MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303832770 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100448

Greek Banking Sector Stock Reaction to ECB’s Monetary Policy Interventions

2022· article· en· W4303832770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nikolaos Petrakis, Christos Lemonakis, Christos Floros, Constantin Zopounidis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policyEquity (law)Psychological interventionFinancial crisisEconomicsMonetary economicsStock (firearms)Financial systemPanel dataDebtBusinessMacroeconomicsEconometricsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reacting to extreme uncertainty conditions caused by the global financial crisis, the European Central Bank implemented countercyclical strategy, combining conventional and non-traditional monetary policy tools to stabilize financial markets and euro area economies. We study the impact of the euro area monetary authority policy interventions on equity returns of four systemic Greek banks for the period January 2007 to August 2018. In the first step, we collect and classify interventions to several categories. Then, an event study analysis is carried out to evaluate cumulative abnormal returns. In the second step, a panel regression analysis is performed to identify Cumulative Abnormal Return (CAR) determinants. Our results suggest that expansionary conventional monetary policy interventions significantly affect equity returns of Greek banking institutions, assisting the regional banking equity stability. On the other hand, the harmful consequences of Greek debt crisis limited the effectiveness of non-standard measures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207