Knowledge that Transforms

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

Fields:

Incentive-Based Lending Capacity, Competition and Regulation in Banking

Journal of Financial Intermediation 2001 10(1), 28-53
This paper studies moral hazard in banking due to delegated monitoring in an environment of aggregate risk and examines its implications for credit market equilibrium and regulation, in a model where banks are price competitors for loans and deposits. It provides a rationale for an incentive-based lending capacity positively linked to the bank's capital and profit margin, for an oligopolistic market structure wherever banks have market power, and for capital requirements. Social-welfare-maximizing capital requirements are lowered in recessions, are higher the more fragmented the banking sector, and are increased when anti-competitive measures are removed. In equilibrium banks earn excessive profits and credit may be rationed. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: D82, G28, L13.

Choice of Financing Source in International Debt Markets

Journal of Financial Intermediation 2001 10(3-4), 276-305
This paper examines incremental debt financing decisions of large Asian firms over the period 1989–1998. We find that flotation costs, agency costs, and renegotiation and liquidation risk affect the choice of debt type and that firms in countries with well developed private bond markets have a higher probability of accessing international bond markets. Significant differences exist between the determinants of choice of debt type across Japanese and non-Japanese firms that cannot be explained by keiretsu associations. Moreover, there is no significant difference in the determinants of financing source for Japanese firms across independent firms, horizontal keiretsus, and vertical keiretsus. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: F39, G15, G21, G32.

Who Disciplines Management in Poorly Performing Companies?

Journal of Financial Intermediation 2001 10(3-4), 209-248
Economic theory points to five parties disciplining management of poorly performing firms: holders of large share blocks, acquirers of new blocks, bidders in takeovers, nonexecutive directors, and investors during periods of financial distress. This paper reports the first comparative evaluation of the role of these different parties in disciplining management. We find that, in the United Kingdom, most parties, including holders of substantial share blocks, exert little disciplining and that some, for example, inside holders of share blocks and boards dominated by nonexecutive directors, actually impede it. Bidders replace a high proportion of management of companies acquired in takeovers but do not target poorly performing management. In contrast, during periods of financial constraints prompting distressed rights issues and capital restructuring, investors focus control on poorly performing companies. These results stand in contrast to the United States, where there is little evidence of a role for new equity issues but nonexecutive directors and acquirers of share blocks perform a disciplinary function. The different governance outcomes are attributed to differences in minority investor protection in two countries with supposedly similar common law systems. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: G3.