Predicting Bank Failures: A Synthesis of Literature and Directions for Future Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk management has been a topic of great interest to Michael McAleer. Even as recent as 2020, his paper on risk management for COVID-19 was published. In his memory, this article is focused on bankruptcy risk in financial firms. For financial institutions in particular, banks are considered special, given that they perform risk management functions that are unique. Risks in banking arise from both internal and external factors. The GFC underlined the need for comprehensive risk management, and researchers since then have been working towards fulfilling that need. Similarly, the central banks across the world have begun periodic stress-testing of banks’ ability to withstand shocks. This paper investigates the machine-learning and statistical techniques used in the literature on bank failure prediction. The study finds that though considerable progress has been made using advanced statistical and computational techniques, given the complex nature of banking risk, the ability of statistical techniques to predict bank failures is limited. Machine-learning-based models are increasingly becoming popular due to their significant predictive ability. The paper also suggests the directions for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".