Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (45) (remove)
Language
- English (45) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (45)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (45)
Keywords
- Schätzung (45) (remove)
Institute
We investigate into the role of the trade channel as important determinant of a country's current account position and the degree of business cycle synchronization with the rest of the world by comparing the predictions of two types of DGE models. It is shown that the behavior of a country's external balance and the international transmission of shocks depends amongst other things on two factors: i) the magnitude of trade interdependence, ii) the degree of substitutability between importable and domestically-produced goods. Using time series data on bilateral trade flows, we estimate the magnitude of trade interdependence and the elasticity of substitution between importable and domestic goods for the G7 countries. Given these estimates, idiosyncratic supply shocks potentially induce changes in the current account and foreign output that vary in direction and magnitude across G7 countries. The relationship between the magnitude of foreign trade and the import substitutability with various correlation measures is examined empirically in a cross-sectional dimension. First Draft, July 2001. Final Draft, November 2001. Klassifikation: E32, F41
Industrial production in G7 countries is assumed to be driven by two exogenous disturbances. Those disturbances are identified in a VAR model so they can be interpreted as country-specific and global supply shocks. The dynamic properties of the model are analyzed and the relative importance of each shock is measured. It is shown that the VAR model matches most of the theoretical predictions of standard intertemporal open-economy models. The identified structural disturbances are analyzed with regard to their impact on the current account and investment. First Draft, October 2000. Final Draft, January 2001. This paper is based on the second chapter of my doctoral dissertation at the University of Frankfurt. Klassifikation: E32, F41
This paper compares the accuracy of credit ratings of Moody s and Standard&Poors. Based on 11,428 issuer ratings and 350 defaults in several datasets from 1999 to 2003 a slight advantage for the rating system of Moody s is detected. Compared to former research the robustness of the results is increased by using nonparametric bootstrap approaches. Furthermore, robustness checks are made to control for the impact of Watchlist entries, staleness of ratings and the effect of unsolicited ratings on the results.
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.
Both unconditional mixed-normal distributions and GARCH models with fat-tailed conditional distributions have been employed for modeling financial return data. We consider a mixed-normal distribution coupled with a GARCH-type structure which allows for conditional variance in each of the components as well as dynamic feedback between the components. Special cases and relationships with previously proposed specifications are discussed and stationarity conditions are derived. An empirical application to NASDAQ-index data indicates the appropriateness of the model class and illustrates that the approach can generate a plausible disaggregation of the conditional variance process, in which the components' volatility dynamics have a clearly distinct behavior that is, for example, compatible with the well-known leverage effect. Klassifikation: C22, C51, G10
A widely recognized paper by Colin Mayer (1988) has led to a profound revision of academic thinking about financing patterns of corporations in different countries. Using flow-of-funds data instead of balance sheet data, Mayer and others who followed his lead found that internal financing is the dominant mode of financing in all countries, that therefore financial patterns do not differ very much between countries and that those differences which still seem to exist are not at all consistent with the common conviction that financial systems can be classified as being either bank-based or capital market-based. This leads to a puzzle insofar as it calls into question the empirical foundation of the widely held belief that there is a correspondence between the financing patterns of corporations on the one side, and the structure of the financial sector and the prevailing corporate governance system in a given country on the other side. The present paper addresses this puzzle on a methodological and an empirical basis. It starts by demonstrating that the surprising empirical results found by Mayer et al. are due to a hidden assumption underlying their methodology. It then derives an alternative method of measuring financing patterns, which also uses flow-of-funds data, but avoids the questionable assumption. This measurement concept is then applied to patterns of corporate financing in Germany, Japan and the United States. The empirical results are very much in line with the commonly held belief prior to Mayer’s influential contribution and indicate that the financial systems of the three countries do indeed differ from one another in a substantial way.
A widely recognized paper by Colin Mayer (1988) has led to a profound revision of academic thinking about financing patterns of corporations in different countries. Using flow-of-funds data instead of balance sheet data, Mayer and others who followed his lead found that internal financing is the dominant mode of financing in all countries, that financing patterns do not differ very much between countries and that those differences which still seem to exist are not at all consistent with the common conviction that financial systems can be classified as being either bank-based or capital market-based. This leads to a puzzle insofar as it calls into question the empirical foundation of the widely held belief that there is a correspondence between the financing patterns of corporations on the one side, and the structure of the financial sector and the prevailing corporate governance system in a given country on the other side. The present paper addresses this puzzle on a methodological and an empirical basis. It starts by comparing and analyzing various ways of measuring financial structure and financing patterns and by demonstrating that the surprising empirical results found by studies that relied on net flows are due to a hidden assumption. It then derives an alternative method of measuring financing patterns, which also uses flow-of-funds data, but avoids the questionable assumption. This measurement concept is then applied to patterns of corporate financing in Germany, Japan and the United States. The empirical results, which use an estimation technique for determining gross flows of funds in those cases in which empirical data are not available, are very much in line with the commonly held belief prior to Mayer’s influential contribution and indicate that the financial systems of the three countries do indeed differ from one another in a substantial way, and moreover in a way which is largely in line with the general view of the differences between the financial systems of the countries covered in the present paper.
This paper investigates the magnitude and the main determinants of share price reactions to buy-back announcements of German corporations. Based on a sample of 224 announcements from the period May 1998 to April 2003 we find average cumulative abnormal returns around -7.5% for the thirty days preceding the announcement and around +7.0 % for the ten days following the announcement. We regress postannouncement abnormal returns with multiple firm characteristics and provide evidence which supports the undervaluation signaling hypothesis but not the excess cash hypothesis. In extending prior empirical work, we also analyze price effects from an initial statement by management that it intends to seek shareholder approval for a buy-back plan. Observed cumulative abnormal returns on this initial date are in excess of 5% implying a total average price effect between 12% and 15% from implementing a buy-back plan. We conjecture that the German regulatory environment is the main reason why market variations to buy-back announcements are much stronger in Germany than in other countries and conclude that initial statements by managers to seek shareholders’ approval for a buy-back plan should also be subject to legal ad-hoc disclosure requirements. EFM classification: 330, 350