2016
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4185896
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systemic Early Warning Systems for Eu15 Based on the 2008 Crisis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(g) Systemic liquidity risk (SYSTEMIC_LIQ_RISK) as a measure of systemic risk. This is consistent with the approaches described in Malandrakis (2014) 8 and Papadopoulos et al (2016). 9 Systemic liquidity risk is represented by a dummy variable, which takes values 0 (no-systemic liquidity risk) before 2010 and 1 (systemic liquidity risk exists) after 2010.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 71%
“…(g) Systemic liquidity risk (SYSTEMIC_LIQ_RISK) as a measure of systemic risk. This is consistent with the approaches described in Malandrakis (2014) 8 and Papadopoulos et al (2016). 9 Systemic liquidity risk is represented by a dummy variable, which takes values 0 (no-systemic liquidity risk) before 2010 and 1 (systemic liquidity risk exists) after 2010.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 71%
“…For the EU composition of the sample, we take into account the empirical evidence presented in the literature (Babecký et al, 2014; Davis & Karim, 2008) which indicates that the performance of an early warning system to anticipate financial stress episodes improves when the sample consists of homogeneous countries (including with similar institutional characteristics). In addition, Papadopoulos et al (2016) show that although EWS studies using global samples benefit from more data, the potential for predictive power would be lower for them than for research targeting homogeneous groups of countries.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Peduzzi et al (1996) argue that in cases where there are less than 10 events per variable, the coefficients of the regressions could be biased. However, Papadopoulos et al (2016) indicate that at least six events per independent variable can be considered fairly reliable for robust standard errors.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%