MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124128593 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhaa123

Demand Effects in the FX Forward Market: Micro Evidence from Banks’ Dollar Hedging

2020· article· en· W3124128593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Puriya Abbassi, Falk Bräuning

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarMonetary economicsHedgeBalance sheetArbitrageQuarter (Canadian coin)Interest rate parityEconomicsForward contractBusinessInterest rateFinancial economicsFinanceFutures contract

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using contract-level supervisory data, we show that dollar forward sales by non-U.S. banks that are initiated at the end of a quarter and mature shortly after it concludes trade at higher prices and higher volumes. These effects are driven by banks with large net on-balance-sheet dollar assets that they can hedge around quarter ends by selling dollars forward (increasing off-balance-sheet short positions), which suggests regulatory arbitrage to reduce capital charges for open foreign exchange (FX) exposure. Our results indicate that demand effects related to banks’ management of FX exposure are an important driver of deviations from covered interest rate parity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207