MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094098217 · doi:10.1515/bejm-2021-0078

Charge-offs, Defaults and the Financial Accelerator

2022· article· en· W3094098217 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher M. Gunn, Alok Johri, Marc‐André Letendre

Bibliographic record

VenueThe B E Journal of Macroeconomics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDefaultEconomicsVariance (accounting)Investment (military)Financial acceleratorEconometricsSurpriseStandard deviationMonetary economicsFinanceDynamic stochastic general equilibriumStatisticsMathematicsMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract U.S. banks countercyclically vary the ratio of charge-offs to defaulted loans (COD) and the standard deviation of COD is roughly 15 times that of GDP. We show that canonical financial accelerator models cannot explain these facts, but introducing stochastic default costs and stochastic risk can potentially resolve the discrepancy. Estimating the augmented model and including both surprise and news shocks reveals that default cost news shocks account for most of the variance of COD. Also, in the many model specifications we work with, default cost news shocks always account for at least 20 percent of the variance of investment, while risk news shocks account for a significant portion of the variation in the credit spread, and around 10 percent of the variation in investment growth. Both news shocks also account for a material amount of the variance of hours and output growth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe B E Journal of MacroeconomicsSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207