MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166197510

How Can Banks Enhance International Connectivity with Business Customers?: A Study of HSBC

2017· article· en· W3166197510 on OpenAlexaff
Carolan McLarney, Christofer Trudeau

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisBusinessInternational businessDifferentiatorRevenueInternational marketBusiness administrationIndustrial organizationAccountingMarketingTelecommunicationsCommerceManagementEngineeringEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Business customers represent a key source of HSBC’s revenue. In 2014, of HSBCs $18.9 bn reported profit before tax, $8 bn or 42.3% was driven by their commercial banking arm. HSBC is at risk of losing business customers because of the challenges facing its international network. For over 150 years, HSBC’s brick and mortar branches were gateways to international markets. Operating in all time zones, HSBC’s global network was a key differentiator among its competitors and the primary lure for business customers. However, the banking sector is experiencing a paradigm shift, and HSBC needs to recalibrate its global network in order to stay relevant in a fast-changing industry. Given the backdrop, HSBC must execute a multi-pronged approach to enhancing international connectivity for its business customers. Distinct elements such as technology, partnerships, and emerging markets make up the challenge for HSBC’s network and each must be addressed using unique strategies. The analysis of HSBC’s network through different perspectives helps to isolate key gaps to be addressed. This paper has reviewed HSBC’s current international network, what it means for business customers, and suggests various strategies to secure its relationships with business customers.

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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicOutsourcing and Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207