MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391098474 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17010041

A Comprehensive Approach to Bankruptcy Risk Evaluation in the Financial Industry

2024· article· en· W4391098474 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samar Issa, Gulhan Bizel, Sharath Kumar Jagannathan, Sri Sarat Chaitanya Gollapalli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyProfitability indexMarket liquidityDebtBusinessFinanceActuarial scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study presents a comprehensive approach to examining the potential risk of bankruptcies in financial sector organizations. This investigation explores 20 financial sector entities and evaluates their fiscal history from 2000 to 2018. The developed model assesses the chance of these companies going bankrupt by analyzing indicators like liquidity, profitability, debt composition, and operational effectiveness. These metrics are contrasted to regulatory requirements and assessed as having low, moderate, or elevated risk repercussions, ultimately contributing to an overall threat rating. Additionally, the model has a unique algorithm that compensates for excessive debt levels, strengthening the reliability of the risk appraisal grade. This straightforward instrument illustrates the demand to incorporate a variety of financial health indicators. According to the findings, excessive amounts of debt have a detrimental influence on profitability, leading to decreased stock returns and a greater probability of bankruptcy. These findings have practical implications for investors and stakeholders, providing insightful information to help inform decision-making, especially during periods of economic unpredictability such as pandemics. Furthermore, they encourage the enhancement of financial market efficiency.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207