MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205329436

CSDs and Participant Default

2020· article· en· W3205329436 on OpenAlexaff
Dermot Turing

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencySettlement (finance)Context (archaeology)BusinessOddsLaw and economicsFinanceEconomicsPayment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the financial crisis there has been an increase in the degree and detail of regulation of CSDs, which are rightly recognised to be a core component in the smooth functioning of the financial system. One feature of the regulation of CSDs, as with other types of financial market infrastructure, is the requirement for default rules. The principal actions of a CSD when faced with a participant default will be to freeze the defaulter’s accounts and cancel processing of unexecuted instructions. These actions are intended to protect the settlement system, and also appear to be a response to insolvency laws which disallow movements of an insolvent entity’s property. But the nature of ‘default’ has also changed since the crisis. In particular, there are new ways of dealing with failing firms, through resolution. This paper argues that how CSDs should react to the failure of a participating financial institution has lagged behind developments in the handling of financial firm failures. In particular, the freeze-and-cancel principle seems less necessary in the context of modern settlement processing, and at odds with the objective of resolution, which is to continue, or restore, critical functions without undue fuss or delay. Given that at least some participants in CSDs are intermediaries, whose accounts contain securities belonging to customers, the policy of freeze-and-cancel could add to the disruption caused by a firm’s failure rather than reduce it. The paper argues that there is no need for freeze-and-cancel as regards client securities, or even proprietary assets. Furthermore, the process of resolution, which commonly involves the transfer of client-facing functions to a ‘bridge bank’, seems not to be fully catered for in CSD default or membership rules. Trying to create new arrangements in an emergency over a resolution weekend seems a poor way to achieve continuity. It is therefore suggested that CSDs should overhaul their approach to membership in relation to bridge banks, and facilitate the transfer of client accounts during resolution.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207