MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526956769 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhx107

Quantifying Liquidity and Default Risks of Corporate Bonds over the Business Cycle

2017· article· en· W1526956769 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Chen, Rui Cui, Zhiguo He, Konstantin Milbradt

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityRollover (web design)Corporate bondBondBusinessBusiness cycleCredit riskDebtFinancial systemMonetary economicsEconomicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a structural credit model to examine how interactions between default and liquidity affect corporate bond pricing. The model features debt rollover and bond-price-dependent holding costs. Over the business cycle and in the cross-section, the model matches average default rates and credit spreads in the data, and captures variations in bid-ask and bond-CDS spreads. A structural decomposition reveals that default-liquidity interactions can account for 10%–24% of the level of credit spreads and 16%–46% of the changes in spreads over the business cycle. Further, liquidity-related corporate bond financing costs amount to 6% of the total issuance amount from 1996 to 2015. Received July 12, 2015; editorial decision April 15, 2017 by Editor Andrew Karolyi. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press website next to the link to the final published paper online.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.306
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.072 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations176
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207