MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265559954

The Market for Lehmans: The Report of the Bankruptcy Examiner for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

2011· article· en· W2265559954 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher C. Nicholls

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyFinancial crisisAuditBusinessOrder (exchange)Financial servicesEarningsAccountingFinanceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collapse of Lehman Brothers was a pivotal event in the financial crisis that began in the U.S. subprime mortgage market. On January 19, 2009, Judge James Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued an order directing the United States Trustee to appoint an Examiner pursuant to section 1104(c)(2) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The U.S. Trustee appointed as Examiner Mr Anton Valukas. Mr Valukas’s nine volume report, containing over 2200 pages, was released publicly in March 2010. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, as seen through the bankruptcy Examiner’s eyes, provides an extraordinary look into the inner workings of a large financial services firm at the center of the financial crisis, and offers a few poignant lessons. Among other things, the pursuit of accounting earnings through financial legerdemain, rather than genuine value creation, continues to threaten the economic well-being of major corporations and the financial systems of countries in which they operate. External auditors and other professionals must have not only the tools but also the incentive to assist corporate directors both to understand the increasingly complex financial structures used by their firms and, confidently and competently, to challenge the managers and employees who may seek to use them inappropriately. Yet it is also clear that regulatory and supervisory oversight of the financial sector cannot be relied upon to avert financial crisis. Perhaps the principal shortcoming of attempting to divine many more specific lessons from the careful analysis of Lehman’s failure, however, is that we lack any similar dissection of the actions of financial firms that did not fail during the crisis. Was Lehman outlaw, outlier or merely out of luck? In short, we now know a great deal about how Lehman operated. It would be a great mistake, however, to presume that Lehman’s mistakes were the necessary cause, rather than symptoms, of the firm’s decline.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.013

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207