and Society,
Switzerland: Springer
Kumar,
K., Bhattacharya, S., 2006. Artificial Neural Network vs Linear Discriminant
Analysis in Credit Ratings Forecast: A Comparative Study of Prediction
Performances. Review of Accounting and
Finance, Volume 5(3), pp. 216–227
Moody’s
Investors Service, 2020. Manufacturing Methodology. Available Online at
https://www.moodys.com/research/Manufacturing-Methodology--PBC_1206079,
Accessed on July 20, 2020
Saitoh, F., 2016. Predictive
Modeling of Corporate Credit Ratings using a Semi-Supervised Random Forest
Regression. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Bali 2016, pp.
429–433
Senaviratna,
N.A.M.R., Cooray T.M.J.A., 2019. Diagnosing Multicollinearity of Logistic
Regression Model. Asian Journal of
Probability and Statistics, Volume 5(2), pp. 1–9
Sermpinis,
G., Tsoukas, S., Zhang, P., 2018. Modelling Market Implied Ratings using LASSO
Variable Selection Techniques. Journal of
Empirical Finance, Volume 48, pp. 19–35
Tsai,
C.F., Chen, M.L., 2010. Credit Rating by Hybrid Machine Learning Techniques. Applied Soft Computing, Volume 10(2),
pp. 374–380
Ye, Y., Liu, S., Li, J., 2008. A Multiclass Machine
Learning Approach to Credit Rating Prediction. In: 2008 International Symposiums on Information
Processing, Moscow 2008, pp. 57–61
World Bank Open Data, 2020. Available Online at https://data.worldbank.org/,
Accessed on July 20, 2020