Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to answer the question of whether we could use a bank’s past financial data to predict the bank failure in 2009 and proposes three new empirical proxies for loan quality (LQ), interest margins (IntMag), and earnings efficiency (OIOE) to forecast bank failure. Using the bank failure list from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) database, I match the banks that failed in 2009 with a control sample based on geography, size, the ratio of total loans to total assets, and the age of banks. The model suggested by this paper could predict correctly up to 94.44% (97.15%) for the failure (and non-failure) of banks, with an overall 96.43% prediction accuracy, (p = 0.5). Specifically, the stepwise logistic regression suggests some proxies for capital adequacy, assets/loan risk, profit efficiency, earnings, and liquidity risk to be the predictors of bank failure. These results partially agree with previous studies regarding the importance of certain variables, while offering new findings that the three proposed proxies for LQ, IntMag, and OIOE statistically and economically significantly impact the probability of bank failure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".