MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521713969

L'effet des activités hors bilan sur la rentabilité et la volatilité des revenus des banques canadiennes

2008· preprint· fr· W1521713969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicolas Pellerin

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2008
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plusieurs études antécédentes montrent que depuis les années 80, la proportion des revenus bancaires provenant d’activités hors bilan n’a cessé d’augmenter. Ces études indiquent aussi que les revenus hors bilan sont beaucoup plus volatils que les revenus nets d’intérêts, et quelques auteurs suggèrent du même coup que le transfert des activités traditionnelles de prêts vers des activités générant des revenus de service ne réduit pas le risque de revenu d’opération et de rendement. Le rendement ne serait pas augmenté non plus par ces activités. Notre analyse, appliquée aux données comptables les plus récentes des banques canadiennes, montre un changement de tendance et suggère que les banques canadiennes se soient mises à mieux gérer l’intégration des activités hors bilan et aient exercé un meilleur contrôle sur celles-ci. La volatilité du revenu d’opération net, telle qu’exprimée par sa variance, a diminué substantiellement au cours de la période 2003-2007, principalement en raison de la diminution de la volatilité des revenus hors bilan. Nos résultats indiquent aussi qu’une hausse la proportion des revenus provenant d’activités hors bilan exerce un effet positif sur les rendements comptables, ce qui diffère des résultats présentés par Calmès et Liu (2007).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207