Impacts of the Expected Credit Loss Model on Pro-Cyclicality, Earnings Management, and Equity Management in the Portuguese Banking Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article delves into the pro-cyclicality of loan loss provisions (LLPs) and earnings management, along with equity management, in Portuguese banks against the backdrop of implementing the IFRS 9’s expected credit loss (ECL) model. It concentrates on how LLPs mirror economic cycles and financial management practices, providing valuable insights into the operational dynamics of the Portuguese banking sector, marked by distinct economic and regulatory challenges. The research examined a sample of five Portuguese commercial banks, chosen from a group of seventeen in the Portuguese Banking Association. Data spanning from 2013 to 2022 were manually gathered. A multiple linear regression model was employed to scrutinize the relationship between LLPs and variables indicative of economic cycles and the earnings and equity management. The methodology use was a multiple linear regression model. The analysis indicates a pro-cyclicality in LLPs within the Portuguese context, with a positive response of LLPs to economic indicators like unemployment. Contrarily, the extent of earnings and equity management under the ECL model was less marked compared to the incurred credit loss (ICL) model, suggesting the impact of more stringent regulatory measures. The research corroborates the pro-cyclicality of LLPs in Portuguese banks under the ECL framework, underscoring the necessity for ongoing monitoring and refinement of models for forecasting and recognizing credit losses. The findings point to an area for improvement in financial management practices, despite regulatory enhancements, to promote transparency and ensure financial stability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".