Estimation of the Default Risk of Publicly Traded Canadian Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two models of default risk are prominent in the financial literature: Merton's structural model and Altman's non-structural model. Merton's structural model has the benefit of being responsive, since the probabilities of default can continually be updated with the evolution of firms' asset values. Its main flaw lies in the fact that it may over- or underestimate the probabilities of default, since asset values are unobservable and must be extrapolated from the share prices. Altman's nonstructural model, on the other hand, is more precise, since it uses firms' accounting data—but it is less flexible. In this paper, the authors investigate the hybrid contingent claims approach with publicly traded Canadian companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The authors' goal is to assess how their ability to predict companies' probability of default is improved by combining the companies' continuous market valuation (structural model) with the value given in their financial statements (non-structural model). The authors' results indicate that the predicted structural probabilities of default (PDs from the structural model) contribute significantly to explaining default probabilities when PDs are included alongside the retained accounting variables in the hybrid model. The authors also show that quarterly updates to the PDs add a large amount of dynamic information to explain the probabilities of default over the course of a year. This flexibility would not be possible with a non-structural model. The authors conduct a preliminary analysis of correlations between structural probabilities of default for the firms in their database. Their results indicate that there are substantial correlations in the studied data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".