Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we provide a practical framework and methodology for analyzing the effects of banking shocks (economic or financial in nature) on bank fundamentals, that avoids the use of complicated econometrics methods. For this, we focus our attention to the effects of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis on the four largest US banks and examine the variation of trends in the select financial ratios for those institutions using quarterly regulatory data running from 2002-Q4 to 2020-Q2. We start by plotting time series charts of those financial ratios for each bank and compare the before-crisis, transition and after-crisis periods. For this, we simply fit trend lines with three parameters of shift, slope, and volatility to the banking data. The shift parameter describes the level change of the variable when before- and after-crisis periods are compared. The slope parameter pronounces the difference in steepness of the trend lines, while the volatility parameter is associated with all three periods and describe the variation in the data during each period. Our results indicate that capital ratios, an important regulatory financial ratio, are higher across the board in the after-crisis period compared to before-crisis period, suggesting a positive shift. We don’t see significant changes in slope parameter for the capital ratio series leading us to suggest the use of dummy variable regression model where slope is treated as a fixed constant. We further show that pre-crisis and transition periods are characterized by higher volatilities that ultimately subside in the after-crisis period. Lastly, we conclude by suggesting that financial practitioners use the shift, slope and volatility parameters in understanding trends in financial time series data since it is easy to implement and interpret the results compared to more sophisticated econometric models.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".