 Research
 Open access
 Published:
On meeting capital requirements with a chanceconstrained optimization model
SpringerPlus volume 5, Article number: 500 (2016)
Abstract
This paper deals with a capital to risk asset ratio chanceconstrained optimization model in the presence of loans, treasury bill, fixed assets and noninterest earning assets. To model the dynamics of loans, we introduce a modified CreditMetrics approach. This leads to development of a deterministic convex counterpart of capital to risk asset ratio chance constraint. We pursue the scope of analyzing our model under the worstcase scenario i.e. loan default. The theoretical model is analyzed by applying numerical procedures, in order to administer valuable insights from a financial outlook. Our results suggest that, our capital to risk asset ratio chanceconstrained optimization model guarantees banks of meeting capital requirements of Basel III with a likelihood of 95 % irrespective of changes in future market value of assets.
Background
The financial crisis of 2008 reaffirmed the need to monitor risk in the banking sector as it has a ripple effect on the overall economy. The insolvency of most financial outfits at that time was as a result of increasing amounts of capital invested into long term and risky assets especially in the real estate market (Cannata and Quagliariello 2009; Brusov et al. 2015). Now more than ever, matters of subprime lending and the relevance of maintaining adequate capital to absorb adverse market conditions have become very important to bank managers and financial regulators (Erkens et al. 2012; Flannery 2014). Policy makers have recommended changes to already existing coordinated regulation to avert the probability of such occurrence in future. These changes include, significant increment in Capital to Risk (Weighted) Assets Ratio (CRAR) which is dependent on both the capital required and the capital resources to meet the requirements (Hasan et al. 2015). As a step in that direction, this paper’s primary aim is to use an assetliability modeling approach via optimization techniques based on the CRAR to guarantee banks of meeting the stipulated regulation of Basel III with great likelihood irrespective of changes in forward market value of assets.
Assetliability management in the banking sector primarily seeks to maximize profit through high returns on loans and other financial instruments, minimize risk as a result of mismatches between assets and liabilities and provide for liquidity needs (Choudhry 2012). Most banks manage their assets by issuing loans to creditors who have the capability to pay high interest rates and have minimal probability of default on their loans. Banks also diversify their investment portfolio and invest in securities with high returns and minimal risk in a bid to manage their assets. Over the years, several techniques and tools have been developed to aid bank managers in making the right investment decisions whilst reducing risk (see Szegö 2014; Bessis 2015; McNeil et al. 2015, for detailed reference). Policy makers have designed an internationally coordinated regulation known as the Basel Accord to ensure banks can absorb a reasonable and sufficient level of losses, which might otherwise threaten their solvency (Arnold et al. 2012; Lee 2014). Basel III bolsters and reevaluates the global capital framework by increasing banks capital to risk (weighted) assets ratio (CRAR) requiring banks to raise capital defenses in times when credit is at excessive levels while upholding a financially sound banking environment which is the foundation of a functional market economy (Leignick and Wohltmann 2015). Banks manage the liquidity of their assets in order to meet reserve requirements such as the Third Basel Accord without incurring high costs.
Berger et al. (2008), Flannery and Rangan (2008) and Gropp and Heider (2010) show that banks CRAR respond to the shocks in the regulatory requirements and that banks actively manage their target capital levels that tend to exceed the minimally required ones. Athanasoglou et al. (2008) iterates the fact that banks with strong financial foundation and position pursue investment opportunities more effectively and have more time and awareness to counter problems such as unexpected losses thus attaining increased profitability. The application of the minimum capital to risk (weighted) assets ratio protects depositors and promotes the stability and efficiency of the financial systems. In their panel regressions on individual bank capital requirements in the UK, Bridges et al. (2014) observed that changes in micro prudential regulatory capital requirements affects capital ratios held by the banks and also affect lending with heterogeneous feedbacks in diverse sectors of the economy. Their finding shows how meeting capital a requirement is an important component of banks asset structure.
In this paper, we propose a chanceconstrained optimization model by considering loan distribution follows a right truncated Gaussian distribution, to guarantee banks of coping with Basel III capital requirements even under the worst case scenario. We deal with an optimal portfolio model assuming that loans and a treasury bill are the investments made by the bank. The problem is faced under a theoretical perspective as well as simulation analysis. The introduction of a CRAR constraint characterized by the assumption made on the loan distribution, the construction of the deterministic convex counterpart of the CRAR chance constraint to obtain a tractable linear second order cone constraint and modified CreditMetrics approach represents the main novelty of this research paper.
To achieve our aim, we consider an optimization problem with the chance constraint of capital to risk (weighted) assets ratio under the condition that information regarding the distribution, mean and covariance of the risky asset in this case loan are known. Charnes and Cooper (1996) introduced chanceconstrained programs. Over the years, significant literature have been established in this regard (see Prékopa 1995; Uryasev 2000; Delage and Mannor 2010; Barrera et al. 2014, for detailed discussion and applications). In finance and engineering, several problems can and have been constructed as chanceconstrained stochastic linear programs of the form
where \(x \in \mathbb {R}^n\) is the decision vector(investment allocations) and the uncertain constraint coefficients \(a_i(\zeta ) \in \mathbb {R}^n\) and \(b_i(\zeta ) \in \mathbb {R},\forall i = 1, \ldots , m\), depend affinely on random vector \(\zeta \in \mathbb {R}^{h+1}\) whose distribution is assumed to be known. \(1\epsilon\), \(\epsilon \in (0,1)\) is the risk level or safety factor usually given by the modeler. We thus have,
Auxiliary functions \(y_i^j:\mathbb {R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) are introduced for relaxation of notations and are defined through
Therefore (1) can be rewritten as
For tractability purposes, we redefine the chance constraint (1) and rewrite (2) as a single generic constraint (Zymler et al. 2013), i.e. \(i=1\) and \(k=1\)
By doing this, we convert the two uncertain parameters, \(a_i(\zeta )\in \mathbb {R}^n\) and \(b_i(\zeta )\in \mathbb {R}\) in (1) to one uncertain parameter, \(\zeta \in \mathbb {R}^k\) in (2). We define the random vector \(r = \left[1\quad \zeta ^T\right]^T\in \mathbb {R}^{h+1}\) where the first coordinate is a constant random variable and \(\zeta\) is defined as forward market loan value which is estimated by modified CreditMetrics approach under a right truncated Gaussian distribution.
We consider all possible credit migration paths as opposed to sample credit migration paths in the CreditMetrics technical document by Gupton et al. (1997) and also make some other modifications. (see “CreditMetrics approach” section and “Appendix”). Luedtke (2014) and Yang and Xu (2016) pointed out that computation of the optimal solution of a chanceconstrained program is notably hard to solve. Indeed, the only notable tractable case of the chance constraint formulation is by Calafiore and El Ghaoui’s (2006) paper when the chance constraint function is bilinear and the distribution of the uncertain data follows a set of radial probability distributions. Empirical evidence have revealed that the normal distribution is not appropriate to estimate credit risk (Crouhy et al. 2010). Returns in the credit markets are heavily skewed to the downside and therefore are nonnormal (Gupton et al. 1997). Saunders and Allen (2010) observed that loans have acutely truncated upside returns and long downside risks and that the actual loan portfolio value distribution has negative skewness or a longtailed downside. In this paper, we make an informed decision on the random vector r based on Saunders and Allen’s (2010) view on the actual loan portfolio distribution and assume that loan distribution can be described by truncated Gaussian distribution. One possible extension would be to consider, instead of truncated Gaussian distributed returns, the more general alphastable distributed returns (see (Rachev 2003; Rachev et al. 2005)).
The paper is organized as follows. Next section evaluates the probability constraint for right truncated Gaussian probability distribution and construct the deterministic convex counterpart of the chance constraint. The next section presents the CreditMetrics approach to estimate the forward market value of loans. The formulation of the optimization model based on the chance constraint of CRAR is structured and presented. We conduct a numerical example and illustrate the proposed method by a hypothetical example. Results and Concluding remarks are presented in the last section. Details and pseudocodes of the numerical procedure described in “CreditMetrics approach” section are given in “Appendix”.
Chance constraint under truncated Gaussian distribution
Inspired by Calafiore (2006), we discuss a facet of the chanceconstrained stochastic program (1). We evaluate the probability constraint for right truncated Gaussian probability distribution and construct specifically the deterministic convex counterpart of the chance constraint.
Notation and parameter description
Without loss of generality, based on a standing assumption that the random constraints in (2) are independent, we make use of the single generic constraint
and define the random vector
and
Consider \(v \le h+1\) as the rank of \(\Gamma\) and \(\Gamma _{f.r}\in \mathbb {R}^{h+1}\) as a full rank factor such that \(\Gamma =\Gamma _{f.r}\Gamma _{f.r}^T\). Let
We define the quantity
and
The normalized random variable is defined as
Therefore, we can rewrite constraint (3) as
Formulation
Definition 1
A random vector \(r\in \mathbb {R}^{h+1}\) is Yradial with defining function \(g(\cdot )\) if \(rE(r)=Y\eta\) where \(Y \in \mathbb {R}^{h+1,v}\) is a full rank matrix of a fixed nature and \(\eta \in \mathbb {R}^{v}\) is a random vector with probability density function \(f_\eta\) that is dependent exclusively on the norm of \(\eta\) i.e. \(f_\eta (\eta )=g(\Vert \eta \Vert )\).
From the above definition, the covariance of \(\eta\) is
where \(V_v\) is the Euclidean volume of the standard unit ball of radius \(\mathbb {R}^v\). The variance of r is defined as
Given that \(var\{r\}=\Gamma\), then \(Y=s \Gamma _{f.r},\quad s=\left( V_v \int _{0}^ \infty w^{v+1}g(w)dw \right) ^{1/2}\) where \(\Gamma _{f.r}\) is a full rank factor of \(\Gamma\) i.e. \(\Gamma =\Gamma _{f.r}\Gamma _{f.r}^T\). The possibly singular multivariate b right truncated Gaussian distribution in \(\mathbb {R}^{h+1}\), with mean \(\tilde{r}\) and covariance \(\Gamma\) is Yradial with \(Y=s\Gamma _{f.r}\) and defining function
If r is Yradial and has defining function g(w) and covariance \(\Gamma\), then
and the cumulative density function is defined as
Therefore, \(\mathbb {P}\{\varphi (z) \le 0\}\ge 1\epsilon\) is equivalent to \(s\mathbf {F}^{1}(1\epsilon )\sigma (z)+{\hat{\varphi }}(z)\le 0\) for \(\epsilon \in (0,1)\).
A b right truncated Gaussian distribution with covariance \(\Gamma\) and mean \({\hat{r}}\) is Yradial with \(Y=\Gamma _{f.r},\,s=1\) and defining function
Appropriately, \(f_{\tilde{\varphi }(z)/s}\) is the b right truncated Gaussian density function
and \(\mathbf {F}\) is the standard b right truncated Gaussian distribution cumulative probability function
and the inverse for the standard b right truncated Gaussian distribution cumulative probability function is
Theorem 1
The chance constraint, \(\mathbb {P}\{{\hat{r}}^T \tilde{z} \le 0 \}\ge 1\epsilon\), for any \(\epsilon \in (0,1)\) where r has a b right truncated Gaussian distribution with defining function g(w), covariance \(\Gamma\) and mean \({\hat{r}}\) with \(s=1\) is equivalent to the second order cone (SOC) constraint \(\mathbf {F}^{1}_{RG}(1\epsilon )\sqrt{\tilde{z}\Gamma \tilde{z}}+{\hat{r}}^T\tilde{z}\le 0\).
CreditMetrics approach
Future bank capital is dependent on the forward market values of assets as well as liabilities. We use a modified CreditMetrics approach to estimate the forward market value of loans which is the uncertainty parameter in (3). CreditMetrics from JP Morgan, made public and published in 1997, is reviewed in this section. The methodology estimates the forward distribution of the changes in portfolio value of loan products at a specified time horizon, typically one year. The changes in value are associated with the migration in credit quality of the obligor, both up and downgrades, including default. We develop a Monte Carlo framework from a modified CreditMetrics approach (see “Appendix”) to include all possible migrations and scenarios. This method is adopted for the purpose of calculating the forward market value of loans and its associated risk measure.
Rating migration
Based on historical data on loan, Standard and Poor (S&P) construct a transition matrix which shows the probability of a rated loan being downgraded, upgraded or defaulting during a given period, usually one year. The estimated probabilities of average oneyear corporate transition rates (1981–2013) of corporations based in Europe are shown in Table 1. Each cell in the transition matrix has a probability. The rating sections in the rows of the transition matrix signify current credit ratings and the columns of the transition matrix show expected credit rating at the end of the year. For example, the \(P(BBB \rightarrow BB) = 0.0431\) show the chances of a BBBrated loan downgrading to B over the ensuing year.
Recovery rates and the probability of default are essential parameters in credit risk modeling. Calabrese (2008) defines recovery rate as the payback quota of the loan. Considerable studies on recovery rates on corporate bonds have been performed (Altman 1989; Schuermann 2004; Renault and Scaillet 2004; Jankowitsch et al. 2014) and Asarnow and Edwards (1995), Calabrese and Zenga (2008), Khieu et al. (2012) and Calabrese (2008) have all investigated bank loans. Carty and Lieberman (1996) and Schuermann (2004) made an interesting revelation by showing that the mean of bonds is lower than the average recovery rate of bank loans. Calabrese and Zenga (2008) measured the recovery rates on nonperforming bank loans in Italy by using the boundary property [0, 1] in computing the loan recovery rate as the ratio between capitalized actual recovery amount and capitalized total exposure, where the latter parameter is the sum of ExposureAtDefault , capitalized legal costs and interest on delayed payment. We employ loan recovery rates estimated in Calabrese and Zenga (2008) for Italy under categories of secured and unsecured loans shown in Table 2 for the estimation of forward value of loans via a modified CreditMetrics approach.
Valuation
In this section, we calculate forward value of loans at the end of the risk horizon, 1 year. However, since there are 8 possible credit ratings in the transition matrix from Table 1, we have to estimate values based on all possible migration paths given maturity dates. In the worst case scenario of the loan i.e. default, two input variables are required the secured status of the loan and its associated recovery rate.
Valuation is done based on all the possible migration paths, residual cash flows and from the oneyear forward zerocurve associated with the rating of the issuer. Expected upgrade or downgrade in credit rating leads to changes in the value of the loan. The magnitude of these changes are accessible with the estimation of forward zero curves for each rating Abaffy et al. (2007).
From Table 3, \(f_{cr}^{1,j}\) is the \((j1)\)year forward rate with credit rating cr thus for year 1, we have \(f_{cr}^{1,2}\) and so on. By this interpretation, the entries of Table 3 are spot rates from now. Consider \(\tilde{f}_{cr}^{i,i+1}\) as the oneyear forward rate with its associated credit rating \(cr_i\) from the end of the ith year to the end of the \((i+1)\)th year. Therefore, the oneyear forward rate can be estimated by
The discount factor of the cash flow from the end of the jth year to the end of the first year for loan type k can be computed by the following
The forward loan value is the sum of discounted cash flows of each year corresponding to possible credit rating transition paths till maturity m. Then the forward value, \(\zeta _{kt}\) of a unit capital invested in the kth loan with a nondefault credit rating migration path t is
where \(R_k\) is the interest rate of the kth loan.
In case kth loan defaults before or at the end of the period \(q=1,2,3,\ldots ,m\), then the forward value, \(\zeta _{kdt}\), of a unit capital invested in the kth loan with a default credit rating migration path dt is
where \(RR_k\) is the recovery rate if the kth loan which is dependent on the secured status in Table 2.
Table 4 shows the possible migration paths for a 2 year BBBrated loan. There are 49 nondefault paths and 8 default paths. In general, the kth loan with maturity m has \(7^m\) nondefault possible credit rating migration paths. The kth loan with maturity m has \(\sum _{q=1}^{m} 7^{q1}\) default possible credit rating migration paths.
Expected value and credit risk
Gupton et al. (1997) and Benz (2002) observed that credit returns are heavily skewed to the downside and therefore are nonnormal. Saunders and Allen (2010) also made an interesting revelation that loans have both acutely truncated upside returns and also long downside risks and that the actual loan portfolio value distribution exhibits a longtailed downside or negative skewness. We therefore make an informed decision based on empirical evidence on the actual loan portfolio distribution and assume that the kth loan yearahead or forward value, \(\zeta _k\), distribution is described by the right truncated Gaussian distribution. The long downside tail of the distribution of loan returns is caused by defaults.
Consider the credit migration path satisfying the Markov property, then the migration probability of the kth loan with t nondefault path is
and for default path
where \(P_{cr_{i},cr_{i+1}}\) signify the probability of migration from \(cr_i\) credit rating at the end of the ith year to \(cr_{i+1}\) credit rating at the end of \((i+1)\)th year.
By the assumption of the forward loan value of unit capital invested in the kth loan following a right truncated Gaussian distribution at b, then the expected forward loan (mean) value and variance of unit capital invested in the kth loan are
and
respectively.
Formulation of the model
The optimization model based on the chance constraint of capital to risk (weighted) asset requirement is structured and presented in this section. We first determine the objective function and then proceed to construct its related constraints.
Objective function
Let \(R=[R_1,R_2,\ldots ,R_u,R_{u+1},\dots ,R_{u+v}]^T\) be the vector of annual interest rate of loans and treasury bill, fixed assets and noninterest earning assets (riskless) with u corresponding to the loans and v as the riskless assets. Denote \(x=[x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_u,x_{u+1},\ldots ,x_{u+v}]^T\) as the vector of asset allocation or investment proportion which is the decision variable. Then the objective function can be defined as
Constraints
CRAR constraint
Denote Q as the bank’s total asset amount and TL be the bank’s total liability. Let \(\Omega =[\zeta ^T,\xi ^T]^T\) be a unit vector of assets with \(\zeta =[\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\ldots ,\zeta _u]^T\) and \(\xi =[\xi _1,\xi _2,\ldots ,\xi _v]^T\) corresponding to loans and riskless assets (treasury bill, fixed assets and noninterest earning assets) respectively. \(\zeta\) constitutes uncertain parameters which can be estimated (see “Valuation” section) and \(\xi\) is a deterministic vector of \([1+R_{u+1},1+R_{u+2},\ldots ,1+R_{u+v}]^T\). Let \(\varpi _k\) denote the kth asset’s weight factor and \(1\epsilon\) is the safety factor.
According to Basel III, the minimum total capital requirement is 8 %. Basel III introduced two additional capital buffers; capital conservation buffer and countercyclical buffer. Capital conservation buffer of 2.5 % is designed to ensure that banks build up capital buffers outside periods of stress which can be drawn down as losses are incurred. The countercyclical buffer range of 0 to 2.5 % which is set by national regulators aims to ensure that banking sector capital requirements take account of the macrofinancial environment in which banks operate.
Based on the definition of CRAR i.e.
the following holds
As the moment information (mean and variance) of the forward or yearahead value of \(\zeta\) corresponds to all the possible migration paths of loans credit ratings, constraint (16) means even with the changes in the risky assets credit ratings, the bank can still meet the total requirements of the third Basel Accord with greater likelihood. The chanceconstrained model based on capital adequacy ratio (16) can be written in terms of a single generic constraint as
where
Proof
From the definition of CRAR i.e.
where the riskless asset weight factor is zero i.e.\(\sum _{k=u+1}^{u+v}\varpi _k=0\), therefore the following holds
\(\square\)
which was set out to proof.
Proposition 1
From the mathematical formulation in the “Notation and parameter description” section, under the assumption of known distribution of r as truncated Gaussian distribution, for any \(\epsilon \in (0,1),\) constraint (17) is equivalent to \(\mathbf {F}_{RG}^{1}(1\epsilon )\sigma (\varphi (z))+{\hat{\varphi }}(z)\le 0\).
Constraint based on other factors
Other constraints to control banks liquidity risk as well as other constraints coping with the defined goals of the bank are constructed here. We assume the set of admissible assets is a nonempty polyhedral set and denote it as \(\mathcal {X}=\{x:Bx=f ,Gx=h\}\) where B is a \(m \times n\) matrix, f is a mdimensional vector, G is a \(p \times n\) matrix and h is a pdimensional vector. In particular, one of the constraints in the set \(\mathcal {X}\) is
which satisfies the requirements of the sum of all investment allocations to be 1. Other constraints can be constructed based on the requirement of setting up limit allocation ratio of the investment.
The optimization model
The assetliability model via optimization techniques based on the capital asset to risk (weighted) ratio (CRAR) to guarantee banks of coping with the stipulated regulation of Basel III with great likelihood irrespective of changes in forward market value of assets is defined as
Therefore, the CRAR chanceconstrained assetliabilty optimization model based on the informed assumption and decision that the uncertain parameter , \(\zeta\) (forward value of a loan) can be described by a b right truncated Gaussian distribution transforms to a tractable secondorder cone program (SOCP), which has a solution in polynomial time, refer to Alizadeh and Goldfarb (2003) and Maggioni et al. (2009).
Numerical example
In this section we test the capability of CRAR chanceconstrained assetliability optimization model on a hypothetical bank operating from Italy. Loan information are somewhat private information. We therefore use datasets with an informed suppositional background. We define and back the data used for the experiment with references and trusted sources.
Data description
From the asset structure of a bank operating from Italy, let Q the bank’s total asset amount be €1500000 and the bank’s total liability TL equal €1192000. The financial assets characterizing financial environment on the bank are 5 loan types, a treasury bill, fixed assets and noninterest earning assets. We treat treasury bill, fixed assets and noninterest earning assets as riskless assets and the 5 loan types as risky assets. Table 6 shows all necessary information about the financial assets including investment proportions to be allocated. The expected forward or yearahead market value of loan types (13) and its variance (14) are estimated with consideration of all possible migration paths including default.
Interest rate (R) for individual loans are set to lending interest rates for Italy quoted by World Bank in 2013 as a reference point. The treasury bill rate of \(0.8\%\) for Italy in 2013 was also provided by World Bank and risk weights are based on the standardized approach (credit risk) of Basel Accord. The recovery rates for loan types are set according to their collateral status shown in Table 2.
Suppose the correlation coefficent of loans is between \(10\%\) and \(30\%\), with the aid of Table 11.2 in Gupton et al.’s (1997) CreditMetrics technical document we consider the correlations among loan borrowers as shown Table 5.
The CRAR chance constraint optimization model
In this section we present the CRAR chance constraint optimization model. In order to fully understand the model, mathematical computations are made in that regard to obtain a tractable linear SOCP problem.
Objective function
Equation (15) is filled with entries of interest rate column of Table 6. Thus,
CRAR constraint
Bank management usually allot proportions of sum total asset amount, Q, to riskless assets; in this case fixed assets and noninterest earning assets, before making any investment. In this regard, we assume bank management allocate €480000 to fixed assets and €420000 to noninterest earning assets.Therefore, we denote total amount for investment in loans \((\zeta )\) and treasury bill \((\xi _1)\) as A = €600000. We employ capital to risk (weighted) assets ratio (CRAR) proposed by Basel III as the stipulated regulation requirement. The minimum total capital requirement is 8 %. Basel III introduced two additional capital buffers; capital conservation buffer of 2.5 % and countercyclical buffer of 0 to 2.5 %. For the purpose of this study, we assume a total capital requirement ratio, \(\lambda\), of 11 % and a safety factor of 0.95. The constraint based on CRAR is
where
Equation (21) is equivalent to
where
and
Constraint based on other factors
With requirements of investment allocations summing up to one, the constraint below holds.
From an investment principle, we set up a constraint of nonnegativity with respect to loan allocations as
Assuming bank management places an allocation limit ratio of 0.01 on treasury bill as a result of its riskless property, then
The chanceconstrained optimization model is converted into a tractable linear SOCP by combining equations (20) and (23–26).
Results and conclusion
The modified CreditMetrics method described earlier was coded in Matlab(R2015a). All computations were performed on a MacBook Pro (Intel(R) Core(TM) i73615QM CPU @ 2.30GHz, 16GB RAM).
Column 8 of Table 6 displays entries of the optimal weights of loans and treasury bill. The 3year AAA Commercial and Industrial Loan allocation value of 0.0010 is the least amongst the optimal investment allocation values. This may be attributed to its smaller risk weight and interest rate. We observe that an increment in the total liability leads to higher allocation to the treasury bill and vice versa. This is due to the model guarding against loss at the expense of a higher interest. The optimal investment portfolio interest income is 0.0565 which is obtained by computations made by CVX package via Matlab (R2015a).
To further understand the results of the optimization model, we explore CRAR chance constraint with the utilization of optimal investment allocation ratios and worst credit migration path values of loans. The expected values of yearahead market value of loans under worst case scenario are assigned to \(\zeta\), the optimal allocation proportions to x and \(\xi _1\) equals 1.008.
Using the loan values under the worstcredit migration path from Table 7, the CRAR value of 0.0860 is reported. We take this approach for the purpose of testing the model under worstcase scenario of default. The value of CRAR even under worst case scenario confirms the bank is guaranteed of coping with Basel III minimum total requirement of 0.08 with great likelihood of \(95\,\%\).
The paper presented a chanceconstraint optimization model that guarantees a bank, with treasury bills, fixed assets, noninterest earning assets and loans, to cope with capital requirements of Basel III with a probability of 95%, whichever the future value of assets will be. The findings of this research work explicitly disclose that the total proportion of CRAR’s lower than Basel III minimum capital requirement is less than the risk probability of 5 %. Therefore, the chanceconstrained CRAR optimization model does guarantee banks of meeting capital requirements of Basel III with greater likelihood of 95 % irrespective of changes in forward market value of assets.
References
Abaffy J, Bertocchi M, Dupačová J, Moriggia V, Consigli G (2007) Pricing nondiversifiable credit risk in the corporate Eurobond market. J Bank Finance 31:2233–2263
Alizadeh F, Goldfarb D (2003) Secondorder cone programming. Math Program 95:3–51
Altman EI (1989) Measuring corporate bond mortality and performance. J Finance 44(4):909–922
Arnold B, Borio C, Ellis L, Moshirian F (2012) Systemic risk, macroprudential policy frameworks, monitoring financial systems and the evolution of capital adequacy. J Bank Finance 36:3125–3132
Asarnow E, Edwards D (1995) Measuring loss on defaulted bank loans: a 24year study. J Commer Lend 77:11–23
Athanasoglou PP, Brissimis SN, Delis MD (2008) Bankspecific, industryspecific and macroeconomic determinants of bank profitability. J Int Financ Mark Inst Money 18:121–136
Barrera J, Homemde Mello T, Moreno E, Pagnoncelli BK, Canessa G (2014) Chanceconstrained problems and rare events: an importance sampling approach, Preprint available at Optimization Online (http://www.optimizationonline.org)
Benz M (2002) The implications of the “new capital adeqaucy framework” for credit risk and capital management in the banking industry. Diplom.de
Berger AN, DeYoung R, Flannery MJ, Lee D, Öztekin O (2008) How do large banking organizations manage their capital ratios? J Financ Serv Res 34:123–149
Bessis J (2015) Risk management in banking. Wiley, New York
Bridges J, Gregory D, Nielsen M, Pezzini S, Radia A, Spaltro M (2014) The impact of capital requirements on bank lending. Bank of England Working Paper
Brusov P, Filatova T, Orekhova N, Eskindarov M (2015) The global causes of the global financial crisis, modern corporate finance, investments and taxation. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–98
Calabrese R, Zenga M (2008) Measuring loan recovery rate: methodology and empirical evidence. Stat Appl 6:193–214
Calabrese R (2014) Predicting bank loan recovery rates with a mixed continuousdiscrete model. Appl Stoch Models Bus Ind 30:99–114
Calafiore GC, El Ghaoui L (2006) On distributionally robust chanceconstrained linear programs. J Optim Theory Appl 130:1–22
Cannata F, Quagliariello M (2009) The role of Basel II in the subprime financial crisis: guilty or not guilty? CAREFIN Research Paper, 3/09
Carty LV, Lieberman D (1996) Corporate bond defaults and default rates 1938–1995. Moodys Investors Service, Global Credit Res
Charnes A, Cooper WW (1963) Deterministic equivalents for optimizing and satisficing under chance constraints. Oper Res 11:18–39
Choudhry M (2012) The principles of banking. Wiley, New York
Crouhy M, Galai D, Mark R (2010) Risk exposures. Encyclopedia of Quantitative Finance, Wiley Online Library
Delage E, Mannor S (2010) Percentile optimization for Markov decision processes with parameter uncertainty. Oper Res 58:203–213
Erkens DH, Hung M, Matos P (2012) Corporate governance in the 2007–2008 financial crisis: evidence from financial institutions worldwide. J Corp Finance 18:389–411
Flannery MJ (2014) Maintaining adequate bank capital. J Money Credit Bank 46:157–180
Flannery MJ, Rangan KP (2008) What caused the bank capital buildup of the 1990s? Rev Finance 12:391–429
Gropp R, Heider F (2010) The determinants of bank capital structure. Rev Finance 14(4):587–622
Gupton GM, Finger CC, Bhatia M (1997) CreditMetrics: technical document. JP Morgan & Co, Los Altos
Hasan I, Siddique A, Sun X (2015) Monitoring the invisible hand of market discipline: capital adequacy revisited. J Bank Finance 50:475–492
Jankowitsch R, Nagler F, Subrahmanyam MG (2014) The determinants of recovery rates in the US corporate bond market. J Financ Econ 114:155–177
Khieu HD, Mullineaux DJ, Yi HC (2012) The determinants of bank loan recovery rates. J Bank Finance 36:923–933
Krug S, Lengnick M, Wohltmann HW (2015) The impact of Basel III on financial (in) stability: an agentbased credit network approach. Quant Finance 15(12):1917–1932
Lee E (2014) Basel III and its new capital requirements, as distinguished from basel II. Bank Law J 131:27–69
Luedtke J (2014) A branchandcut decomposition algorithm for solving chanceconstrained mathematical programs with finite support. Math Program 146:219–244
Maggioni FRANCESCA, Potra FA, Bertocchi MI, Allevi E (2009) Stochastic secondorder cone programming in mobile ad hoc networks. J Optim Theory Appl 143(2):309–328
McNeil AJ, Frey R, Embrechts P (2015) Quantitative risk management: concepts, techniques and tools: concepts, techniques and tools. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Prékopa A (1995) Stochastic programming. Math Appl 324
Rachev ST (ed) (2003) Handbook of heavy tailed distributions in finance: handbooks in finance (vol 1). Elsevier, Amsterdam
Rachev ST, Menn C, Fabozzi FJ (2005) Fattailed and skewed asset return distributions: implications for risk management, portfolio selection, and option pricing (vol 139). Wiley, New York
Renault O, Scaillet O (2004) On the way to recovery: a nonparametric bias free estimation of recovery rate densities. J Bank Finance 28:2915–2931
Saunders A, Allen L (2010) Credit risk management in and out of the financial crisis: new approaches to value at risk and other paradigms. Wiley, New York
Schuermann Tl (2004) What do we know about loss given default? Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also in Shimko D (ed) (2006) Credit risk models and management, 2nd edn. Risk Books, London, UK
Standard & Poor’s (2014) 2013 Annual global corporate default study and rating transitions. Retrieved from http://www.maalot.co.il/publications/fts20140324161422. pp 53–54
Szegö GP (2004) Portfolio theory: with application to bank asset management. Academic Press, London
Uryasev S (2000) Introduction to the theory of probabilistic functions and percentiles (valueatrisk). Springer, Berlin
Yang W, Xu H (2016) Distributionally robust chance constraints for nonlinear uncertainties. Math Program 155(1–2):231–265
Zymler S, Kuhn D, Rustem B (2013) Distributionally robust joint chance constraints with secondorder moment information. Math Program 137:167–198
Author's contributions
EFEAM, the corresponding author, conceived, designed the methodology and wrote the paper. LG aided in the numerical experiment and analysis of the results. BY made a significant contribution to the methodological approach, analysis framework and supervised the study. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We thank Yan Danwen and the reviewers for taking time to add their comments and suggestions to this paper. We also thank SpringerPlus for giving us the platform to contribute to literature. We acknowledge support by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (11571061, 71301017).
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
In this “Appendix” we provide details and pseudocodes of the numerical procedure described in “CreditMetrics approach” section.
The first step of our experiment is represented by the simulation of nondefault and default paths. The general procedure for implementation are as follows:
Step A Simulation of all nondefault and default paths for maturity period m.
In this step all nondefault and default paths are generated for maturity \(M=1,\ldots ,m\) years. The output for every M in a nondefault path is a matrix of size \(7^{m}\times M\) where rows correspond to a path and columns indicate credit rating at the end of the year. All the m default path matrices are stored in a cell array of length m. The output for every M in a default path is a matrix of size \(7^{(m1)}\times M\). But unlike non default paths, for default paths with maturity m the possible paths are all paths in all matrices from \(M =1,\ldots ,m\). The indexing scheme of \(AAA \rightarrow 1, AA \rightarrow 2, A \rightarrow 3, BBB \rightarrow 4, BB \rightarrow 5, B \rightarrow 6, CCC \rightarrow 7\) and \(D \rightarrow 8\) is used.
The pseudocode is as follows:

1a.
set the maturity period \(M=1\);

2a.
initialize a zero matrix of size \(7^{M} \times M\);

3a.
convert decimal number \(W = 0\) to base 7 of length M and store it in the matrix row \(R = 1\);

4a.
set \(W= W+1\) and \(R= R+1\);

5a.
if \(W<7^m\), repeat steps 3a and 4a ;

6a.
add 1 to all the elements in the matrix;

7a.
store the resultant matrix in cell array \(migN\{M\}\), the nondefault migration path;

8a.
store 8 in the \(1\times 1\) default path matrix (direct default in first year);

9a.
add it to cell array \(migD\{M\}\), default migration path;

10a.
get the matrix from \(migN\{M1\}\);

11a.
append the matrix with a column of 8’s and add to \(migD\{M\}\);

12a.
set \(M=M+1\);

13a.
if \(M<m\), repeat steps 2a to 13a;
Step B Calculating discount factors.
This step precomputes and stores discount factors for all transition probabilities for \(m =1,\ldots ,5\). The procedure runs as follows:

1b.
load forward rates data from Table 3;

2b.
append a column of 1s in dFactor first column i.e. \(dFactor\{1\}=ones(7,1)\);

3b.
for every \(M=1,\ldots ,m\) and for every path for both migD and migN, calculate discount factors using the recurrent relation;

4b.
store them in the cell arrays dFD as discount factors for default paths and dFN as discount factors for nondefault paths respectively;
Step C Calculating \(\zeta _{kt}\) and \(P_{kt}\) for nondefault paths.
This step computes forward value of a unit capital invested in kth loan with a nondefault credit rating migration path t and its associated migration probability.

1c.
for every loan k=1,...,K and for every migration path \(t=1,\ldots ,T\), repeat the following;

2c.
load discount factors obtained by step B (dFN);

3c.
load interest rates deduced from Table 6, Column 3;

4c.
calculate forward value \(\zeta _{kt}\) using Eq. (9);

5c.
load migration path possibilities obtained from Step A;

6c.
calculate \(P_{kt}\) using Eq. (11) for nondefault migration path;

7c.
compute \(\zeta _{kt}\cdot P_{kt}\) for nondefault migration path;
Step D Calculating \(\zeta _{ktd}\) and \(P_{kdt}\) for default paths.
This step computes forward value of a unit capital invested in kth loan with a default credit rating migration path dt and its associated migration probability.

1d.
for every loan k=1,...,K and for every migration path \(t=1,\ldots ,T,\) repeat the following;

2d.
load discount factors obtained by step B (dFD);

3d.
load recovery rates deduced from Table 2;

4d.
calculate forward value \(\zeta _{kdt}\) using Eq. (9);

5d.
load migration path possibilities obtained from Step A;

6d.
calculate \(P_{kdt}\) using Eq. (12) for default migration path;

7d.
compute \(\zeta _{kdt}\cdot P_{kdt}\) for default migration path;
Step E Estimating \(E(\zeta _k\mid \zeta _k \le b)\) and \(Var(\zeta _k\mid \zeta _k \le b)\)
This step estimates expected forward loan value and variance of unit capital invested in kth loan. The steps consist of:

1e.
for every loan k = 1,...,K, repeat the following;

2e.
sum all \(P_{kt} \cdot \zeta _{kt}\) to get \(\mu _k\);

3e.
compute \(\sigma _k^{2}\) using the computed \(\mu _k\) as shown in Eq. (14);

4e.
use the above information to compute expected forward loan value \(E(\zeta _k\mid \zeta _k \le b)\) and variance of unit capital \(Var(\zeta _k\mid \zeta _k \le b)\) from equations (12) and (13) respectively;
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Atta Mills, E.F.E., Yu, B. & Gu, L. On meeting capital requirements with a chanceconstrained optimization model. SpringerPlus 5, 500 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s400640162110z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s400640162110z