MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124304923 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2012.11.025

A study on relationship between tail risk on earning management in Iranian banking industry

2013· article· en· W2124304923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard, Aazam Samadi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIslamic Azad University
KeywordsBanking industryBusinessOperations managementOperational riskRisk managementIndustrial organizationMarketingRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementComputer scienceAccountingFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk management plays an important role in banking industry and there are literally many investigations to reduce any risk components in this industry. In this paper, we present a study on relationship between tail risk on earning management in Iranian banking industry. In this survey, we use two series of data. The first set is associated with yearly information of 19 different banks over the period 2005-2011 and it contains 114 observations. The second set of data includes weekly historical data of eight banks over the same period 2005-2011. In this survey, there are four objectives to be investigated. The first hypothesis considers the effects of seven independent variables on loan loss allowance as a fraction of total loans. The second model is associated with the effects of two independent variables on realized gains and losses on securities. The third objective is to study the effects of different independent variables with various interruptions on return of banking sectors. Finally, the last model investigates the effects of revenue management on tail risk. The result of this survey indicates that there is no relationship between tail risk and earning management.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207