Defaults and Returns in the High Yield Bond Market: The Year 2003 in Review and Market Outlook
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High yield bond defaults in 2003 declined significantly from record 2002 levels closing the year at $38.5 billion for a default rate of 4.66%. The fourth quarter’s rate of 0.36% was the lowest quarterly rate since the fourth quarter of 1997. The default loss rate for 2003 also declined to just 2.76% based on a weighted average recovery rate of about 45% -- a major\nimprovement from the 25% levels of the prior several years. Fourteen of the 86 defaulting\ncompanies had issues that were investment grade sometime prior to default. These fallen\nangels accounted for 33% of defaulting issues and 46.3% of the defaulted volume in 2003.\nThe high-yield bond market returned an impressive 30.62% for the year, the third highest one-year return since 1978 (when we first began tracking returns). The return spread over ten-year US Treasuries was a record high 29.4%, bringing the historic average annual return spread to 2.22% per year. The concurrent yield spread at year-end fell to 3.74%, the lowest year-end figure since 1997 and 4.82% less than one year ago. New issues in 2003 recorded a\nnear record level of $137.4 billion; the vast majority was used for refinancing existing loan and bond issues.\nBased on our mortality rate methodology and assuming different measures of credit risk of\nrecent new issuance, we expect default rates to continue their decline in 2004 to between\n3.2% - 3.8%, with rates increasing in 2005 to above 4.0%.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".