Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (3)
- Article (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Sovereign Debt (4) (remove)
Why borrowers pay premiums to larger lenders : empirical evidence from sovereign syndicated loans
(2003)
All other terms being equal (e.g. seniority), syndicated loan contracts provide larger lending compensations (in percentage points) to institutions funding larger amounts. This paper explores empirically the motivation for such a price design on a sample of sovereign syndicated loans in the period 1990-1997. I find strong evidence that a larger premium is associated with higher renegotiation probability and information asymmetries. It hardly has any impact on the number of lenders though. This is consistent with the hypothesis that larger lenders act as main lenders, namely help reduce information asymmetries and provide services in situations of liquidity shortage. This constitutes new evidence of the existence of compensations for such unique services. Moreover, larger payment discrepancies are also associated with larger syndicated loan amounts. This provides further new evidence that larger borrowers bear additional borrowing costs.
In this paper we develop empirical measures for the strength of spillover effects. Modifying and extending the framework by Diebold and Yilmaz (2011), we quantify spillovers between sovereign credit markets and banks in the euro area. Spillovers are estimated recursively from a vector autoregressive model of daily CDS spread changes, with exogenous common factors. We account for interdependencies between sovereign and bank CDS spreads and we derive generalised impulse response functions. Specifically, we assess the systemic effect of an unexpected shock to the creditworthiness of a particular sovereign or country-specific bank index to other sovereign or bank CDSs between October 2009 and July 2012. Channels of transmission from or to sovereigns and banks are aggregated as a Contagion index (CI). This index is disentangled into four components, the average potential spillover: i) amongst sovereigns, ii) amongst banks, iii) from sovereigns to banks, and iv) vice-versa. We highlight the impact of policy-related events along the different components of the contagion index. The systemic contribution of each sovereign or banking group is quantified as the net spillover weight in the total net-spillover measure. Finally, the captured time-varying interdependence between banks and sovereigns emphasises the evolution of their strong nexus.
While global justice theorists heatedly discuss the responsibilities of the affluent and powerful, those states which can legitimately be seen as victims of global injustice have seldom, if ever, been considered as duty bearers to whom responsibilities can be attached. However, recognising agents whose options are constrained not only as victims, but also as duty bearers is necessary as a proof of respect for their agency and indispensable to mobilise the type of action required to alter global injustices. In this article, I explore what responsibilities state officials of dominated states have. I argue that they have the responsibility to resist domination in the name of the dominated states members. While under particular circumstances this responsibility gives rise to a duty to engage in acts of state civil disobedience, under other circumstances state officials of dominated states ought to resist domination in an internal, attitudinal way by recognising themselves as outcome responsible agents.
Against the background of the European debt crisis, the Research Center SAFE, in the fall of 2013, had issued a call for papers on the topic “Austerity and Economic Growth: Concepts for Europe”, with the objective of soliciting research proposals focusing on the nature of the relationship between austerity, debt sustainability and growth. Each of the five funded projects brought forth an academic paper and a shortened, non-technical policy brief. These policy papers are presented in the present collection of policy letters, edited by Alfons Weichenrieder.
The first paper by Alberto Alesina, Carlo Favero and Francesco Giavazzi looks into the question of how fiscal consolidations influence the real economy. Harris Dellas and Dirk Niepelt emphasize that fiscal austerity is a signal that investors use to tell apart governments with high and low default costs that accordingly will have a high or low probability of repayment.The paper by Benjamin Born, Gernot Müller and Johannes Pfeiffer,looks at the impact of austerity measures on government bond spreads. Oscar Jorda and Alan M. Taylor, in the fourth contribution, put into question whether the narrative records of fiscal consolidation plans are really exogenous. The final study by Enrique Mendoza, Linda Tesar and Jing Zhang suggests that fiscal consolidation should largely depend on expenditure cuts, rather than tax increases that may fail, when fiscal space is exhausted.