Industry Peer Information and the Equity Valuation Accuracy of Firms Emerging from Chapter 11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Valuation plays a central role in determining Chapter 11 reorganization outcomes. However, obtaining accurate valuation estimates of reorganized firms is challenging because of limited firm-specific market-based information and the oft-conflicting incentives of claimholders. We examine the role of industry peer information in reducing misvaluations and its implications for unintended interclaimant wealth transfers and postreorganization performance. First, we find that the availability of relevant industry peer information is negatively associated with equity valuation errors for firms emerging from Chapter 11. Cross-sectional results suggest that the relation between industry peer information and valuation errors varies substantially with debtors’ information environment and case characteristics. Second, we find that industry peer information quality is associated with better ex post financial performance of emerged firms because of lower overvaluation. Finally, we document the role of industry peer information in substantially reducing the frequency and magnitude of unintended wealth transfers between claimants arising from equity valuation errors. This paper was accepted by Suraj Srinivasan, accounting. Funding: The authors appreciate financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Grant 435-2020-0583] and the Canadian Academic Accounting Association. B. Fang acknowledges financial support from the Della Suantio Fellowship. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.01233 .
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 | 0.005 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".