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

Fields:
2 results ✕ Clear filters

Capital structure policies in Europe: Survey evidence

Journal of Banking & Finance 2006 30(5), 1409-1442
In this paper we present the results of an international survey among 313 cfos on capital structure choice. We document several interesting insights on how theoretical concepts are being applied by professionals in the uk, the netherlands, germany, and france and we directly compare our results with previous findings from the us our results emphasize the presence of pecking-order behavior. At the same time this behavior is not driven by asymmetric information considerations. The static trade-off theory is confirmed by the importance of a target debt ratio in general, but also specifically by tax effects and bankruptcy costs. Overall, we find remarkably low disparities across countries, despite the presence of significant institutional differences. We find that private firms differ in many respects from publicly listed firms, e.g. Listed firms use their stock price for the timing of new issues. Finally, we do not find substantial evidence that agency problems are important in capital structure choice.

Portfolio implications of systemic crises

Journal of Banking & Finance 2006 30(8), 2347-2369 open access
Systemic crises can have grave consequences for investors in international equity markets, because they cause the risk-return trade-off to deteriorate severely for a longer period. We propose a novel approach to include the possibility of systemic crises in asset allocation decisions. By combining regime switching models with Merton [Merton, R.C., 1969. Lifetime portfolio selection under uncertainty: The continuous time case. Review of Economics and Statistics 51, 247–257]-style portfolio construction, our approach captures persistence of crises much better than existing models. Our analysis shows that incorporating systemic crises greatly affects asset allocation decisions, while the costs of ignoring them is substantial. For an expected utility maximizing US investor, who can invest globally these costs range from 1.13% per year of his initial wealth when he has no prior information on the likelihood of a crisis, to over 3% per month if a crisis occurs with almost certainty. If a crisis is taken into account, the investor allocates less to risky assets, and particularly less to the crisis prone emerging markets.