MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226035565 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15030109

Dependence Structures between Sovereign Credit Default Swaps and Global Risk Factors in BRICS Countries

2022· article· en· W4226035565 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prayer Rikhotso, Beatrice D. Simo‐Kengne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit default swapCredit riskMonetary economicsSovereign creditCopula (linguistics)Exchange rateEconomicsVolatility (finance)Foreign exchange riskFinancial economicsChinaBusinessFinancial systemEconometricsGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the tail dependence structures of sovereign credit default swaps (CDSs) and three global risk factors in BRICS countries using a copula approach, which is popular for capturing the “true” tail dependence based on the “distribution-adjusted” joint marginals. The empirical results show that global market risk sentiment comoves with sovereign CDS spreads across BRICS countries under extreme market events such as the pandemic-induced crash of 2020, with Brazil reporting the highest bilateral convergence followed by China, Russia, and South Africa. Furthermore, oil price volatility is the second biggest risk factor correlated with CDS spreads for Brazil and South Africa, while exchange rate risk exhibits very low co-dependence with CDS spreads during extreme market downturns. On the contrary, exchange rate risk is the second largest risk factor co-moving with China and Russia’s CDS spreads, while oil price volatility exhibits the lowest co-dependence with CDS in these countries. Between oil price and currency risk, evidence of single risk factor dominance is found for Russia, where exchange rate risk is largely dominant, and policymakers could promulgate financial sector regulations that mitigate spill-over risks such as targeted capital controls when markets are distressed.

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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207