MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389435412 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16120507

ECB Monetary Policy and the Term Structure of Bank Default Risk

2023· article· en· W4389435412 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tom Beernaert, Nicolas Soenen, Rudi Vander Vennet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policyMonetary economicsEconomicsCredit riskDefaultQuantitative easingFinancial systemActuarial scienceFinanceCentral bank

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Euro Area banks have been confronted with unprecedented monetary policy actions by the ECB. Monetary policy may affect bank risk profiles, but the consequences may differ for short-term risk versus long-term or structural bank risk. We empirically investigated the association between the ECB’s monetary policy stance and market-perceived short-term and long-term bank risk, using the term structure of default risk captured by bank CDS spreads. The results demonstrated that, during the period 2009–2020, ECB expansionary monetary policy diminished bank default risk in the short term. However, we did not observe a similar decline in long-term bank default risk, since we documented that monetary stimulus is associated with a steepening of the bank default risk curve. The reduction of bank default risk was most pronounced during the sovereign debt crisis and for periphery Euro Area banks. From 2018 onwards, monetary policy accommodation is associated with increased bank default risk, both short-term and structurally, which is consistent with the risk-taking hypothesis under which banks engage in excessive risk-taking behavior in their loan and securities portfolios to compensate profitability pressure caused by persistently low rates. The increase in perceived default risk is especially visible for banks with a high reliance on deposit funding.

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 score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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