To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results

Do Underwriters Short-Change Corporations Issuing Bonds?

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2024 59(1), 369-394
Abstract We confirm prior evidence that bonds on average are offered at prices below their immediate post-offer secondary market prices. However, in cases where banks lead–manage their own bond offerings the underpricing is significantly less as compared with other non-self-marketed offerings. These findings are robust across various matched samples and selection models. Our results suggest that the bond offering process is characterized by substantive agency conflicts between shareholders of corporations (issuers) and underwriters.

Valuation uncertainty, market sentiment and the informativeness of institutional trades

Journal of Banking & Finance 2016 72, 81-98
Prior studies indicate that institutional investors are informed, in the sense that their trades predict price changes. In this study we show that return predictive ability of institutions arises (after controlling for size, book-to-market, and momentum) mainly from institutional sales of hard-to-value stocks during periods of positive market sentiment. These results support the notion that these stocks tend to be overvalued during periods of bullish market sentiment, and institutions contribute to market efficiency by identifying and trading on these overpriced stocks.

Bond market event study methods

Journal of Banking & Finance 2015 58, 281-293
The procedures used in corporate bond event studies to date fail to control for heteroskedasticity due to differences in return volatility by term-to-maturity, rating, and other factors resulting in low test power. Bond return standardization yields considerably more powerful tests. Also, due to infrequent trading, use of bond transaction price observations over several days before and after an event, while giving more weight to returns calculated from transactions closer to the event, yields considerably more powerful tests than returns based solely on transactions the day before and the day after the event. Exploring the test bias caused by overlapping event dates, we find that, adjusted for rating and maturity, the correlation among standardized abnormal bond returns is small but that even fairly small correlations can result in biased test statistics. A bond market modification of the Kolari and Pynnönen (2010) procedure corrects this bias.