MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324056570 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16030194

Emerging Market Default Risk Charge Model

2023· article· en· W4324056570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angelo Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of South AfricaAustralian Institute of PhysicsUniversité de Technologie de Compiègne
KeywordsEmerging marketsBusinessCredit riskProbability of defaultCredit derivativeBasel IICapital requirementComparabilityCapital marketDefault riskActuarial scienceFinanceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a default event, several obligors simultaneously experience financial difficulty in servicing their debt to the point where the entire market can experience a sudden yet significant jump to a credit default. To help protect lenders against a jump-to-default event, regulators require banks to hold capital equivalent to the default risk charge as a buffer against the losses they may incur. The Basel regulatory committee has articulated and set default risk modelling guidelines to improve comparability amongst banks and enable a consistent bank-wide default risk charge estimation. Emerging markets are unique because they usually have illiquid markets and sparse data. Thus, implementing an emerging market default risk model and, at the same time, complying with the regulatory guidelines can be non-trivial. This research presents a framework for modelling the default risk charge in emerging markets in line with the regulatory requirements. The default correlation model inputs are derived and empirically calibrated using emerging market data. The paper ends with some considerations that regulators, supervisors, and banks can use to get financial institutions to adopt an emerging markets default risk charge model.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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