Economic Quarterly—Volume 98, Number 1—First Quarter 2012—Pages 1–31 Orderly Liquidation Authority as an Alternative to Bankruptcy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
W hen a large nonbank financial firm becomes troubled and in dangerof default, government policymakers traditionally have had twooptions: they could 1) allow the firm to enter bankruptcy, or 2) if policymakers believed bankruptcy is likely to produce widespread (system-wide or “systemic”) financial difficulties, the government could provide aid (i.e., a bailout) to forestall failure. In 2010, a third option was made available by the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) provisions, contained in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). This legislation authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to pursue an agency-administered wind down for certain troubled financial firms. The OLA provisions are modeled, in part, after the process long followed by the FDIC for handling troubled banks. The OLA provisions are a reaction to policymakers ’ and legislators ’ dis-satisfaction with the two options previously available for handling failing nonbanks. For example, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, argued, in 2009 testimony before the House Committee on Financial Services, that bankruptcy was not an effective option for certain failing financial firms (Bernanke 2009): In most cases, the federal bankruptcy laws provide an appropriate framework for the resolution of nonbank financial institutions. However, the bankruptcy code does not sufficiently protect the public’s strong interest in ensuring the orderly resolution of a nonbank financial firm
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.027 |
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".