Author
Abstract
Aims: This study develops the artificial intelligence verification premium, defined as the incremental borrowing cost attributable to financing-relevant AI risk when automation is insufficiently verified, understood, or governed. It links AI adoption choices to corporate borrowing costs and firm value. Study Design: Analytical model development with longitudinal Monte Carlo simulation, paired policy comparisons, policy-space search, convergence testing, and structural sensitivity analysis. Place and Duration of Study: Singapore; model development, computational experiments, audit, and revision were conducted in August 2026. Methodology: A dynamic firm model links automation intensity, verification intensity, verification debt, retained human oversight capability, stochastic uncertainty, incident risk, debt pricing, and discounted firm value. Competitive lenders price one-period debt through a zero-profit condition with loss-given-default. Five stylised management regimes were evaluated with 20,000 Monte Carlo trajectories per regime over 48 quarters using common random numbers. A 324-policy grid used 4,000 trajectories per policy, followed by convergence tests and sensitivity searches for leverage, loss severity, AI productivity, unmanaged-risk sensitivity, and horizon length. Results: Acceleration-first adoption produced a mean quarterly borrowing premium of 130.56 basis points, compared with 9.99 under balanced assurance and 11.31 under assurance-scaled automation. Mean discounted firm value was 356.82, 408.01, and 416.69, respectively. The best evaluated grid policy combined automation of 0.80 with verification of 0.55, yielding mean value of 417.51. This verification level lies just above the analytical direct-risk threshold of 0.538. Conclusion: AI need not raise financing costs. The sign depends on whether verification and human oversight scale with deployment. For managers, boards, and lenders, the practical implication is that validation coverage, unresolved assurance findings, fallback capability, and other governance evidence can be economically relevant to technology investment and credit assessment. Joint optimisation of automation and assurance can preserve productivity gains while containing a financing penalty.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's
web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05745096. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.