MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949305977 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v11n7p87

The Insurance Value of Trade Credit

2019· article· en· W2949305977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mario Eboli, Andrea Toto

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrade creditCredit rationingCredit crunchMarket liquidityConstraint (computer-aided design)EconomicsMonetary economicsCredit historyLiquidity constraintBusinessFinanceInterest rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extensive use of trade credit in all manufacturing sectors, despite its high cost, is an apparent puzzle that economists explain in terms of asymmetric information problems affecting financial markets. The financial constraints arising from credit rationing and limited access to stock markets suffice to induce firms to resort to trade credit as a supplemental source of funding. Nonetheless, empirical evidence shows that also large and liquid firms facing no binding financial constraints use substantial amounts of trade credit. We address this issue by modelling the financial policy of a firm that does not face a binding liquidity constraint but the risk of being constrained in the future. We characterise the optimal amount of trade credit held by such a firm, and we show that a positive probability of facing a liquidity constraint leads the firm to fund its inventories with trade credit, even if cheaper sources of funds are available. The rationale is that trade credit provides implicit coverage against liquidity risk. Therefore, the optimal amount of trade credit grows with the expected size of a possible liquidity shock and with the likelihood of its occurrence.

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)0.012
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicWorking Capital and Financial PerformanceFrench-language works237,207