1{2 "validation_errors": [],3 "doc_id": "jof_12512",4 "ontology_version": "1.0",5 "prompt_version": "1.0",6 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",7 "effort": "medium",8 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T22:58:23+00:00",9 "source_sha256": "7dc1ad489e2990da640cd11f07559afbd55ad60da879aa37af398533fb333700",10 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",11 "payload_chars": 29142,12 "usage": {13 "input": 9752,14 "output": 2470,15 "cache_read": 3968,16 "cache_write": 017 },18 "cost_usd": 0.089202,19 "request_id": "req_011CggpfM1YjYEn5V5xt9y6b",20 "annotation": {21 "genre": "mixed_theory_empirical",22 "subfield": "financial_intermediation_banking",23 "subfield_secondary": "corporate_finance (M&A / auctions)",24 "primary_method": "reduced_form_regression",25 "identification": {26 "estimand": "How potential acquirers' characteristics (distance, asset overlap, concentration gains) and capitalization relate to the probability of acquiring a failed bank, and how local acquirer capitalization relates to FDIC resolution costs.",27 "strategy": "Fixed-effects logit models on failed bank × potential acquirer pairs, with failed bank and acquirer-quarter fixed effects; interactions with acquirer capitalization; OLS regressions of resolution cost on local acquirer capitalization; samples restricted to eligible and actual bidders to rule out an FDIC-eligibility explanation.",28 "key_assumptions": [29 "Fixed effects absorb inherent failed bank and acquirer characteristics.",30 "Acquisition likelihood reveals relative willingness to pay, per the auction model.",31 "Capitalization of local potential acquirers is not driven by omitted regional shocks that also drive costs."32 ],33 "threats_addressed": [34 "FDIC eligibility criteria as an alternative explanation",35 "regional shocks",36 "bid characteristics and measurement of resolution costs",37 "selection from focusing only on participating bidders",38 "soft information vs. other interpretations of distance"39 ],40 "causal_language_strength": 3,41 "uses_causal_claim": true42 },43 "abstract_moves": {44 "question": {45 "present": false,46 "sentence_index": -147 },48 "gap": {49 "present": false,50 "sentence_index": -151 },52 "method": {53 "present": true,54 "sentence_index": 355 },56 "results": {57 "present": true,58 "sentence_index": 159 },60 "magnitude": {61 "present": true,62 "sentence_index": 063 },64 "contribution": {65 "present": false,66 "sentence_index": -167 }68 },69 "introduction": {70 "moves": [71 {72 "paragraph_index": 0,73 "move": "motivation"74 },75 {76 "paragraph_index": 0,77 "move": "literature_gap"78 },79 {80 "paragraph_index": 0,81 "move": "preview_of_approach"82 },83 {84 "paragraph_index": 1,85 "move": "preview_of_results"86 },87 {88 "paragraph_index": 2,89 "move": "preview_of_results"90 },91 {92 "paragraph_index": 3,93 "move": "preview_of_results"94 },95 {96 "paragraph_index": 3,97 "move": "identification_defense"98 },99 {100 "paragraph_index": 4,101 "move": "identification_defense"102 },103 {104 "paragraph_index": 5,105 "move": "identification_defense"106 },107 {108 "paragraph_index": 5,109 "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"110 },111 {112 "paragraph_index": 5,113 "move": "preview_of_results"114 },115 {116 "paragraph_index": 6,117 "move": "related_literature_positioning"118 },119 {120 "paragraph_index": 6,121 "move": "contribution_statement"122 },123 {124 "paragraph_index": 7,125 "move": "related_literature_positioning"126 }127 ],128 "contribution_paragraph_index": 6,129 "contribution_types": [130 "new_evidence",131 "new_theory_or_model"132 ],133 "roadmap_present": false,134 "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"135 },136 "section_roles": [137 {138 "idx": 0,139 "role": "introduction"140 },141 {142 "idx": 1,143 "role": "other"144 },145 {146 "idx": 2,147 "role": "data"148 },149 {150 "idx": 3,151 "role": "theory"152 },153 {154 "idx": 4,155 "role": "data"156 },157 {158 "idx": 5,159 "role": "results"160 },161 {162 "idx": 6,163 "role": "results"164 },165 {166 "idx": 7,167 "role": "conclusion"168 },169 {170 "idx": 8,171 "role": "appendix"172 }173 ],174 "results_presentation": {175 "economic_significance_discussed": true,176 "statistical_significance_language": "unclear",177 "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true178 },179 "robustness": {180 "location": "mixed",181 "types": [182 "subsample",183 "alternative_measure",184 "alternative_specification",185 "other"186 ]187 },188 "tables": {189 "convention_notes": "Each table note names the estimator (logit, FE logit, OLS) and defines the dependent variable and key regressors, including units (e.g., distance in 100-mile increments, cost as % of assets, constant 2009 prices). The excerpts do not show standard error details.",190 "units_stated_in_notes": true,191 "standard_errors_description": "unclear"192 },193 "figures": {194 "uncertainty_shown": "unclear"195 },196 "conclusion": {197 "bounded_claims": true,198 "policy_implications": true,199 "open_questions": false,200 "restates_contribution": true201 },202 "hedging": {203 "level": "moderate",204 "typical_devices": [205 "'suggests'",206 "'consistent with'",207 "'unlikely to be driven by'",208 "'partially explains'",209 "'may lead to'",210 "framework 'rationalizes' rather than proves"211 ]212 },213 "claim_evidence": [214 {215 "claim": "Average FDIC loss from selling a failed bank is about 28% of assets.",216 "evidence_type": "descriptive_statistic",217 "evidence_ref": "Table I; Figure 2"218 },219 {220 "claim": "Failed bank sales are predominantly local; acquisition likelihood falls with distance.",221 "evidence_type": "table",222 "evidence_ref": "Table III; Figure 3"223 },224 {225 "claim": "Banks with similar loan portfolios are more likely to acquire failed banks.",226 "evidence_type": "table",227 "evidence_ref": "Table VI; Figure 4"228 },229 {230 "claim": "Market concentration gains have an economically small but statistically significant effect on acquisition.",231 "evidence_type": "table",232 "evidence_ref": "Table VII; Figure 5"233 },234 {235 "claim": "Best-capitalized local buyers acquire over 30% of failed banks versus 10% for the worst capitalized.",236 "evidence_type": "figure",237 "evidence_ref": "Figure 6; Table IX"238 },239 {240 "claim": "Results persist when the sample is restricted to FDIC-eligible bidders, ruling out the eligibility explanation.",241 "evidence_type": "table",242 "evidence_ref": "Table X"243 },244 {245 "claim": "Poor capitalization of local potential acquirers is associated with higher FDIC resolution costs.",246 "evidence_type": "table",247 "evidence_ref": "Table XI; Figure 7"248 },249 {250 "claim": "Higher-valuation bidders bid weakly more; budget constraints create a wedge between willingness and ability to pay.",251 "evidence_type": "equation_or_proof",252 "evidence_ref": "Section III; Appendix"253 }254 ],255 "structural_summary": "The paper opens with the scale of FDIC losses in the Great Recession and notes how little is known about failed bank allocation since the S&L crisis. It then introduces an auction model with budget constraints. Next it documents three willingness-to-pay determinants (distance, asset overlap, concentration gains) and shows that capitalization limits ability to pay, which distorts allocation toward lower-valuation acquirers. An FDIC-eligibility alternative is ruled out using bidder data, and the misallocation is linked to resolution costs, with robustness checks for regional shocks and cost measurement. The paper closes with links to fire-sale and banking theories and with policy implications for capital regulation and resolution.",256 "writing_profile_keywords": [257 "policy-motivated",258 "auction framework",259 "fixed-effects logit",260 "pair-level data",261 "alternative hypothesis testing",262 "misallocation",263 "bank resolution"264 ],265 "confidence": 0.8,266 "notes": "Institutional background (idx 1) is labeled 'literature' by the role rule but is descriptive institutional content, so it is coded as 'other'. Sections V and VI are both results; Section VI contains robustness subsections. No equations are counted, despite a stylized model and an appendix proof."267 },268 "deterministic_checks": {269 "roadmap_regex": false,270 "contribution_regex_in_intro": true,271 "magnitude_in_abstract": true,272 "abstract_n_sentences": 5,273 "intro_n_paragraphs": 8,274 "intro_n_words": 1343,275 "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,276 "hedge_words_in_abstract": 0,277 "stars_mentioned": false,278 "clustered_se_mentioned": false,279 "internet_appendix_mentioned": false,280 "section_roles_rule": {281 "0": "introduction",282 "1": "literature",283 "2": "data",284 "3": "theory",285 "4": "data",286 "5": "other",287 "6": "other",288 "7": "conclusion",289 "8": "appendix"290 }291 },292 "schema_valid": true,293 "code_version": "feb6c9e-dirty"294}