MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545478929 · doi:10.20955/wp.2000.021

The role of a CAMEL downgrade model in bank surveillance

2000· preprint· en· W1545478929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Lee Gilbert, Andrew P. Meyer, Mark D. Vaughan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowngradeBank failureBusinessActuarial scienceEconometric modelFinanceQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsComputer scienceEconometricsComputer securityGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the potential contribution to bank supervision of a model designed to predict which banks will have their supervisory ratings downgraded in future periods.Bank supervisors rely on various tools of off-site surveillance to track the condition of banks under their jurisdiction between on-site examinations, including econometric models.One of the models that the Federal Reserve System uses for surveillance was estimated to predict bank failures.Because bank failures have been so rare during the last decade, the coefficients on this model have been "frozen" since 1991.Each quarter the surveillance staff at the Board of Governors provide the supervision staff in the Reserve Banks the probabilities of failure by the banks subject to Fed supervision, based on the coefficients of this bank failure model and the latest call report data for each bank.The number of banks downgraded to problem status in recent years has been substantially larger than the number of bank failures.During a period of few bank failures, the relevance of this bank failure model for surveillance depends to some extent on the accuracy of the model in predicting which banks will have their supervisory ratings downgraded to problem status in future periods.This paper compares the ability of two models to predict downgrades of supervisory ratings to problem status: the Board staff model, which was estimated to predict bank failures, and a model estimated to predict downgrades of supervisory ratings.We find that both models do about as well in predicting downgrades of supervisory ratings for the early 1990s.Over time, however, the ability of the downgrade model to predict downgrades improves relative to that of the model The Role of a CAMEL Downgrade Model in Bank Surveillance 3 estimated to predict failures.This pattern reflects the value of using a model for surveillance that can be re-estimated frequently.We conclude that the downgrade model may prove to be a useful supplement to the Board's model for estimating failures during periods when most banks are healthy, but that the downgrade model should not be considered a replacement for the current surveillance framework.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations42
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207