Interconnected Risk Contributions: A Heavy-Tail Approach to Analyze U.S. Financial Sectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the dynamic evolution of tail risk interdependence among U.S. banks, financial services and insurance sectors. Life and non-life insurers have been considered separately to account for their different characteristics. The tail risk interdependence measurement framework relies on the multivariate Student-t Markov switching (MS) model and the multiple-conditional value-at-risk (CoVaR) (conditional expected shortfall (CoES)) risk measures introduced in Bernardi et al. (2013), accounting for both the stylized facts of financial data and the contemporaneous multiple joint distress events. The Shapley value methodology is then applied to compose the puzzle of individual risk attributions, providing a synthetic measure of tail interdependence. Our empirical investigation finds that banks appear to contribute more to the tail risk evolution of all of the remaining sectors, followed by the financial services and the insurance sectors, showing that the insurance sector significantly contributes as well to the overall risk. We also find that the role of each sector in contributing to other sectors’ distress evolves over time according to the current predominant financial condition, implying different interdependence strength.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".