MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295695672 · doi:10.1142/s2010139216500117

How do Corporate Governance Decisions Affect Bondholders?

2016· article· en· W2295695672 on OpenAlex
Hong Li, Yuan Wang

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

VenueQuarterly Journal of Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersPennsylvania State University
KeywordsCorporate governanceExpropriationAgency costInformation asymmetryShareholderDebtBusinessAsset (computer security)Agency (philosophy)Principal–agent problemAffect (linguistics)Monetary economicsEconomicsAccountingFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing studies have documented a negative relationship between the GIM corporate governance index (which contains anti-takeover provisions) and the corporate cost of debt, which implies that fewer anti-takeover provisions may lead to a larger shareholder expropriation of bondholder wealth. That is, strong corporate governance hurts bondholders (asset substitution hypothesis). However, another stream of research asserts that governance mechanisms may benefit bondholders by paring down agency costs and decreasing information asymmetry between the firm and the lenders (monitoring hypothesis). We reexamine this issue by considering the self-selection effect. We find that both hypotheses can be true, and that firms consider the reduction of cost of debt when self-selecting their governance, and the cost of debt would have been much higher had the alternative governance decision been made.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.184 · 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