MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407252820 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18020091

Determinants of Stochastic Distance-to-Default

2025· article· en· W4407252820 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tarek Ibrahim Eldomiaty, Islam Azzam, Hoda El Kolaly, Ahmed Dabour, Marwa Anwar, Rehab El-Shahawy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBankruptcyDebtEquity (law)Geometric Brownian motionEconometricsStock (firearms)EconomicsDebt-to-equity ratioBusinessActuarial scienceFinancial economicsFinanceEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient management of bankruptcy risk requires treating distant-to-default (DD) stochastically as long as historical stock prices move randomly and, thus, do not guarantee that history may repeat itself. Using long-term data that date back to 1952–2023, including the nonfinancial companies listed in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations indexes, this study estimates the historical and stochastic DDs via the geometric Brownian motion (GBM). The results show that (a) the association between the debt-to-equity ratio and the stochastic DD can be used as an indicator of excessive debt financing; (b) debt tax savings have a positive effect on stochastic DD; (c) bankruptcy costs have negative effects on stochastic DD; (d) in terms of the size of the company being proxied by sales revenue and the equity market value of the company, the DD is a reliable measure of bankruptcy costs; (e) in terms of macroeconomic influences, increases in the percentage change in manufacturing output are associated with lower observed and stochastic DD; and (f) in terms of the influences of industry, the stochastic DD is affected by the industry average retail inventory to sales. This paper contributes to related studies in terms of focusing on the indicators that a company’s management can focus on to address the stochastic patterns inherent in the estimation of the DD.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207