MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073543145 · doi:10.1080/09603107.2012.727972

Setting the optimal make-whole call premium

2012· article· en· W2073543145 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Financial Economics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRule of thumbEconomicsEx-anteValue (mathematics)Risk premiumInvestment (military)Call optionMicroeconomicsEconometricsActuarial scienceFinancial economicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With a make-whole call, the call price is calculated as the maximum of the par value and the present value of the bond's remaining payments discounted at the prevailing risk-free rate plus a pre-specified spread known as the make-whole premium. The commonly accepted thumb rule in the investment banking community is to set the make-whole premium at 15% of the at-issue credit spread. Using a standard structural model, we calculate the optimal make-whole call premium, i.e. the make-whole premium that maximizes the ex-ante firm value subject to managers following a second-best call policy that maximizes the ex-post equity value. For reasonable parameterizations, optimal make-whole premiums are relatively close to 15% of the model-generated credit spread. Thus, the 15% thumb rule provides surprisingly good guidance for setting make-whole call premiums.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.180 · 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