A Stochastic Uncertainty-Propagation Framework for Forward-Looking Expected Credit Loss Under IFRS 9: An Empirical Illustration from an Emerging-Market Banking Portfolio

Authors

Charles Otieno Ndede

Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi (Kenya)

David Chepkonga

Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi (Kenya)

Cheruiyot Kipkoech

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The Technical University of Kenya, Nairobi (Kenya)

Article Information

DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1309000024

Subject Category: Mathematics

Volume/Issue: 13/9 | Page No: 278-291

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-09-11

Accepted: 2026-09-16

Published: 2026-09-30

Abstract

IFRS 9 requires expected credit loss (ECL) measurement to incorporate past events, current conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts of future economic conditions. This study develops a stochastic uncertainty-propagation framework that maps uncertainty in credit-risk inputs and economic scenarios into a distribution of model-implied portfolio ECL. The framework retains the 12-month/lifetime distinction across IFRS 9 impairment stages, represents default timing through marginal default probabilities, and combines scenario-specific credit-risk quantities using probability weights and discounting. The empirical illustration uses an aggregated Kenyan banking portfolio comprising ABF Retail, Check Off, Non-Check Off and Retail Secured exposures, with total exposure of KES 286,404 million and a deterministic ECL benchmark of KES 15,245 million. The computational experiment follows a transparent design using explicit lognormal uncertainty factors, scenario probabilities, dependence assumptions, a fixed random seed and an independently reproducible simulation protocol. A 100,000-run Monte Carlo experiment produces a mean model-implied ECL of KES 15,193.40 million, standard deviation of KES 1,398.67 million and a central 90% interval of KES 13,025.71–17,587.48 million. The mean is 0.34% below the deterministic benchmark. Sensitivity analysis shows that alternative scenario weights and dependence assumptions change dispersion and tail outcomes while leaving the central estimate relatively stable. The results demonstrate uncertainty propagation rather than predictive superiority; account-level longitudinal data are required for calibration, back-testing and comparison with alternative IFRS 9 models. The analysis also documents numerical convergence and scenario-conditional behavior, providing a transparent basis for interpreting central and tail outcomes. The study therefore contributes a reproducible methodological architecture while identifying the empirical requirements for subsequent validation.

Keywords

IFRS 9; expected credit loss; stochastic modelling; Monte Carlo simulation; credit risk. JEL Classification: G21; G28; C15; C63

Downloads

References

1. Botha, A., & Verster, T. (2026). Approaches for modelling the term-structure of default risk under IFRS 9: A tutorial using discrete-time survival analysis. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 22, 67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Elashmawy, S., & Kallunki, J.-P. (2026). Does forward-looking accounting improve bank asset quality? Accounting in Europe, 23(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2025.2470719 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Gross, M., & Millischer, L. (2025). Credit loss in translation: Informing bank provisions and capital buffer requirements with forward-looking credit loss distributions. IMF Working Paper 2025/228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. International Accounting Standards Board. (2014). IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. IFRS Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. International Accounting Standards Board. (2023). Request for Information: Post-implementation Review of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments—Impairment. IFRS Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Jakubik, P., & Teleu, S. (2025). Improving credit risk assessment in uncertain times: Insights from IFRS 9. Risks, 13(2), 38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kvaal, E., Löw, E., Novotny-Farkas, Z., Panaretou, A., Renders, A., & Sampers, P. (2024). Classification and measurement under IFRS 9: A commentary and suggestions for future research. Accounting in Europe, 21(2), 154–175. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Moodley, S., Verster, T., & Raubenheimer, H. (2025). A pragmatic macroeconomic default risk adjustment in developing countries. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 28(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Schutte, W. D., Verster, T., Doody, D., Raubenheimer, H., & Coetzee, P. J. (2020). A proposed benchmark model using a modularised approach to calculate IFRS 9 expected credit loss. Cogent Economics & Finance, 8(1), 1735681. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles