MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967614830

Debt Covenant Violations, Credit Default Swap Pricing, and Borrowing Firms’ Accounting Conservatism

2019· article· en· W2967614830 on OpenAlexaff
Changling Chen, Jeong‐Bon Kim, Chunmei Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit default swapBusinessMonetary economicsDebtEquity (law)Financial systemShareholderIncentiveSwap (finance)Credit riskFinanceEconomicsCorporate governance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the impact of debt covenant violations (DCVs) on credit risk reflected in credit default swap (CDS) spread, and how the two elements, combined together, affect the relation between DCVs and financial reporting conservatism of borrowing firms that are referenced in CDS contracts. We find that DCVs induce a significant increase in CDS spreads during the trading days subsequent to borrowers’ SEC filing dates, indicating increased credit risk of borrowing firms upon DCVs. We also find that borrowing firms’ financial reporting becomes more conservative post DCVs, especially when borrowing firms’ CDS spreads incur large increases and their institutional shareholders play a stronger role of external monitoring. Our finding of increased CDS spreads upon DCVs is consistent with the view that CDS-protected lenders lack incentives to exercise their control rights. To the extent that lenders do not intervene in borrowers’ financial reporting, our finding of increased conservatism suggests that borrowing firms tend to report more conservatively under the influence of other stakeholders such as institutional investors whose equity investment are not protected by credit insurance CDS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207