MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404189171 · doi:10.1080/23322039.2024.2422958

Navigating bank risk-taking under excess liquidity: the moderating role of economic policy uncertainty and lessons from the Global Financial Crisis

2024· article· en· W4404189171 on OpenAlexaff
Thai Vu Hong Nguyen, Chrıstophe Schınckus, Thanh Tuan Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Economics & Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityFinancial crisisLiquidity riskLiquidity crisisEconomicsFinancial systemMonetary economicsModerationIndex (typography)Economic policyBusinessMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study investigates the moderation effect of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) towards the relationship between excess liquidity and bank risk-taking as well as explores its stronger impact in countries severely affected by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Using System Generalized Methods of Moments (SGMM) on an unbalanced dataset for 33 countries from 2000 to 2019, the study finds that an increase in the EPU index attenuates the positive impact of excess liquidity on bank risk-taking. The study also finds that the attenuating effect of EPU on the relationship between excess liquidity and bank risk-taking is stronger in countries that were most severely affected by the GFC. It argues that the mechanisms by which excess liquidity induces risk-taking are disrupted under high EPU. Our study also extends behavioral theories to shed light on how the GFC altered bank risk-taking in the presence of excess liquidity and high EPU.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent Economics & FinanceSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207