MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Banks Still Special? New Evidence on Their Role in the Corporate Capital‐Raising Process

2000· article· en· W2072683182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher M. James, David C. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of applied corporate finance · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtBusinessCapital marketQuarter (Canadian coin)FinanceDebt financingStock (firearms)Capital (architecture)Monetary economicsFinancial systemStock marketEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bankers appear to play a special role in providing commitment‐based financing to corporations. This type of lending is important not only for small firms that lack access to public debt markets but for large and medium‐size companies as well. For such companies, commitment‐based financing provides access to debt capital that becomes valuable when the firm has an immediate need for funding but interest rates in public debt markets are prohibitively high, or the firm is undervalued by the market. A good example of this was provided by the Asian crisis in the last quarter of 1998, when $10 billion of commercial paper was retired and $20 billion of net new commercial loans were booked. The authors also suggest that the fact that commitment‐based financing is used by larger companies when they believe themselves to be undervalued in the market is probably the best explanation of why announcements of these types of loans elicit a positive stock price reaction.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations135
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of applied corporate financeSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207