Relative Contribution of Public Sector, Banking Sector, and Non-Bank Financial Sector Claims in U.S. Global Banks' Exposure to Foreign Counterparties' Default Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper relies on accounting-based measures of country risk to investigate U.S. global banks' exposure to foreign country risk over the 2017 fiscal year as measured by the sum of cross-border risk, foreign office risk, and derivative risk claims. We achieve this using panel linear modeling methods with country level heterogeneity and time fixed effects, along with a constructed panel data of 284 observations on 71 countries distributed across 6 world regional blocks, and observed over 4 consecutive quarters starting from 4th quarter 2016 and ending with 3rd quarter 2017. The results show that on average, over the four quarters, a 1% increase in foreign banking sector's claims significantly increases U.S. global banks cross border risk exposure by 0.34%, while reducing derivative risk exposure by 0.22%, but have no significant impact on foreign office risk exposure. Similar results are observed with public sector claims which significantly increase banks' exposure to cross border risk by 0.21%, while reducing derivative risk exposure by 0.19%. Conversely however, non-bank financial sector claims are found to have no significant affect on cross-border risk exposure, but significantly reduce foreign office risk exposure by 0.09%, while increasing derivative risk exposure by 0.06%. These results indicate the presence of sectoral heterogeneities in U.S. banks' exposure to foreign counterparties' risk, and also that overall, over the course of 2017 the level of U.S. global banks' cross-border risk exposure increased, while their level of derivative risk exposure decreased, and the level of foreign office risk exposure remained relatively unchanged.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".