We show that credit risk accounts for only a small fraction of yield spreads for investment-grade bonds of all maturities, with the fraction lower for bonds of shorter maturities, and that it accounts for a much higher fraction of yield spreads for high-yield bonds. This conclusion is shown to be robust across a wide class of structural models. We obtain such results by calibrating each of the models to be consistent with data on the historical default loss experience and equity risk premia, and demonstrating that different models predict similar credit risk premia under empirically reasonable parameter choices. (JEL G13, G12, G33, G24)

This article empirically tests five structural models of corporate bond pricing: those of Merton (1974), Geske (1977), Longstaff and Schwartz (1995), Leland and Toft (1996), and Collin-Dufresne and Goldstein (2001). We implement the models using a sample of 182 bond prices from firms with simple capital structures during the period 1986-1997. The conventional wisdom is that structural models do not generate spreads as high as those seen in the bond market, and true to expectations, we find that the predicted spreads in our implementation of the Merton model are too low. However, most of the other structural models predict spreads that are too high on average. Nevertheless, accuracy is a problem, as the newer models tend to severely overstate the credit risk of firms with high leverage or volatility and yet suffer from a spread underprediction problem with safer bonds. The Leland and Toft model is an exception in that it overpredicts spreads on most bonds, particularly those with high coupons. More accurate structural models must avoid features that increase the credit risk on the riskier bonds while scarcely affecting the spreads of the safest bonds.

What drives short-term credit spreads: credit risk, liquidity risk, or both? We investigate this issue using the structural approach to credit risk modeling and a novel data set of secondary market transaction prices for Chinese commercial papers (CPs). In particular, we propose and test a structural model with jump risk and exogenous market illiquidity under which the predicted yield spreads can be decomposed into a credit component and a liquidity component. We find that credit risk and, especially liquidity risk, are important determinants of short-term yield spreads. Our model-based decomposition results show that, on average, credit risk and market liquidity account for about 25% and 52% of CP yield spreads, respectively. For comparison, we also examine the drivers of the US CP yield spreads using security-level data. We find that credit risk accounts for a small fraction of the observed yield spreads but liquidity contributes a much greater proportion.

[In this article, we present a new method for pricing and hedging American options along with an efficient implementation procedure. The proposed method is efficient and accurate in computing both option values and various option hedge parameters. We demonstrate the computational accuracy and efficiency of this numerical procedure in relation to other competing approaches. We also suggest how the method can be applied to the case of any American option for which a closed-form solution exists for the corresponding European option.]

This study empirically examines the value added for investors during the 2007–2009 financial crisis from hedge fund-like equity mutual funds, including 130/30, market neutral, and long/short equity funds. We find that based on the information ratio, all market neutral funds, top 90% of long/short funds, and top 25% of 130/30 funds outperform a long-only passive index fund over the crisis period. However, we find little evidence of abnormal performance by the average and median funds in our sample, based on either unconditional or conditional four-factor alphas. The reason for the overall under-performance in the crisis period is that while short positions taken by these funds do generate alpha, the gain from their short positions is not sufficiently large to offset the loss from their long positions. Finally, the abnormal performance of short positions is found to be attributable to managers’ characteristic-adjusted and industry-adjusted stock selection skills. One implication of this study is that even though market neutral and long/short funds on average may not generate alpha, investors can benefit from holding these funds, especially the former, that can provide a hedge against down markets due to their low betas and that can be useful for asset allocation.

We examine the robustness of empirical models and findings concerning CEO turnover. We show that the sensitivity of turnover to abnormal firm performance is an extremely robust result. In contrast, evidence indicating a relation between turnover and industry performance is both weak and fragile. We show that small changes in turnover modeling choices can affect inferences in a large way. Our evidence casts substantial doubt on the hypothesis that there is a large industry performance component to turnover decisions. We use our findings to offer some general prescriptions for checking robustness results in CEO turnover research. Received June 6, 2017; editorial decision July 10, 2017 by Editor Uday Rajan.

This paper examines the link between ownership concentration and corporate bond volatility. We show that more concentrated mutual fund ownership is associated with higher volatility of corporate bonds. This relation is stronger among more illiquid bonds, during periods of heightened bond market illiquidity, and among bonds held by corporate bond funds that invest in more illiquid bonds and experience higher or more correlated liquidity shocks. Using a sample of mutual fund mergers, we further show that increases in bond volatility are unlikely to be driven entirely by the endogenous ownership structure of corporate bonds. Our findings suggest that the concentrated ownership by corporate bond mutual funds provides another channel, apart from illiquidity, to help explain the excess volatility in corporate bonds.

We present a comprehensive analysis to calculate the Basel III liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) of U.S. commercial banks using Call Report data over the period 2001–2011, and provide indirect empirical evidence on net cash outflow rates of certain liability categories. In addition, we examine potential links between Basel III liquidity risk measures and bank failures using a model that differentiates between idiosyncratic and systemic liquidity risks. We find that while both the NSFR and the LCR have limited effects on bank failures, the systemic liquidity risk is a major contributor to bank failures in 2009 and 2010. This finding suggests that an effective framework of liquidity risk management needs to target liquidity risk at both the individual level and the system level.

ABSTRACT We investigate whether potential pension contracting benefits lead institutions that provide pension services to acquire ownership blocks in firms and the implications of such blockholdings on the firms' corporate governance. We use the 2006 Pension Protection Act, which expanded pension participation in certain states, as a quasi‐exogenous shock and find an increase in block ownership by pension‐providing institutions in firms with substantial operations in affected states. Further, we find that the acquisition of a large block increases the likelihood that the institution will provide future pension services to the firm. With regard to corporate governance, we find that the acquisition of large pension blockholdings is associated with higher CEO pay and lower CEO turnover following poor financial performance. However, contrary to the prediction of the private benefits hypothesis, we do not find consistent evidence that large pension blockholdings are associated with declining firm profitability, suggesting that pension institutions are incentivized to exert monitoring to preserve the investment value of their blockholdings. Overall, our evidence is consistent with pension service institutions acquiring ownership blocks to obtain pension contracts, but our evidence does not support the prediction that they use their influence to compromise shareholder value.

Empirical studies of structural credit risk models so far are often based on calibration, rolling estimation, or regressions. This paper proposes a GMM-based method that allows us to estimate model parameters and test model-implied restrictions in a unified framework. We conduct a specification analysis of five representative structural models based on the proposed GMM procedure, using information from both equity volatility and the term structure of single-name credit default swap (CDS) spreads. Our test results strongly reject the Merton (1974) model and two diffusion-based models with a flat default boundary. The other two models, one with jumps and one with stationary leverage ratios, do improve the overall fit of CDS spreads and equity volatility. However, all five models have difficulty capturing the dynamic behavior of both equity volatility and CDS spreads, especially for investment-grade names. On the other hand, these models have a much better ability to explain the sensitivity of CDS spreads to equity returns.