Third Time’s the Charm: Will Basel III Have a Measurable Impact on Limiting Future Financial Turmoil?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Great Recession of 2008 caused banking failures around the globe. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision responded swiftly to create new minimum capital requirements for financial institutions in hopes of preventing additional failures and warding off future crises. Although the new capital standards that Basel III proposes are a step in the right direction, those standards alone will not be sufficient to prevent future bank failures in times of economic decline. Rather, true financial sector stability requires adequate capitalization of all institutions in terms of quality and quantity of capital, a strong regulatory framework, and a limitation on the size of systemically important institutions. By analyzing the pre-Recession banking regulation of the varying economies Canada, Switzerland, and the European Union, and each economy's resultant stability during the Great Recession, it becomes clear that minimum capital requirements for financial institutions do not directly correlate to financial sector longevity. This note considers the other factors that have an effect on the stability of financial sectors and proposes that Basel III capital minimum standards without strong banking regulations and reduction in the size of systemically important institutions will not prevent future financial turmoil.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".