An assessment of line of credit for Canadian firms: A post financial crisis evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Line of Credit (LOC) is a credit source extended to firms by a bank or other financial institutions to help firms meet their short- and long-term obligations. The study’s broad aim is to examine the effect of the 2008 financial crisis on firms’ use of LOC. The study analyses the global crisis impacts on corporate financing through a LOC; examines the role of letters of credit in a firm’s liquidity management; and assesses the difficulties banks face in providing LOC facilities to firms. The study limits its scope to a few years: a year before (2007), during the crisis (2008/09), and a year after. This ensures that the gaps between the years are small and allows the study to focus on the crisis era. The paper examines 30 Canadian firms, before, during, and after the crisis, to determine whether they use more of their LOC or cash flow to finance their day-to-day financial obligations. Also, the paper intends to determine the amount of interest paid if LOCs were used by the firms. The paper finds that during the crisis, 10 Canadian firms were able to meet their day-to-day operations without relying much on LOC. They used more of their cash flow instead of LOCs to meet their financial obligations, and during the period of the crisis, the firms used less of their LOCs, which indicates that lower interest were being paid by the firms. For some firms, the difference in percentage of their cash flow usage between the year before the crisis and during the year of the crisis was not so significant. Some firms had been in the habit of always using their cash flow to meet their day-to-day financial obligations. These firms would always be in the right position to get more credit from the bank.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".