MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391945260 · doi:10.1177/09728201231215534

The Sinking of HBOS: An Invaluable Lesson to the Contemporary Banking and Finance Sector

2024· article· en· W4391945260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Radhamohan Chebolu, Indu Perepu, K.B.S. Kumar, T. Sita Ramaiah

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Management Cases · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic, financial, and policy analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)AuditCorporate governanceCapitalizationAccountingBusinessBanking industryMarket capitalizationRisk managementFinanceFinancial institutionRetail bankingFinancial crisisEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HBOS plc, a UK-based financial institution, initially appeared as a remarkable success story in the banking industry. 2001 marked a pivotal moment when Halifax and Bank of Scotland joined forces to create HBOS. For the subsequent six years, it achieved substantial double-digit profits, solidifying its position. In 2007, the bank’s market capitalization soared to an impressive £40 billion. While HBOS garnered accolades from analysts and brokers for its apparent success, beneath the surface, its business model proved susceptible to economic fluctuations due to what was identified as a flawed strategy and inadequate risk management practices. These critical shortcomings left the bank ill-prepared to navigate the global financial crisis. In October 2008, HBOS faced a severe crisis and ultimately merged with Lloyds Banking Group. This case delves into the intricacies of HBOS’s strategy, internal and external governance issues and the changing business environment. It serves as an invaluable tool for students seeking to comprehend the factors that led to the company’s downfall. Several pressing questions are raised, including the role of accounting improprieties, the effectiveness of the risk management system, internal governance and the inability of the board and auditors to foresee the impending challenges within the company.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Management CasesSame topicEconomic, financial, and policy analysisFrench-language works237,207