MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122789573

Bank-related loan supply factors during the crisis: An analysis based on the German bank lending survey

2011· preprint· en· W3122789573 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barno Blaes

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Market liquidityLoanFinancial systemPosition (finance)Bank rateFinancial crisisBusinessChinese financial systemPanel dataOfficial cash rateGermanEconomicsMonetary economicsFinanceMonetary policyCentral bankMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses the role of bank-related constraints in explaining the sharp slowdown in bank lending to non-financial corporations in Germany during the recent financial crisis. We use a panel approach based on a unique data set which matches the individual responses of the banks participating in the Eurosystem's Bank Lending Survey with the corresponding micro data on loan quantities and prices. Our main finding is that bank-related supply and demand-side indicators were both important in explaining the slowdown of bank lending during the crisis years. The results suggest that the dampening impact of the bank-related restrictions was strongest from the third quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2010. Over this short period, more than one-third of the explained negative loan development was due to the restrictive adjustments of purely bank-related factors, such as the costs related to the bank's capital, market financing conditions and the bank's liquidity position.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207