MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180143153 · doi:10.19030/iber.v6i7.3380

The Informational Content Of The VaR Measures Associated With The Trading Activities Of Canadian Banks

2011· article· en· W2180143153 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dominique Houde, Jean Desrochers, Denis Martel, Jacques Préfontaine

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsShareholderEquity (law)BusinessPosition (finance)Liberian dollarSample (material)Financial marketMarket riskEconomicsMonetary economicsFinanceAccountingFinancial system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the informational content and the usefulness of Canadian banks' market risk public disclosures. Risk managers use Value at Risk (VAR) as a measure of the dollar amount of a large potential loss to a bank's trading income and common shareholders' equity as a result of extreme and low-probability market price changes. Five different VAR metrics (high, low, range of estimates, average and end-of-period values) are now published and recognized benchmarks for measuring market risk exposure, and its potential impact on a bank's financial position. At the explicit request of regulators, financial analysts and competitive pressures, most large commercial banks in North America are now reporting the five forms of VAR numbers described above in their quarterly and annual financial reports. To examine preliminary evidence on the informational content of such public financial disclosures, we composed a sample of seven of Canada's largest commercial banks. In particular, we investigate if "ex ante" VAR numbers help financial analysts, investors, and regulators to explain the subsequent variability of commercial banks' trading income and of their ratio of market value to book value of common shareholders' equity over time.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER)Same topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207