MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3122044186 · doi:10.3390/jrfm11040074

Measuring Financial Fragmentation in the Euro Area Corporate Bond Market

2018· preprint· en· W3122044186 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guillaume Horny, M. Manganelli, Benoı̂t Mojon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate bondFinancial crisisBondGermanCredit riskBond marketFinancial systemRisk premiumBusinessFinancial stabilityEconomicsMonetary economicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses the determinants of euro area non-financial corporate bonds since the early 2000s, so as to gauge deviations from the law of one price. We decompose the spread between the yield of German, French, Italian and Spanish corporate bonds vis-à-vis the German Bund of similar maturity into country, credit and duration risk premia components via dummy regressions. We highlight three main findings. First, the initial phase of the financial crisis (2008–2009) caused an overall increase in credit risk premia. Since the beginning of 2013 credit risk premia are back to levels comparable to those preceding the financial crisis. Second, at the height of the euro area sovereign crisis (2011–2012), high credit risk premia were accompanied by strong and persistent signs of market fragmentation in Italy and Spain (but not in France). This fragmentation has reached its peak in the second half of 2012 and has started to recede only after the announcement of the OMT. Third, we provide a simple measure of financial integration across the big 4 member states of the euro area.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies→French-language works237,207→