MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027706595

Defaults and Returns in the High Yield Bond Market: The Year 2003 in Review and Market Outlook

2004· report· en· W7027706595 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Faculty Digital Archive (New York University) · 2004
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLanguage and cultural evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefaultBondYield (engineering)Bond marketRate of returnInterest rateInvestment (military)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 improvement from the 25% levels of the prior several years. Fourteen of the 86 defaulting companies had issues that were investment grade sometime prior to default. These fallen angels accounted for 33% of defaulting issues and 46.3% of the defaulted volume in 2003. The 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 near record level of $137.4 billion; the vast majority was used for refinancing existing loan and bond issues. Based on our mortality rate methodology and assuming different measures of credit risk of recent new issuance, we expect default rates to continue their decline in 2004 to between 3.2% - 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Faculty Digital Archive (New York University)Same topicLanguage and cultural evolutionFrench-language works237,207