Arbeitspapier
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2001 (5) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Arbeitspapier (5) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (5)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (5)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (5)
Schlagworte
- Deutschland (5) (entfernen)
Institut
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (5) (entfernen)
This paper analyzes a comprehensive data set of 108 non venture-backed, 58 venture-backed and 33 bridge financed companies going public at Germany s Neuer Markt between March 1997 and March 2000. I examine whether these three types of issues differ with regard to issuer characteristics, balance sheet data or offering characteristics. Moreover, this empirical study contributes to the underpricing literature by focusing on the complementary or rather competing role of venture capitalists and underwriters in certifying the quality of a company when going public. Companies backed by a prestigious venture capitalist and/or underwritten by a top bank are expected to show less underpricing at the initial public offering (IPO) due to a reduced ex-ante uncertainty. This study provides evidence to the contrary: VC-backed IPOs appear to be more underpriced than non VCbacked IPOs.
We use consumer price data for 81 European cities (in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Portugal) to study deviations from the law-of-one-price before and during the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by analysing both aggregate and disaggregate CPI data for 7 categories of goods we find that the distance between cities explains a significant amount of the variation in the prices of similar goods in different locations. We also find that the variation of the relative price is much higher for two cities located in different countries than for two equidistant cities in the same country. Under EMU, the elimination of nominal exchange rate volatility has largely reduced these border effects, but distance and border still matter for intra-European relative price volatility. JEL classification: F40, F41
In the recent theoretical literature on lending risk, the coordination problem in multi-creditor relationships have been analyzed extensively. We address this topic empirically, relying on a unique panel data set that includes detailed credit-file information on distressed lending relationships in Germany. In particular, it includes information on creditor pools, a legal institution aiming at coordinating lender interests in borrower distress. We report three major findings. First, the existence of creditor pools increases the probability of workout success. Second, the results are consistent with coordination costs being positively related to pool size. Third, major determinants of pool formation are found to be the number of banks, the distribution of lending shares, and the severity of the distress shock.
This paper uses a unique data set from credit files of six leading German banks to provide some empirical insights into their rating systems used to classify corporate borrowers. On the basis of the New Basle Capital Accord, which allows banks to use their internal rating systems to compute their minimum capital requirements, the relations between potential risk factors, rating decisions and the default probabilities are analysed to answer the question whether German banks are ready for the internal ratings-based approach. The results suggests that the answer is not affirmative at this stage. We find internal rating systems not comparable over banks and furthermore we reveal differences between credit rating determining and default probability determining factors respectively. Klassifikation: G21, G33, G38
In recent years new methods and models have been developed to quantify credit risk on a portfolio basis. CreditMetrics (tm), CreditRisk+, CreditPortfolio (tm) are among the best known and many others are similar to them. At first glance they are quite different in their approaches and methodologies. A comparison of these models especially with regard to their applicability on typical middle market loan portfolios is in the focus of this study. The analysis shows that differences in the results of an application of the models on a certain loan portfolio is mainly due to different approaches in approximating default correlations. That is especially true for typically non-rated medium-sized counterparties. On the other hand distributional assumptions or different solution techniques in the models are more or less compatible.