Investigating the Performance of Alternative Default-Risk Models: Option-Based Versus Accounting-Based Approaches

Philip Gharghori, Howard Chan and Robert Faff
Additional contact information
Howard Chan: Department of Finance, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010.

Australian Journal of Management, 2006, vol. 31, issue 2, 207-234

Abstract: In this paper we evaluate the performance of three alternate default-risk models, seeking to find that measure which performs best, using a comprehensive sample drawn from the Australian equities market. The first two models are option-based models and are derived from Merton's (1974) insight that equity can be viewed as a call option on a firm's assets. In the first model, equity is modelled as a standard call option. In the second model, equity is modelled as a path-dependent barrier option. The third model is created using accounting ratios and is similar to Altman's (1968) Z-Score. To assess which of the models is superior, we consider variations of each model and then rely on prediction-oriented tests that focus on whether a firm subsequently defaults. Our results show that the option-based models clearly outperform their accounting ratio counterparts. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that the option-based models are very successful at ranking firms by default probability. It is noteworthy that the performances of the option-based models are difficult to distinguish from each other.

Keywords: DEFAULT-RISK MODELS; DEFAULT PREDICTION (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (21)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/031289620603100203 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ausman:v:31:y:2006:i:2:p:207-234

DOI: 10.1177/031289620603100203

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Australian Journal of Management from Australian School of Business
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().