Incorporating Macroeconomic Indicators to Improve P2P Lending Credit Risk Modeling: A Machine Learning-Based Heterogeneity Analysis

Authors

  • Yuanbo Guo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61173/rjf59897

Keywords:

P2P lending, Credit risk, Macroeconomic indicators, Machine learning, Heterogeneity analysis

Abstract

This study investigates the improvement effect of macroeconomic indicators on credit risk modeling in the P2P lending market, focusing on near-prime borrower groups and short-term loan segments. Based on 171,644 loans from Lending Club platform during 2012-2013, this paper compares the performance of four machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, random forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM) under baseline feature sets (borrower/loan characteristics only) and enhanced feature sets (including regional macroeconomic indicators). Empirical results demonstrate: (1) Logistic regression achieves optimal performance-stability balance after integrating macroeconomic indicators, with AUC improving 1.08% to 0.6854, KS statistic increasing 3.82%, while maintaining 1.0% overfitting degree; (2) Model performance improvement exhibits significant heterogeneity, with 36-month short-term loans achieving 1.41% AUC improvement, and near-prime borrowers (FICO 620-680) showing 2-3 times higher sensitivity to unemployment rate fluctuations compared to other groups; (3) SHAP analysis reveals macroeconomic indicators contribute 3%-5% to predictive power, with interaction terms between macro and baseline features significantly outperforming single macro indicators. The study provides empirical support for P2P platforms to construct group-specific risk pricing models.

References

[1] Baumöhl M, Lyócsa S, Vašaničová Z. Macroeconomic environments and P2P loan performance across platforms. International Review of Financial Analysis, 2024, 95: 102987.

[2] Vassalou M, Xing Y. Default risk in equity returns. Journal of Finance, 2004, 59(2): 831-868.

[3] Bharath ST, Shumway T. Forecasting default with the Merton distance to default model. Review of Financial Studies, 2008, 21(3): 1339-1369.

[4] Ho J, Gu S, Yan X, Gozgor G. Peer effects in P2P lending: Evidence from Renrendai. International Review of Financial Analysis, 2024, 94: 102956.

[5] Kelly B, Xiu D. Machine learning for finance. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 2023, 15: 379-406.

[6] Financial Conduct Authority. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Financial Services. FCA Policy Statement, 2023.

[7] Emekter R, Tu Y, Jirasakuldech B, Lu M. Evaluating credit risk and loan performance in online peer-to-peer (P2P) lending. Applied Economics, 2015, 47(1): 54-70.

[8] Altman EI. Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 1968, 23(4): 589-609.

[9] Beaver WH. Financial ratios as predictors of failure. Journal of Accounting Research, 1966, 4(1): 71-111.

[10] Ohlson JA. Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research, 1980, 18(1): 109-131.

[11] Baals L, Osterrieder J, Hirsa A. Macro-credit regimes and P2P lending spreads. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2025, 158: 107234.

[12] Ljungqvist L, Sargent TJ. Recursive Macroeconomic Theory (4th ed). MIT Press, 2017.

[13] Campbell JY, Cocco JF. How do house prices affect consumption? Evidence from micro data. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2007, 54(3): 591-621.

[14] Bone-Winkel J, Reichenbach K. Survival analysis for P2P credit risk: A boosted Cox approach. Digital Finance, 2024, 6(1): 1-24.

[15] Serrano-Cinca C, Gutiérrez-Nieto B, López-Palacios L. Determinants of default in P2P lending. PLoS One, 2015, 10(10): e0139427.

[16] Berg T, Burg V, Gombović A, Puri M. On the rise of FinTechs: Credit scoring using digital footprints. Review of Financial Studies, 2020, 33(7): 2845-2897.

[17] Gu S, Kelly B, Xiu D. Empirical asset pricing via machine learning. Review of Financial Studies, 2020, 33(5): 2223-2273.

[18] Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning (2nd ed). Springer, 2009.

[19] Breiman L. Random forests. Machine Learning, 2001, 45(1): 5-32.

[20] Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference, 2016: 785-794.

[21] Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T, et al. LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, 30: 3146-3154.

[22] Lundberg SM, Lee SI. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, 30: 4765-4774.

[23] Molnar C. Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable. Independently Published, 2022.

[24] Lending Club Corporation. Lending Club Statistics. Available at: https://www.lendingclub.com/info/statistics.action. Accessed December 2023.

[25] Leow M, Mues C. Predicting loss given default (LGD) for residential mortgage loans: A two-stage model and empirical evidence for UK bank data. International Journal of Forecasting, 2012, 28(1): 183-195.

[26] Diebold FX, Mariano RS. Comparing predictive accuracy. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 2002, 20(1): 134- 144.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-19