Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (17)
- Article (10)
- Report (5)
- Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (34)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (34)
Keywords
- Compensation (3)
- Funds (3)
- Limited Partnership (3)
- Principal Agent (3)
- Venture Capital (3)
- Bank Resolution (2)
- Bargaining Power (2)
- Covenants (2)
- Deutschland (2)
- Kreditwürdigkeit (2)
Over the last four decades the literature on bond rating changes and its effects on security prices increased significantly with almost all studies not controlling for the respective reason for those. We therefore investigate the impact of rating events on the stock and the credit default swap (CDS) market incorporating rating reviews and rating changes together with the reason mentioned by the rating agency. Our results for the general effects are in line with prior findings but conditioning on the respective reason shows that the markets’ anticipation of rating actions is largely driven by events due to changes in firms’ operating performance. Furthermore, we provide empirical evidence for the hypothesis in prior literature that a surprise downgrade does not necessarily have to be bad news for stockholders when wealth is transferred from bondholders, but negative rating actions are always bad news for bondholders. The results additionally reveal increasing rating announcement effects by declining credit quality of firms for both rating reviews and changes. JEL Classification: D82, G14, G20. Keywords: Credit Default Swaps, Credit Ratings, Credit Rating Reasons, Event Study.
In den letzten Jahren wurden verschiedene Modelle entwickelt, um das Ausfallrisiko von Banken unter Berücksichtigung von Portfolioeffekten zu quantifizieren. Bisher hat sich kein Ansatz als allgemein akzeptierter Standard durchsetzen können. Da die Modelle grundlegende konzeptionelle Unterschiede aufweisen und unterschiedliche empirische Inputdaten verwenden, hat die Auswahl eines Kreditrisikomodells unter Umständen einen erheblichen Einfluß auf die Kreditportfoliosteuerung der Bank. In diesem Beitrag soll deshalb geklärt werden, ob die Modelle systematisch abweichende Value-at-Risk-Werte berechnen und worin die Ursachen für auftretende Abweichungen liegen. Zunächst wird gezeigt, daß die bestehenden Kreditrisikomodelle in zwei grundlegende Klassen eingeteilt werden können: Assetwert-basierte Modelle und auf Ausfallraten basierende Modelle. Am Beispiel eines Musterportfolios von Krediten an deutsche Baufirmen werden zwei Vertreter der Modellklassen (CreditMetrics und CreditRisk+) verglichen und der Effekt der unterschiedlichen empirischen Inputparameter auf die Risikoergebnisse abgeschätzt. Die Analyse zeigt erhebliche Unterschiede zwischen den Modellen. Eine Analyse der Abweichungsursachen ergibt allerdings, daß der Grund für die großen Value-at-Risk-Unterschiede in erster Linie in den unterschiedlichen empirischen Inputdaten liegt, welche zu unterschiedlichen impliziten Korrelationsannahmen führen. Es wird gezeigt, wie die Modellparameter gewählt werden müssen, um identische Korrelationen zu erzeugen. Bei konsistenten Korrelationsannahmen stimmen die Ergebnisse beider Modelle weitgehend überein. Keywords: Credit Risk Models, credit risk correlation
Under a new Basel capital accord, bank regulators might use quantitative measures when evaluating the eligibility of internal credit rating systems for the internal ratings based approach. Based on data from Deutsche Bundesbank and using a simulation approach, we find that it is possible to identify strongly inferior rating systems out-of time based on statistics that measure either the quality of ranking borrowers from good to bad, or the quality of individual default probability forecasts. Banks do not significantly improve system quality if they use credit scores instead of ratings, or logistic regression default probability estimates instead of historical data. Banks that are not able to discriminate between high- and low-risk borrowers increase their average capital requirements due to the concavity of the capital requirements function.
The paper describes the legal and economic environment of mergers and acquisitions in Germany and explores barriers to obtaining and executing corporate control. Various cases are used to demonstrate that resistance by different stakeholders including minority shareholders, organized labour and the government may present powerful obstacles to takeovers in Germany. In spite of the overall convergence of European takeover and securities trading laws, Germany still shows many peculiarities that make its market for corporate control distinct from other countries. Concentrated share ownership, cross shareholdings and pyramidal ownership structures are frequent barriers to acquiring majority stakes. Codetermination laws, the supervisory board structure and supermajority requirements for important corporate decisions limit the execution of control by majority shareholders. Bidders that disregard the German preference for consensual solutions and the specific balance of powers will risk their takeover attempt be frustrated by opposing influence groups. Revised version forthcoming in "The German Financial System", edited by Jan P. Krahnen and Reinhard H. Schmidt, Oxford University Press.
The paper explores factors that influence the design of financing contracts between venture capital investors and European venture capital funds. 122 Private Placement Memoranda and 46 Partnership Agreements are investigated in respect to the use of covenant restrictions and compensation schemes. The analysis focuses on the impact of two key factors: the reputation of VC-funds and changes in the overall demand for venture capital services. We find that established funds are more severely restricted by contractual covenants. This contradicts the conventional wisdom which assumes that established market participants care more about their reputation, have less incentive to behave opportunistically and therefore need less covenant restrictions. We also find that managers of established funds are more often obliged to invest own capital alongside with investors money. We interpret this as evidence that established funds have actually less reason to care about their reputation as compared to young funds. One reason for this surprising result could be that managers of established VC funds are older and closer to retirement and therefore put less weight on the effects of their actions on future business opportunities. We also explore the effects of venture capital supply on contract design. Gompers and Lerner (1996) show that VC-funds in the US are able to reduce the number of restrictive covenants in years with high supply of venture capital and interpret this as a result of increased bargaining power by VC-funds. We do not find similar evidence for Europe. Instead, we find that VC-funds receive less base compensation and higher performance related compensation in years with strong capital inflows into the VC industry. This may be interpreted as a signal of overconfidence: Strong investor demand seems to coincide with overoptimistic expectations by fund managers which make them willing to accept higher powered incentive schemes.
We provide insights into determinants of the rating level of 371 issuers which defaulted in the years 1999 to 2003, and into the leader-follower relationship between Moody’s and S&P. The evidence for the rating level suggests that Moody’s assigns lower ratings than S&P for all observed periods before the default event. Furthermore, we observe two-way Granger causal-ity, which signifies information flow between the two rating agencies. Since lagged rating changes influence the magnitude of the agencies’ own rating changes it would appear that the two rating agencies apply a policy of taking a severe downgrade through several mild down-grades. Further, our analysis of rating changes shows that issuers with headquarters in the US are less sharply downgraded than non-US issuers. For rating changes by Moody’s we also find that larger issuers seem to be downgraded less severely than smaller issuers.
The syndicated loan market, as a hybrid between public and private debt markets, comprises financial institutions with access to valuable private information about borrowers as a result of close bank-borrower relationships. In this paper, we seek empirical evidence for the costs of these relationships in a sample of UK syndicated loan contracts for the time period 1996 through 2005. Using detailed financial data for both borrowers (private and public companies) and for financial institutions, we find that undercapitalized banks charge higher loan spreads for loans to opaque borrowers using various measures for borrower opaqueness and controlling for bank, borrower and loan characteristics. We further analyze this hold-up effect over the business cycle and find that it only prevails during recessions. In expansion phases, however, we do not find evidence for banks exploiting their information monopoly. This finding is consistent with theories on bank reputation in bank loan commitments. Ambiguity about borrower financial health, which induces the information monopoly in the first place, also gives banks the discretion to exploit or not exploit informational captured borrowers. Our findings are both statistically and economically significant and robust to alternative bank and macroeconomic risk proxies. We address potential concerns about unobserved borrower heterogeneity exploiting the panel data nature of our sample. Using firm-bank fixed effect regressions, we find supporting evidence for our theoretical framework. JEL Classifications: G14, G21, G22, G23, G24 Keywords: Syndicated loans; Hold-up; Lending relationships; Business cycle
This briefing paper describes and evaluates the law and economics of institution(al) protection schemes. Throughout our analysis, we use Europe’s largest such scheme, that of German savings banks, as paradigm. We find strengths and weaknesses: Strong network-internal monitoring and early warning seems to be an important contributor to IPS network success. Similarly, the geographical quasi-cartel encourages banks to build a strong client base, including SME, in all regions. Third, the growth of the IPS member institutions may have benefitted from the strictly unlimited protection offered, in terms of euro amounts per account holder. The counterweighing weaknesses encompass the conditionality of the protection pledge and the underinvestment risk it entails, sometimes referred to as blackmailing the government, as well as the limited diversification potential of the deposit insurance within the network, and the near-incompatibility of the IPS model with the provisions of the BRRD, particularly relating to bail-in and resolution. Consequently, we suggest, as policy guidance, to treat large IPS networks similar to large banking groups, and put them as such under the direct supervision of the ECB within the SSM. Moreover, we suggest strengthening the seriousness of a deposit insurance that offers unlimited protection. Finally, to improve financial stability, we suggest embedding the IPS model into a multi-tier deposit re-insurance scheme, with a national and a European layer. This document was provided by the Economic Governance Support Unit at the request of the ECON Committee.