MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811390069 · doi:10.5430/afr.v7n3p180

Collateral and Yield Spread of Syndicated Loans

2018· article· en· W2811390069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khaled Amira, Mark L. Muzere

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollateralMoral hazardLoanDebtSyndicated loanYield (engineering)EconomicsAdverse selectionMonetary economicsBusinessProbit modelFinancial systemActuarial scienceIncentiveFinanceEconometricsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine factors that influence the use of collateral in syndicated loans and explore debt contract theories under adverse selection and moral hazard. Using a probit model (Agresti, 2007) to analyse syndicated loan data (1987-2007) for firms in the United States, we find that loan and borrower specific factors and general economic conditions as well are significant in explaining the presence of collateral in these loans. Further testing exploring the relationship between collateral and yield spread of syndicated loans while using an econometric procedure (Heckman, 1976; Lee, 1978) to control for the simultaneity between the decision to use collateral and the determination of the yield spread confirms the empirical predictions of the moral hazard debt theory. The use of collateral reduces risk and the cost of borrowing for syndicated loans, providing further clarification to the mixed empirical evidence in the literature.

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)0.026
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207