Impact Analysis of Financial Regulation on Multi-Asset Markets Using Artificial Market Simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we assessed the impact of capital adequacy ratio (CAR) regulation in the Basel regulatory framework. This regulation was established to make the banking network robust. However, a previous work argued that CAR regulation has a destabilization effect on financial markets. To assess impacts such as destabilizing effects, we conducted simulations of an artificial market, one of the computer simulations imitating real financial markets. In the simulation, we proposed and used a new model with continuous double auction markets, stylized trading agents, and two kinds of portfolio trading agents. Both portfolio trading agents had trading strategies incorporating Markowitz’s portfolio optimization. Additionally, one type of portfolio trading agent was under regulation. From the simulations, we found that portfolio optimization as each trader’s strategy stabilizes markets, and CAR regulation destabilizes markets in various aspects. These results show that CAR regulation can have negative effects on asset markets. As future work, we should confirm these effects empirically and consider how to balance between both positive and negative aspects of CAR regulation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it