MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk‐Based Capital and Credit Insurance Portfolios

2010· article· en· W2108921918 on OpenAlexaff
Van Son Lai, Issouf Soumaré

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Markets Institutions and InstrumentsSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207