MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944822875 · doi:10.3390/risks7020057

The Determinants of Market-Implied Recovery Rates

2019· article· en· W2944822875 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal François

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIssuerEconometricsRecovery rateEconomicsTobit modelCredit riskInterest rateVariable (mathematics)Sample (material)Contrast (vision)Financial economicsMonetary economicsActuarial scienceMathematicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the presence of recovery risk, the recovery rate is a random variable whose risk-neutral expectation can be inferred from the prices of defaultable instruments. I extract market-implied recovery rates from the term structures of credit default swap spreads for a sample of 497 United States (U.S.) corporate issuers over the 2005–2014 period. I analyze the explanatory factors of market-implied recovery rates within a linear regression framework and also within a Tobit model, and I compare them with the determinants of historical recovery rates that were previously identified in the literature. In contrast to their historical counterparts, market-implied recovery rates are mostly driven by macroeconomic factors and long-term, issuer-specific variables. Short-term financial variables and industry conditions significantly impact the slope of market-implied recovery rates. These results indicate that the design of a recovery risk model should be based on specific market factors, not on the statistical evidence that is provided by historical recovery rates.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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