Is this rating worth it? The benefits of credit ratings in the dynamic tradeoff model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study seeks to identify the main determinants of the optimal capital structure by reexamining the interpretation of the conventional set of explanatory variables used as proxies for the costs and benefits of debt in the context of the dynamic tradeoff theory. Design/methodology/approach The authors isolate the variation in leverage due to different targets from that caused by deviations by aggregating the data across a dimension identifying firms with similar targets – credit rating category. Findings Contrary to theoretical priors, large and profitable rated firms have lower targets. The authors show that size and profitability proxy for non-financial risk and that, for rated firms, non-financial risk is positively correlated to the optimal leverage. The benefits of a better rating outweigh the costs of foregone tax shields for firms with relatively low non-financial risk. The authors find support for that theory in institutional trading – institutional investors do not punish highly rated firms when credit downgrades occur. Originality/value This paper contributes to the capital structure literature by developing a new approach based on data aggregation. This study is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to find a positive effect of the firm's non-financial risk on target leverage among rated firms. The authors argue that the benefit of a better credit rating is an increasing function of the rating itself. The authors also contribute to the literature on the impact of credit ratings on the capital structure choices of the firm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".