MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319794944 · doi:10.1111/fima.12416

Pricing strategies in BigTech lending: Evidence from China

2023· article· en· W4319794944 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCredit ratingCredit default swap indexLoanInterest rateCredit referenceCredit riskCredit card interestCommissionChinaCredit enhancementFinanceFinancial systemMonetary economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper analyzes a BigTech lender's pricing strategies in the business‐to‐customer unsecured loan market using a proprietary data set of consumer loans in China. We find that the credit rating constructed by the BigTech lender is informative of the customers' default risk. Moreover, the interest rate decreases and the credit limit increases with the credit rating. Interestingly, the BigTech lender charges different interest rates to its customers based on the customer channel, although it does not provide information about the customers' default risk. Following the passage of the China Banking Regulatory Commission Act, which reduced credit market competition, the BigTech lender increased the current rate and decreased the credit limit. We rationalize these empirical findings in a simple model of credit contract design.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.213 · 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