MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135450554 · doi:10.1155/2021/6681035

Pricing Corporate Bonds with Credit Risk, Liquidity Risk, and Their Correlation

2021· article· en· W3135450554 on OpenAlexaff
Xinting Li, Baochen Yang, Yunpeng Su, Yunbi An

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Dynamics in Nature and Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersJilin Office of Philosophy and Social ScienceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLiquidity riskCredit riskMarket liquidityLiquidity premiumBondLiquidity crisisCorporate bondBusinessFinancial economicsMarket riskBond valuationFinancial risk managementEconomicsEconometricsFinancial systemMonetary economicsActuarial scienceRisk managementFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a generalized bond pricing model, accounting for all the effects of credit risk, liquidity risk, and their correlation. We use an informed trading model to specify the bond liquidity payoff and analyze the sources of liquidity risk. We show that liquidity risk arises from reduced information accuracy and market risk tolerance, and it is market risk tolerance that links credit and liquidity. Then, we extend the traditional bond pricing model with only credit risk by incorporating liquidity risk into the framework in which the probabilities of the two risk events are estimated by a joint distribution. Using numerical examples, we analyze the role of the correlation between credit and liquidity in bond pricing, especially during a financial crisis. We document that the varying correlation between default and illiquidity explains the phenomenon of bond death spiral observed in a financial crisis. Finally, we take the US corporate bond market as an example to demonstrate our conclusions.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Dynamics in Nature and SocietySame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207