The Pandemic Crisis and the Resulted Risks for the Fully Funded Pension Funds in Central and Eastern Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pandemic crisis strongly hit the capital markets at the beginning of 2020. The value of most of the financial assets dropped significantly in the first quarter of the year, which resulted in poor returns of the portfolios managed by the pension funds in Europe. However, the reaction of the central banks was immediate – the liquidity supplied to the financial markets was unique in its amount. The prices of most of the blue-chip equities and triple A bonds have been rising since the second quarter of the year. Did pension funds in Central and Eastern Europe manage to recover losses incurred at the beginning of the year and what are the main risks for them in the short and in the long term taking into account the monetary policy stance followed by the European central bank and The Federal Reserve? These are the basic issues on focus of the current research. The aim of the paper is to show that pandemic crisis has immediate and strong effect on the investment results of the pension funds but only in the short term. The policy followed by the central banks could have far deeper consequences on fully funded pension schemes and insured individuals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".