Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of covered bonds of the pfandbrief type has last for more than 200 years in Europe.Covered bonds expanded further as a competitive capital markets instrument and proved to be the most resilient wholesale term-funding instrument for credit institutions during the last financial crisis.Nowadays, their strategic importance as a long-term funding tool has been clearly recognised at the global level.Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have established covered bond frameworks and will continue to be the backbone of the market.Brazil, Chile, India, Japan, Morocco, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea are in the process of adopting covered bond legislation or are investigating the potential introduction of this funding tool.Turkey has had dedicated covered bond legislation since 2011.The aim of this research is to present and compare the existing covered bonds structuring models.Here an important research question arises-in which aspect any of the considered models may get close to asset backed securities (ABS) structure?There is no common covered bonds legal regime throughout the EU.Instead, each EU member state relies upon its own regulations.Therefore, five representative covered bonds issuance schemes are presented in this article.Another research objective was to observe covered bonds prices evolution just prior to and after the outbreak of financial crisis.The last part of the article contains an analysis of post-crisis cover bond market and European Central Bank policy with respect to it.The covered bonds almost entirely outstand the financial market turmoil since mid-2007.However, covered bonds spread analysis presented in the paper proves that the European Central Bank (ECB) is a main player supporting covered bond secondary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".