MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020576722 · doi:10.1142/s2424786315500267

The impacts of financial crisis on sovereign credit risk analysis in Asia and Europe

2015· article· en· W2020576722 on OpenAlexaff
Min Zhang, Adam W. Kolkiewicz, Tony S. Wirjanto, Xindan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit riskSovereign creditFinancial crisisCredit default swapVolatility (finance)Financial systemBusinessStock (firearms)Credit crunchEconomicsFinancial economicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the nature of sovereign credit risk for selected Asian and European countries based on a set of sovereign CDS data over an eight-year period that includes the episode of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis. Our results indicate that there exists strong commonality in sovereign credit risk among the countries studied in this paper following the crisis. In addition, our results also show that commonality is importantly associated with both local and global financial and economic variables. However, there are markedly different impacts of the sovereign of credit risk in Asian and European countries. Specifically, we find that foreign reserve, global stock market, and volatility risk premium, affect Asian and European sovereign credit risks in the opposite direction. Lastly, we model the arrival rates of credit events as a square-root diffusion process from which a pricing model is constructed and estimated over pre- and post-crisis periods. Then the resulting model is used to decompose credit spreads into risk premium and credit-event components. For most countries in our study, credit-event components appear to weight more than risk-premiums.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial EngineeringSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207