A strategy road map for small and medium-sized banks from a Canadian perspective: Transformation from start-up to mid-size and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One item on the regulatory agenda is the need to increase competition in the financial system. Financial technology is replacing bricks-and-mortar distribution channels, reducing the need for economies of scale that has been a barrier to entry and growth. Financial services are being unbundled and the large banks, being financial conglomerates, face losing their grip on the market, as space is opened up for the lower-cost specialised providers of financial services that offer superior customer service. This is an opportunity not only for neobanks but also for smaller traditional banks that can update their skills and adapt. In Canada, small and medium-size traditional banks are trying to seize the opportunity. They continue to deploy a lending-based business model while taking advantage of FinTech for operational efficiency and digital distribution channels. They are also working towards AIRB licences in order to become capital efficient and increase their addressable market. Nevertheless, they face formidable challenges including their intolerance to loss, more expensive funding, more expensive and higher capital requirements, and the big banks’ market power. This paper discusses the risk strategies these banks can employ in their journey from start-ups to mid-sized and beyond. We provide numerical examples using the ROE framework.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".