A comparison of data mining techniques for credit scoring in banking: A managerial perspective
Loading...

Date
2009
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Vilnius Gediminas Tech Univ
Open Access Color
GOLD
Green Open Access
Yes
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
Abstract
Credit scoring is a very important task for lenders to evaluate the loan applications they receive from consumers as well as for insurance companies which use scoring systems today to evaluate new policyholders and the risks these prospective customers might present to the insurer. Credit scoring systems are used to model the potential risk of loan applications which have the advantage of being able to handle a large volume of credit applications quickly with minimal labour thus reducing operating costs and they may be an effective substitute for the use of judgment among inexperienced loan officers thus helping to control bad debt losses. This study explores the performance of credit scoring models using traditional and artificial intelligence approaches: discriminant analysis logistic regression neural networks and classification and regression trees. Experimental studies using real world data sets have demonstrated that the classification and regression trees and neural networks outperform the traditional credit scoring models in terms of predictive accuracy and type II errors. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Description
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence Techniques, Bank Lending, Credit Scoring, Data Mining, Artificial Intelligence Techniques, Bank Lending, Data Mining, Credit Scoring, credit scoring, artifi cial intelligence techniques, HF5001-6182, bank lending, Business, data mining, Articles
Fields of Science
0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, 02 engineering and technology
Citation
WoS Q
Scopus Q

OpenCitations Citation Count
61
Source
Journal of Business Economics and Management
Volume
10
Issue
3
Start Page
233
End Page
240
PlumX Metrics
Citations
CrossRef : 39
Scopus : 81
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 193
Google Scholar™


