MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116245990 · doi:10.19030/iber.v9i11.36

Analysis And Comments On The Consultative Document: International Framework For Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards And Monitoring

2010· article· en· W2116245990 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacques Préfontaine, Jean Desrochers, Lise Godbout

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsMarket liquidityLiquidity riskBusinessCurrencyAccountingEconomicsFinanceMonetary economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The market turmoil that began in mid-2007 re-emphasized the importance of liquidity to the functioning of financial markets and the banking sector. In December 2009, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) released a consultative document entitled: “International Framework for Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards and Monitoring”. Interested parties were invited to provide written comments by April 16th 2010. Given our interest in promoting sound liquidity risk management and supervision, three members of the Chair responded to the BIS request. Today, we share with you a summary of our analysis and comments. Our work first supports the adoption of the BCBS proposals on two new liquidity risk management standards which take the form of a 30-day minimum liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) combined with a one-year minimum net stable funding ratio (NSFR), both to be accompanied by a mandatory set of market-related monitoring tools. Second, we share with you several general comments and suggestions we formulated on the following topics: the need for better coordination, both domestically and internationally between macro and micro-prudential supervision, the need to formulate more precise liquidity risk requirements on foreign currency funding, the importance and usefulness of public financial disclosure, suggestions on extending the use of market-related monitoring rules and metrics. Third, we also share with you more specific comments and suggestions formulated on the following topics : areas of further work like intra-group and cross border liquidity risk management, selling to gauge market liquidity, clarifying LCR and NSFR definitions, credit rating downgrades, and defining required stable funding categories. Fourth, the results of the analysis support the need to promote a more level business and supervisory playing field for all internationally active banks. Last but not least, we draw the risk-return and financial implications for Canadian banks of the adoption of the BCBS proposals for liquidity risk management and supervision.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER)Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207