country risk classification and multiriteria decision aid
Post on 17-Jan-2016
43 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
Country Risk Classification and Country Risk Classification and Multiriteria Decision AidMultiriteria Decision Aid
Xijun WangXijun Wang
January 26, 2004January 26, 2004
2
OutlineOutline
Country Risk ClassificationCountry Risk Classification Country Risk Classification MethodsCountry Risk Classification Methods Utilities Additive DiscriminationUtilities Additive Discrimination Multigroup Hierarchical DiscriminationMultigroup Hierarchical Discrimination Dealing with Complex Factors Dealing with Complex Factors Future WorksFuture Works
3
Country RiskCountry Risk
The overall risk of loaning money to foreign The overall risk of loaning money to foreign companies.companies.– How much is debt delayed and how much is the return? How much is debt delayed and how much is the return?
– Help financial institutions in decision-makingHelp financial institutions in decision-making
MeasurementsMeasurements– Risk levels CRisk levels C11, C, C22 ,…, C ,…, Cq, q,
Evaluation factorsEvaluation factors– Population structure, education, Population structure, education, political and social status, political and social status,
economics, financial statuseconomics, financial status
4
risklevel
country farm
popul at i on(%)
R&D ratio(% ofGNP)
publiceducation
expenditure(% of GDP)
unemployment rate
(%)
real GDPgrowth(%
)
netexport s(% ofGDP)
govermentrevenue(% ofGDP)
val ue addedi n
agr i cul ture(% of GDP)
Totalexternaldebt toexportrat i o(%)
fi nanci alreserve(b
$)
1 Canada 2. 6 1. 7 5. 6 6. 8 1. 5 2. 9 22 2. 3 0. 73 33. 961 Uni ted Ki ngdom 1. 8 1. 8 4. 4 5. 5 2. 2 - 1. 9 36. 4 1. 5 0 37. 281 Uni ted States 2. 2 2. 5 5 4 1. 2 - 2. 8 21. 4 1. 7 119 57. 632 Aust ral i a 4. 6 1. 7 4. 8 6. 6 2. 4 - 2. 4 23. 8 3 208 17. 962 Si ngapore 0. 1 1. 1 3. 1 4. 4 - 2. 1 18. 5 26. 2 0. 1 0 75. 382 Spai n 7. 3 0. 8 4. 5 15. 9 2. 8 - 5. 6 40. 4 4. 3 73. 6 55. 33 Chi na 66. 6 0. 8 2. 3 3. 1 7. 3 2. 7 7. 8 15. 9 52. 1 266. 633 Czech Republ i c 8. 2 1. 3 4. 2 8. 8 3. 6 - 3. 7 33. 1 5 57 14. 343 Thai l and 49 0. 1 4. 7 2. 4 1. 8 8 16 11. 2 89 32. 354 Argent i na 10. 1 0. 5 3. 7 15 - 3. 7 - 0. 6 19. 9 5. 3 404. 2 14. 554 I ndonesi a 44. 1 0. 7 1. 4 5. 5 3. 3 7. 8 17. 9 16. 7 181. 8 27. 254 South Af r i ca 14. 2 1 6. 1 5. 4 2. 2 3 27. 3 3. 9 61. 4 6. 055 Egypt 36. 6 1. 9 4. 7 8. 1 3. 3 - 6. 6 23 13. 9 106. 5 12. 935 Ni ger i a 33. 3 0. 1 0. 6 50 4 11. 3 18 37. 2 117 3. 865 Paki stan 50. 9 0. 9 2. 7 5. 9 3. 4 - 3. 6 16. 7 24. 1 249. 3 3. 645 Turkey 30. 7 0. 5 2. 3 7. 3 - 6. 2 - 6 28 12. 5 195. 8 18. 88
5
Country Risk ClassificationCountry Risk Classification
Determine the risk level of a country based on various factorsDetermine the risk level of a country based on various factors
risklevel
country farm
popul at i on(%)
R&D ratio(% ofGNP)
publiceducation
expenditure(% of GDP)
unemployment rate
(%)
real GDPgrowth(%
)
netexport s(% ofGDP)
govermentrevenue(% ofGDP)
val ue addedi n
agr i cul ture(% of GDP)
Totalexternaldebt toexportrat i o(%)
fi nanci alreserve(b
$)
? I srael 2. 7 3. 7 7. 7 8. 8 - 0. 6 - 6. 9 43. 3 3 153 23. 38? J apan 3. 9 2. 8 3. 5 4. 7 - 0. 4 1. 6 14 1 0 395. 15? Nether l ands 3. 4 2 4. 9 3. 3 1. 1 4. 8 45. 1 3 0 9. 03? I tal y 5. 3 1. 1 4. 7 10. 5 1. 8 1. 2 41. 3 3 0 25. 57? Mal aysi a 17. 7 0. 4 4. 6 3. 1 0. 4 21. 1 26. 4 8. 8 37. 9 30. 47? Mexi co 23. 6 0. 4 3. 6 1. 6 - 0. 3 - 1. 8 13. 8 5. 1 81. 4 44. 74? Pol and 20. 4 0. 7 5. 4 16. 1 1. 1 - 7 31 4 118. 2 25. 65? Brazi l 16. 5 0. 8 4. 6 9. 6 1. 5 - 1. 2 22. 8 8 323. 5 35. 74
6
Country Risk Classification MethodsCountry Risk Classification Methods
Early used statistical methods: Bayesian discrimination, Early used statistical methods: Bayesian discrimination, – Simple to implementSimple to implement
– Not widely used due to unrealistic statistics assumptionsNot widely used due to unrealistic statistics assumptions
Recent approaches based on optimization: Multicriteria Recent approaches based on optimization: Multicriteria decision-aid methodsdecision-aid methods– No statistics assumptionNo statistics assumption
– Background knowledge incorporatedBackground knowledge incorporated
7
Utility FunctionUtility Function
Utility function U(c) is an indicator of the risk level of a Utility function U(c) is an indicator of the risk level of a countrycountry
– Risk level of country a is higher than of b, then U(a)<U(b)Risk level of country a is higher than of b, then U(a)<U(b) Borderlines to separate different risk levelsBorderlines to separate different risk levels
μq-1 μk μk-1 μ1
Cq Ck C1
U(c)
n
iiin gUggU
11 )(),...,(
8
Utilities Additive Discrimination (1)Utilities Additive Discrimination (1)
Learning the utility function and the thresholds in the function space.Learning the utility function and the thresholds in the function space. But, in practice, we might not find threshholds and utility functions that can But, in practice, we might not find threshholds and utility functions that can
predict all the country risk levels correctly predict all the country risk levels correctly
μq-1 μk μk-1 μ1
Cq Ck C1
σ+(c)
U(c)
μq-1 μk μk-1 μ1
Cq Ck C1
σ-(c)
U(c)
9
Utilities Additive Discrimination (2)Utilities Additive Discrimination (2)
Piecewise linear marginal utility functionPiecewise linear marginal utility function
10
Utilities Additive Discrimination (3)Utilities Additive Discrimination (3)
Learning model: minimizing total training classification errorLearning model: minimizing total training classification error
11
A Computation ExampleA Computation Example
Estimated Marginal Utility functionsEstimated Marginal Utility functions
12
Weights of Factor GroupsWeights of Factor Groups
13
Examples and their UtilitiesExamples and their Utilities
14
Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (1)Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (1)
Hierarchical classification processHierarchical classification process– Is it in level CIs it in level C11??
– If not, is it in level CIf not, is it in level C22??
– ……
Suppose we haveSuppose we have– UUkk(c): similarity measure of c to countries in C(c): similarity measure of c to countries in Ckk
– UU¬¬kk(c): similarity measure of c to countries in C(c): similarity measure of c to countries in C¬¬kk=C=Ck+1k+1…… CCqq
Is Is cc in C in Ckk or C or C¬¬kk? ? Is Is UUkk(c)> U(c)> U¬¬kk(c) or not?(c) or not?
UUkk(c) UU¬¬kk(c)
CCkk CC¬¬kk
15
Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (2)Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (2)
Learning ULearning Ukk(c) and U(c) and U¬¬k k (c)(c)– Minimizing the number of misclassifications?Minimizing the number of misclassifications?
16
Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (3)Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (3)
First, minimize total classification error, like in UTADISFirst, minimize total classification error, like in UTADIS
17
Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (4)Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (4)
Second, further minimize number of misclassificationsSecond, further minimize number of misclassifications
18
Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (5)Multigroup Hierarchical Discrimination (5)
Finally, make UFinally, make Ukk and U and U¬¬kk most distinguished on training most distinguished on training examples, without changing the correctness of any training examples, without changing the correctness of any training exampleexample
19
Dealing with Complex FactorsDealing with Complex Factors
Non-monotone factors exists, such as birthrate, military Non-monotone factors exists, such as birthrate, military expenditureexpenditure
Allow unimodal utility functionAllow unimodal utility function
20
Effect of Unimodal FactorsEffect of Unimodal Factors
Leave one out testLeave one out test
Factors usedFactors used Correctness (%)Correctness (%)
26 monotone factors26 monotone factors 72.772.7
+birthrate+birthrate 78.878.8
+birthrate, military +birthrate, military expenditureexpenditure
81.881.8
21
Estimated Marginal Utility functions of birthrate and military Estimated Marginal Utility functions of birthrate and military expenditureexpenditure
22
Weights of Factor GroupsWeights of Factor Groups
23
Examples and their risk levelExamples and their risk level
risklevel
country
2 I srael1 J apan1 Nether l ands2 I tal y3 Mal aysi a3 Mexi co3 Pol and4 Brazi l
24
Conclusion and Future WorksConclusion and Future Works
Discussed two MCDA methods for country risk classificationDiscussed two MCDA methods for country risk classification– UTADISUTADIS
– MHDISMHDIS
Discussed an extension of MCDA modelsDiscussed an extension of MCDA models– Unimodal factorsUnimodal factors
Future workFuture work– Trade-off between correctness and computation effort for models with Trade-off between correctness and computation effort for models with
unimodal factorsunimodal factors
25
Thank You for Your AttentionThank You for Your Attention
26
BirthrateBirthrate
top related