Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Banks test their probability-of-default (PD) grades by comparing the default rate in each grade with the assigned PD, usually by a binomial or Jeffreys test that treats borrowers as independent. Defaults are not independent: a common economic factor moves all of them. I prove that in the one-factor Gaussian model the variance of a grade's default rate equals the binomial variance plus a term equal to the variance of the conditional PD, which does not shrink with the number of borrowers. The information in one year of data is therefore capped: with an asset correlation of 0.04, the Basel value for credit cards, a grade of any size is worth at most 40 to 85 independent borrowers at the PDs studied here. As a consequence, the binomial test rejects a correct PD in 40% to 89% of years for grades of 1,000 to 10,000 borrowers, and its size tends to 1 as the grade grows. Detecting a PD understated by 25% needs 20 years of data at a 5% PD and 36 years at 1%. I apply the tests to a seven-grade logistic PD model fitted to the UCI credit-card default data (30,000 accounts, hold-out AUC 0.787). Within the single observation period the hold-out default counts agree with the grade PDs (joint chi-square p = 0.116). I explain why that within-period test is valid but says nothing about calibration in future years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manoj Kumar Aguru (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: