MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542883543 · doi:10.5430/afr.v5n4p137

Credit Provision Strategy during Financial Crisis Using Bank Accounting Data

2016· article· en· W2542883543 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eleftherios Aggelopoulos, Vasileios Giannopoulos, Evgenia Mpourou

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoanCredit crunchInterest rateFinancial crisisFinancial systemBusinessTerm loanQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsFinanceMonetary economicsNon-performing loanNon-conforming loanMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the changes in credit provision for the Greek Banking Sector before and during the financial crisis. Also, it investigates the impact of specific loan characteristics in shaping the overall interest rate of new and existing business loans. A data set with monthly accounting data of Greek Banks for the period January 2003 to June 2011 is utilized, thus incorporating the crisis effects. The study findings reveal the beginning of the credit crunch at the third quarter of 2009. As far as new loans are concerned, it was found that large loans are priced less than the small ones. Moreover, the results show the greater and positive contribution of small loans to the derivation of the total lending interest rate. Furthermore, it is found that the bargaining power of large borrowers during the crisis causes a negative impact of large loans on the total interest rate. Finally, it is shown that in the existing loan portfolio, the crisis significantly reduces the effect of short-term loans, while simultaneously intensifies the positive effect of medium and long-term loans. The findings have important managerial implications for bank managers and policymakers.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207