Advertisement

Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 921–937 | Cite as

A fuzzy decision support system for credit scoring

  • Joshua Ignatius
  • Adel Hatami-Marbini
  • Amirah Rahman
  • Lalitha Dhamotharan
  • Pegah Khoshnevis
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Credit score is a creditworthiness index, which enables the lender (bank and credit card companies) to evaluate its own risk exposure toward a particular potential customer. There are several credit scoring methods available in the literature, but one that is widely used is the FICO method. This method provides a score ranging from 300 to 850 as a fast filter for high-volume complex credit decisions. However, it falls short in the aspect of a decision support system where revised scoring can be achieved to reflect the borrower’s strength and weakness in each scoring dimension, as well as the possible trade-offs made to maintain one’s lending risk. Hence, this study discusses and develops a decision support tool for credit score model based on multi-criteria decision-making principles. In the proposed methodology, criteria weights are generated by fuzzy AHP. Fuzzy linguistic theory is applied in AHP to describe the uncertainties and vagueness arising from human subjectivity in decision making. Finally, drawing from the risk distance function, TOPSIS is used to rank the alternatives based on the least risk exposure. A sensitivity analysis is also demonstrated by the proposed fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method.

Keywords

Credit scoring FICO Fuzzy AHP TOPSIS 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Arya S, Eckel C, Wichman C (2013) Anatomy of the credit score. J Econ Behav Organ 95(11):175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baesens B, Setiono R, Mues C, Vanthienen J (2003) Using neural network rule extraction and decision tables for credit-risk evaluation. Manag Sci 49(3):312–329CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behzadian M, Hosseini-Motlagh SM, Ignatius J, Goh M, Sepehri MM (2013) PROMETHEE group decision support system and the house of quality. Group Decis Negot 22(2):189–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200(1):198–215CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl 39(17):13051–13069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernanke BS (2007) The Community Reinvestment Act: its evolution and new challenges. Paper presented at the Community Affairs Research Conference, Washington, DC. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20070330a.htm#f6
  7. 7.
    Bilbao-Terol A, Arenas-Parra M, Cañal-Fernández V, Antomil-Ibias J (2014) Using TOPSIS for assessing the sustainability of government bond funds. OMEGA 16(5):469–480Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burrell PR, Folarin BO (1997) The impact of neural networks in finance. Neural Comput Appl 6(4):193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calantone RJ, Di Benedetto CA, Errunza VR (1988) The use of discrete variable selections for credit evaluations. OMEGA 16(5):469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Capotorti A, Barbanera E (2012) Credit scoring analysis using a fuzzy probabilistic rough set model. Comput Stat Data Anal 56(4):981–994MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Celik M, Deha Er I, Ozok AF (2009) Application of fuzzy extended AHP methodology on shipping registry selection: the case of Turkish maritime industry. Expert Syst Appl 36(1):190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang D-Y (1992) Extent analysis and synthetic decision. Optim Tech Appl 1:352MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang D-Y (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng EWL, Chiang YH, Tang BS (2007) Alternative approach to credit scoring by DEA: evaluating borrowers with respect to PFI projects. Build Environ 42(4):1752–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desai VS, Crook JN, Overstreet GA Jr (1996) A comparison of neural networks and linear scoring models in the credit union environment. Eur J Oper Res 95(1):24–37CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dubois D, Prade H (1980) Systems of linear fuzzy constraints. Fuzzy Sets Syst 3:37–48MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Emel AB, Oral M, Reisman A, Yolalan R (2003) A credit scoring approach for the commercial banking sector. Socio Econ Plan Sci 37(2):103–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fahner G (2012) Estimating causal effects of credit decisions. Int J Forecast 28(1):248–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Falbo P (1991) Credit-scoring by enlarged discriminant models. OMEGA 19(4):275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Giesecke K, Kim B (2011) Systemic risk: what defaults are telling us. Manag Sci 57(8):1387–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hatami-Marbini A, Tavana M (2011) An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega 39(4):373–386CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hatami-Marbini A, Tavana M, Hajipour V, Kangi F, Kazemi A (2013) An extended compromise ratio method for fuzzy group multi-attribute decision making with SWOT analysis. Appl Soft Comput 13(8):3459–3472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hatami-Marbini A, Tavana M, Moradi M, Kangi F (2013) A fuzzy group Electre method for safety and health assessment in hazardous waste recycling facilities. Saf Sci 51(1):414–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hajialiakbari F, Gholami MH, Roshandel J, Hatami-Shirkouhi L (2013) Assessment of the effect on technical efficiency of bad loans in banking industry: a principal component analysis and neuro-fuzzy system. Neural Comput Appl 23(1):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186(1):211–228MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. In: Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, vol 186. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Iç YT (2012) Development of a credit limit allocation model for banks using an integrated Fuzzy TOPSIS and linear programming. Expert Syst Appl 39(5):5309–5316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iç YT, Yurdakul M (2009) Development of a quick credibility scoring decision support system using fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Javanbarg MB, Scawthorn C, Kiyono J, Shahbodaghkhan B (2012) Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization. Expert Syst Appl 39(1):960–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kulak O, Kahraman C (2005) Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Inf Sci 170(2–4):191–210CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin SJ, Hsu MF (2016) Incorporated risk metrics and hybrid AI techniques for risk management. Neural Comput Appl 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2253-4
  33. 33.
    Malhotra R, Malhotra DK (2002) Differentiating between good credits and bad credits using neuro-fuzzy systems. Eur J Oper Res 136(1):190–211CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Malhotra R, Malhotra DK (2003) Evaluating consumer loans using neural networks. Omega 31(2):83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mikhailov L (2004) A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):687–704MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P (2004) Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput 5(1):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Min JH, Lee Y-C (2008) A practical approach to credit scoring. Expert Syst Appl 35(4):1762–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Motlagh SMH, Behzadian M, Ignatius J, Goh M, Sepehri MM, Hua TK (2015) Fuzzy PROMETHEE GDSS for technical requirements ranking in HOQ. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76(9):1993–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosenberg E, Gleit A (1994) Quantitative methods in credit management: a survey. Oper Res 42(4):589–613CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Troutt MD, Rai A, Zhang A (1996) The potential use of DEA for credit applicant acceptance systems. Comput Oper Res 23(4):405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    West D (2000) Neural network credit scoring models. Comput Oper Res 27(11–12):1131–1152CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wiginton JC (1980) A note on the comparison of logit and discriminant models of consumer credit behavior. J Financ Quant Anal 15(03):757–770. doi: 10.2307/2330408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu L, Wang S, Lai KK (2009) An intelligent-agent-based fuzzy group decision making model for financial multicriteria decision support: the case of credit scoring. Eur J Oper Res 195(3):942–959MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yurdakul M, İç YT (2004) AHP approach in the credit evaluation of the manufacturing firms in Turkey. Int J Prod Econ 88(3):269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zimmerman HJ (1996) Fuzzy sets theory and its applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Ignatius
    • 1
  • Adel Hatami-Marbini
    • 2
  • Amirah Rahman
    • 1
  • Lalitha Dhamotharan
    • 3
  • Pegah Khoshnevis
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Mathematical SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Strategic Management and Marketing, Leicester Business SchoolDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  3. 3.School of Mathematical Sciences, and School of Mathematical SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia
  4. 4.Faculty of Economics and BusinessKU LeuvenBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options