MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk‐Based Capital and Credit Insurance Portfolios

2010· article· en· W2108921918 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Markets Institutions and Instruments · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit riskCapital adequacy ratioBusinessCapital requirementRisk-adjusted return on capitalActuarial scienceLoanEconomic capitalProbability of defaultEconomicsFinanceFinancial capitalCapital formationHuman capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the risk‐management practices of a vulnerable credit insurer by studying the effects of time‐varying correlations, asset risks and loan maturities on the risk‐based capital that backs credit insurance portfolios. Since asset correlations may change over a business cycle, we have analyzed these effects by means of a one‐factor Gaussian stochastic model as part of an extended contingent claims analysis. Our results show the need to account for cyclical changes to correlations in the pricing of credit insurance. When compared with the reserve of risk‐based capital recommended by the Basel II Internal Ratings‐Based (IRB) approach, our model provides a better capital buffer against extreme credit losses, especially in times of recession and/or in a risky business environment. Using a risk‐adjusted performance metric (RAPM), we find insurers perform better when insuring relatively short‐term loans. We also make several policy recommendations on creating a reserve of risk‐based capital to protect against possible loan losses.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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