MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175437219 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v29i1.7563

Implications Of Basel III For Capital, Liquidity, Profitability, And Solvency Of Global Systematically Important Banks

2012· article· en· W2175437219 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Préfontaine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolvencyBasel IIIMarket liquidityCapital requirementRisk-adjusted return on capitalProfitability indexBasel IFinancial systemBasel IIEconomicsLiquidity riskCapital adequacy ratioRisk-weighted assetMonetary policyBusinessMonetary economicsFinanceFinancial capitalCapital formationHuman capitalMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to study the profitability and solvency implications of the proposed Basel III capital and liquidity requirements in the global banking context. The intent is to improve our understanding on how the Basel III capital and liquidity requirements impact upon the functioning of global systematically important banks (GSIBs), and how this knowledge could prove to be useful in answering questions of policy relevance like financial stability in economics. A longer-term perspective is taken in order to link capital and liquidity requirements with the notion of systemic risk within the evolution of the international financial and monetary system. Of special interest is the interaction between macroeconomic policy - including monetary, exchange rate and combined micro-macro-prudential policy within the setting of present-day Basel III regulatory and supervisory reforms. More specifically, the paper addresses two related issues: first, it studies and presents several financial indicators that GSIBs disclose; second, it examines how these same indicators could be related to GSIBs profitability and solvency.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR)Same topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207