MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116100906

Bank Risk-Taking Behavior during a Prolonged Low Interest Rate Era: The Case of Thailand

2020· article· en· W3116100906 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kovit Charnvitayapong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economics & Management Strategy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Interest rate riskInterest rateQuantile regressionMonetary economicsQuarter (Canadian coin)LiabilityBusinessEconomicsRegression analysisQuantileBalance sheetEconometricsActuarial scienceFinanceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT   The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of prolonged expansionary monetary policy upon bank risks in Thailand. The data comprised balance sheets for 19 commercial banks from the first quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2019. The study hypothesized that prolonged low interest rates could impact the bank sources of liability-side funding, leading to leverage, and that different-sized banks may react differently. The results from a two-stage procedure showed that banks may borrow more to invest in risky projects if investment sensitivity to leverage has an inverse relationship with the prolonged low interest rate. This study used a fixed effects model to compare three risk proxies and justified the usage of leverage as a risk measure. These findings indicated that small- and medium-sized banks tended to take more risks than large banks. The final section used quantile regression to analyze the interest rate impact and other variables upon different levels of bank risks. The results indicated that different-sized banks responded differently to various variables under low-interest rate conditions. Keywords: prolonged low interest rate, leverage, risk, two-stage procedure, quantile regression

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economics & Management StrategySame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207