MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387460504 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16100439

Predicting the Non-Return of Chonsei Lease Deposits in the Republic of Korea

2023· article· en· W4387460504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Park, Jinhee Choi, Guy Ngayo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeaseRentingDefaultActuarial scienceBondBusinessLandlordVolatility (finance)Credit riskEconomicsDebtFinanceRisk–return spectrumFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chonsei, a Korean housing lease system, enables landlords to acquire direct housing purchase funds without mortgages and offers tenants a cost-effective rental option. However, public concerns have arisen about potential landlord defaults, causing financial distress for tenants. This study examined the risk of non-return of the Chonsei deposit and developed a default prediction model using Chonsei contract data from the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation. Starting with the components from Merton’s bond pricing model, we included variables that reflect contract-specific factors, macroeconomic conditions, and the Korean Chonsei practices. The findings revealed that higher house price volatility, elevated debt-to-house value, and risk-free interest rates positively correlate with non-return risk. Meanwhile, certain factors, such as longer remaining maturity, favorable macroeconomic conditions, and rising market Chonsei price trends, demonstrated negative correlations with non-return risk. Consequently, a logistic regression-based default prediction model, with eight risk factors that predict the deposit non-return, was suggested. By identifying risk factors and predicting the non-return risk of deposits, this study contributes to an informed policy decision in planning and practicing Chonsei contracts in the Korean housing market.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207