Credit risk management: a survey of practices

Purpose – Proposes to investigate the current practices of credit risk management by the largest US-based financial institutions. Owing to the increasing variety in the types of counterparties and the ever-expanding variety in the forms of obligations, credit risk management has jumped to the forefront of risk management activities carried out by firms in the financial services industry. This study is designed to shed light on the current practices of these firms. Design/methodology/approach - A short questionnaire, containing seven questions, was mailed to each of the top 100 banking firms headquartered in the USA. Findings - It was found that identifying counterparty default risk is the single most-important purpose served by the credit risk models utilized. Close to half of the responding institutions utilize models that are also capable of dealing with counterparty migration risk. Surprisingly, only a minority of banks currently utilize either a proprietary or a vendor-marketed model for the management of their credit risk. Interestingly, those that utilize their own in-house model also utilize a vendor-marketed model. Not surprisingly, such models are more widely used for the management of non-traded credit loan portfolios than they are for the management of traded bonds. Originality/value -The results help one to understand the current practices of these firms. As such, they enable us to make inferences about the perceived importance of the risks. The paper is of particular value to the treasurers intending to better understand the current trends in credit risk management, and to academics intending to carry out research in the field.

[1]  Shehzad L. Mian.  Evidence on Corporate Hedging Policy , 1996, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[2]  Gordon M. Bodnar,et al.  1998 Wharton Survey of Financial Risk Management by US Non-Financial Firms , 1998 .

[3]  Carl F. Luft,et al.  Corporate risk management: Costs and benefits , 2002 .

[4]  Peter Tufano,et al.  Agency Costs of Corporate Risk Management , 1998 .

[5]  Clifford W. Smith,et al.  Corporate Risk Management , 1995 .

[6]  Gordon M. Bodnar.  Derivatives Usage in Risk Management by U.S. and German Non-Financial Firms: , 1998 .

[7]  Gordon M. Bodnar,et al.  1995 Wharton Survey of Derivatives Usage by US Non-Financial Firms , 1995 .

[8]  Kenneth A. Froot,et al.  Risk Management: Coordinating Corporate Investment and Financing Policies , 1992 .

[9]  M. Glaum,et al.  Risk management practices of German firms , 2000 .

[10]  Clifford W. Smith,et al.  On the Determinants of Corporate Hedging , 1993 .

[11]  Kevin Grant,et al.  Large UK Companies and Derivatives , 1997 .

[12]  Cheol S. Eun,et al.  Price Interactions in a Sequential Global Market: Evidence from the Cross-listed Stocks , 1997 .

[13]  Philippe Jorion.  Value at Risk , 2001 .

[14]  C. Smithson,et al.  Managing financial risk : a guide to derivative products, financial engineering, and value maximization , 1998 .

[15]  Bruce G. Resnick,et al.  International Financial Management , 1998 .

[16]  Robert Mellor,et al.  Foreign Exchange Risk Management Practices and Products Used by Australian Firms , 1992 .

[17]  Walter Dolde,et al.  Hedging, Leverage, and Primitive Risk , 1998 .

[18]  M. Glaum,et al.  The Management of Foreign Exchange Risk in UK Multinationals: An Empirical Investigation , 1990 .

[19]  J. Nam.  The Underinvestment Problem and Corporate Derivatives Use , 1998 .

[20]  Currency and Interest-Rate Derivatives Use in US Firms , 1998 .

[21]  M. Bradbury,et al.  An international comparison of derivatives use , 1997 .