MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941766477 · doi:10.3390/risks7020047

Contingent Convertible Debt: The Impact on Equity Holders

2019· article· en· W2941766477 on OpenAlexafffund
Delphine Boursicot, Geneviève Gauthier, Farhad Pourkalbassi

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisHEC Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHEC Montréal
KeywordsConvertible bondCocoEquity valueBusinessDebtDebt-to-equity ratioEquity (law)Capital structureMonetary economicsCost of capitalRecourse debtFinancial systemFinanceInternal debtEconomicsDebt levels and flowsProfit (economics)Microeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contingent Convertible (CoCo) is a hybrid debt issued by banks with a specific feature forcing its conversion to equity in the event of the bank’s financial distress. CoCo carries two major risks: the risk of default, which threatens any type of debt instrument, plus the exclusive risk of mandatory conversion. In this paper, we propose a model to value CoCo debt instruments as a function of the debt ratio. Although the CoCo is a more expensive instrument than traditional debt, its presence in the capital structure lowers the cost of ordinary debt and reduces the total cost of debt. For preliminary equity holders, the presence of CoCo in the bank’s capital structure increases the shareholder’s aggregate value.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisksSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207