MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405692459 · doi:10.1007/s10693-024-00439-5

Harnessing Soft Information to Promote Financial Inclusion: The Case of Business Lending by a Native CDFI

2024· article· en· W4405692459 on OpenAlexaff
Valentina P. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Peter Grajzl, Laurel Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Services Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial inclusionFinancial servicesBusinessInclusion (mineral)FinanceFinancial systemSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Native Community Development Financial Institutions (NCDFIs) promote financial inclusion in financially underserved Native communities by adopting innovative lending strategies, including designing their own soft-information-based measures of borrower risk. Drawing on business loan data from one prominent NCDFI, a nonprofit loan fund, we examine to what extent the NCDFI-generated borrower risk measures help explain the NCDFI's loan performance and pricing above and beyond the effect of the credit score, a conventional credit-bureau-produced, hard-information-based metric. All else equal, both loan delinquency hazard and loan interest rate are robustly predicted by one of the NCDFI's two proprietary soft-information-based measures, the character score, but do not vary with the other one, commitment to business score. The credit score is an important determinant of loan delinquency hazard but, all else equal, does not exhibit a detectable relationship with the loan interest rate. We do not find evidence of noteworthy interactions among the three NCDFI-used borrower risk measures. Our study offers evidence in support of the unique underwriting practices and relationship-based lending operations that characterize the NCDFI industry.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designOther design
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 venueJournal of Financial Services ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207