Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36396640›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

An AI approach for managing financial systemic risk via bank bailouts by taxpayers.

Daniele Petrone, Neofytos Rodosthenous, Vito Latora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniele PetroneSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, E1 4NS, London, UK.
Neofytos RodosthenousDepartment of Mathematics, University College London, WC1E 6BT, London, UK. n.rodosthenous@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3614-2206
Vito LatoraSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, E1 4NS, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0984-8038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bank bailouts are controversial governmental decisions, putting taxpayers' money at risk to avoid a domino effect through the network of claims between financial institutions. Yet very few studies address quantitatively the convenience of government investments in failing banks from the taxpayers' standpoint. We propose a dynamic financial network framework incorporating bailout decisions as a Markov Decision Process and an artificial intelligence technique that learns the optimal bailout actions to minimise the expected taxpayers' losses. Considering the European global systemically important institutions, we find that bailout decisions become optimal only if the taxpayers' stakes exceed some critical level, endogenously determined by all financial network's characteristics. The convenience to intervene increases with the network's distress, taxpayers' stakes, bank bilateral credit exposures and crisis duration. Moreover, the government should optimally keep bailing-out banks that received previous investments, creating moral hazard for rescued banks that could increase their risk-taking, reckoning on government intervention.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceGovernmentMarkov Chains

Identifiers

PMID36396640
PMCPMC9672109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.