MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Zombie lending due to the fear of fire sales

2025· article· en· W4406340355 on OpenAlexaff
Kaushalendra Kishore, Nirupama Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Corporate Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsEsperantic Studies FoundationUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZombieHistoryBusinessAdvertisingComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides evidence of a new cost of fire sales: zombie lending by banks. Banks with high market share are more likely to internalize the negative spillovers of falling collateral prices during a fire sale. To prevent prices from falling further during a fire sale, these banks do not liquidate defaulted firms and instead give zombie loans to keep them alive. Using structural breaks in real estate prices to identify periods of fire sales in different MSAs, we provide evidence that banks with high market share give zombie loans to firms with relatively higher real estate assets during a fire sale. Further, congestion due to zombie firms in an industry reduces the investment and profitability of healthier firms. Overall, we highlight a new mechanism for zombie lending resulting from reduced collateral liquidation in markets prone to fire sales.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Corporate FinanceSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207