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

Fields:
15 results

Forecasting Default with the Merton Distance to Default Model

Review of Financial Studies 2008 21(3), 1339-1369 open access
We examine the accuracy and contribution of the Merton distance to default (DD) model, which is based on Merton's (1974) bond pricing model. We compare the model to a “naïve” alternative, which uses the functional form suggested by the Merton model but does not solve the model for an implied probability of default. We find that the naïve predictor performs slightly better in hazard models and in out-of-sample forecasts than both the Merton DD model and a reduced-form model that uses the same inputs. Several other forecasting variables are also important predictors, and fitted values from an expanded hazard model outperform Merton DD default probabilities out of sample. Implied default probabilities from credit default swaps and corporate bond yield spreads are only weakly correlated with Merton DD probabilities after adjusting for agency ratings and bond characteristics. We conclude that while the Merton DD model does not produce a sufficient statistic for the probability of default, its functional form is useful for forecasting defaults.

Why Do Firms Use Private Equity to Opt Out of Public Markets?

Review of Financial Studies 2010 23(5), 1771-1818
[We investigate how firms weigh the costs and benefits of being public in the decision to opt out of the public market and go private. We draw on previous studies of going private and on the subsequent well-developed theoretical literature on why firms go public to develop our hypotheses. We employ a comprehensive sample of going-private transactions from 1980 to 2004 in the United States and examine how these firms differ over their public life (from IPO to going private) relative to a sample of firms that went and remained public. Our results provide strong support for the importance of information and liquidity considerations in being a public firm. These factors are evident at the IPO, on average thirteen years before the going-private decision. Access to capital and control considerations become increasingly important in the choice of going private over the public life of the firm.]

Why Do Firms Use Private Equity to Opt Out of Public Markets?

Review of Financial Studies 2010 23(5), 1771-1818
We investigate how firms weigh the costs and benefits of being public in the decision to opt out of the public market and go private. We draw on previous studies of going private and on the subsequent well-developed theoretical literature on why firms go public to develop our hypotheses. We employ a comprehensive sample of going-private transactions from 1980 to 2004 in the United States and examine how these firms differ over their public life (from IPO to going private) relative to a sample of firms that went and remained public. Our results provide strong support for the importance of information and liquidity considerations in being a public firm. These factors are evident at the IPO, on average thirteen years before the going-private decision. Access to capital and control considerations become increasingly important in the choice of going private over the public life of the firm.

Does Asymmetric Information Drive Capital Structure Decisions?

Review of Financial Studies 2009 22(8), 3211-3243
[Using a novel information asymmetry index based on measures of adverse selection developed by the market microstructure literature, we test whether information asymmetry is an important determinant of capital structure decisions, as suggested by the pecking order theory. Our index relies exclusively on measures of the market's assessment of adverse selection risk rather than on ex ante firm characteristics. We find that information asymmetry does affect the capital structure decisions of U. S. firms over the sample period 1973-2002. Our findings are robust to controlling for conventional leverage factors (size, tangibility, Q ratio, profitability), the sources of firms' financing needs, and such firm attributes as stock return volatility, stock turnover, and intensity of insider trading. For example, we estimate that on average, for every dollar of financing deficit to cover, firms in the highest adverse selection decile issue 30 cents of debt more than firms in the lowest decile. Overall, this evidence explains why the pecking order theory is only partially successful in explaining all of firms' capital structure decisions. It also suggests that the theory finds support when its basic assumptions hold in the data, as should reasonably be expected of any theory.]

Do Natural Disaster Experiences Limit Stock Market Participation?

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2023 58(1), 29-70
We examine whether natural disaster experiences affect households’ portfolio choice decisions. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, we find that adversely affected households are less likely to participate in risky asset markets. After a disaster shock, households become more risk-averse and lower their expectations on future stock market returns. Such conservative portfolio choices persist even after households relocate to less disaster-prone areas, consistent with risk preferences being altered by disaster experiences. Overall, our evidence suggests that transient but salient experiences can be an important factor in explaining the limited participation puzzle.

External Governance and Debt Structure

Review of Financial Studies 2019 32(9), 3335-3365 open access
This paper examines how external governance pressure affects the type of debt that firms issue. Consistent with a governance mechanism substitution effect, we find that an exogenous increase (decrease) in governance pressure from the product (takeover) market has a significant negative (positive) impact on the use of bank (public debt) financing over public debt (bank loan) issuance. Tests using changes in the strictness of loan covenants provide corroborative evidence. These findings are consistent with the notion that firms endogenously substitute governance mechanisms and that demand for creditor governance depends on the relative strength of alternative external governance mechanisms. Received May 18, 2016; editorial decision November 11, 2017 by Editor David Denis.

Lending Relationships and Loan Contract Terms

Review of Financial Studies 2011 24(4), 1141-1203
[We find that repeated borrowing from the same lender translates into a 10—17 bps lowering of loan spreads and that relationships are especially valuable when borrower transparency is low. These results hold using multiple approaches (propensity score matching, instrumental variables, and treatment effects model) that control for the endogeneity of relationships. We also provide a demarcation line between relationship and transactional lending. Spreads charged for relationship loans and nonrelationship loans are statistically identical if the borrower is in the largest 30% by asset size; has public rated debt; or is part of the S&P 500 index. Past relationships reduce collateral requirements and are also associated with obtaining larger loans. Our results imply that, even for firms that have multiple sources of outside financing, borrowing from a prior lender obtains better loan terms.]

Corporate Governance and Loan-Syndicate Structure

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2021 56(8), 2720-2763
Firms with greater shareholder rights have a greater risk-shifting incentive, requiring more lender monitoring. Thus, a reduction in shareholder rights implies more diffused (less monitoring-intensive) loan syndicates. Using the passage of U.S. second-generation antitakeover laws as an exogenous shock that reduces shareholder rights as a natural experiment, we find that loan syndicates become significantly more diffuse after the passage of these laws. These results are confirmed in a large sample of bank loans made during the 1990–2007 period when the loan syndicate market matured. Our results show how corporate governance causally affects financial contracting and creditor control in firms.

Liquidity risk of corporate bond returns: conditional approach

Journal of Financial Economics 2013 110(2), 358-386
We study the exposure of the US corporate bond returns to liquidity shocks of stocks and Treasury bonds over the period 1973–2007 in a regime-switching model. In one regime, liquidity shocks have mostly insignificant effects on bond prices, whereas in another regime, a rise in illiquidity produces significant but conflicting effects: Prices of investment-grade bonds rise while prices of speculative-grade (junk) bonds fall substantially (relative to the market). Relating the probability of these regimes to macroeconomic conditions we find that the second regime can be predicted by economic conditions that are characterized as “stress.” These effects, which are robust to controlling for other systematic risks (term and default), suggest the existence of time-varying liquidity risk of corporate bond returns conditional on episodes of flight to liquidity. Our model can predict the out-of-sample bond returns for the stress years 2008–2009. We find a similar pattern for stocks classified by high or low book-to-market ratio, where again, liquidity shocks play a special role in periods characterized by adverse economic conditions.

Credit ratings and the BIS capital adequacy reform agenda

Journal of Banking & Finance 2002 26(5), 909-921
In this paper, we have revised and updated our earlier study in order to analyze the most recent (second) draft of the BIS's proposed reforms of bank capital requirements. We conduct Monte-Carlo experiments using data on defaults and severity rates on publicly-traded US corporate bonds over the 1981–1999 period. Analyzing the whole period and various sub-periods, it is clear that the most recent draft of the BIS proposed reforms seriously overestimates the relative riskiness of high-quality debt relative to low quality debt in the so-called standardized model. As a result, the most recent proposal still contains inherent risk-shifting (taking) incentives for banks.