Banking Crises, Contagion, and Foreign- Asset Exposures of Canadian Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do not cite without permission. The objective of this paper is to address these two issues: first, to what e xtent have Canadian banks become increasingly “globalized”; and second, do Canadian banks ’ foreign asset exposures respond to contagious crisis events? In order to describe the behaviour of the foreign asset exposures of Canadian banks, and to assess the existence and impact of contagion, firm-level panel data on Canadian banks ’ is employed. This unique Bank of Canada data set extends from 1984 to 2003 on a quarterly basis for a set of Canadian banks with claims in over 160 foreign jurisdictions. Specifically, banks ’ foreign asset exposures include loans and deposits to foreign firms, banks, and public sector entities, and holdings of public and private securities. The panel nature of the data permits tests of the existence of informational based contag ion and for its possible impact on the foreign asset portfolios of Canadian banks. Specifically, do banks reduce their foreign claims to countries that appear to be similar to countries that have experienced a banking crisis? Preliminary results find that, conditional on fundamentals, banks do not adjust their portfolios immediately in the presence of crisis events. Thus, informational contagion plays only a small role in determining banks ’ asset portfolios.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".