Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (2)
- Report (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- syndicated loans (3) (remove)
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
In the mid-1990s, institutional investors entered the syndicated loan market and started to serve borrowers as lead arrangers. Why are non-banks able to compete for this role against banks? How do the composition of syndicates and loan pricing differ among lead arrangers? By using a dataset of 12,847 leveraged loans between 1997 and 2012, I aim to answer these questions. Non-banks benefit from looser regulatory requirements, have industry expertise which helps them in the screening and monitoring of borrowers and focus on firms that ask for loans only instead of additional cross-selling of other services. I can show that non-banks specialize on more opaque and less experienced borrowers, are more likely than banks to choose participants that help to reduce potentially higher information asymmetries and earn 105 basis points more than banks.
Although banks are at the center of systemic risk, there are other institutions that contribute to it. With the publication of the leveraged lending guideline in March 2013, the U.S. regulators show that they are especially worried about the private equity firms with their high-risk deals. Given these risks and the interconnectedness of the banks through the LBO loan syndicates, I shed light on the impact of a bank’s LBO loan exposure on its systemic risk. By using 3,538 observations between 2000 and 2013 from 165 global banks, I show that banks with higher LBO exposure also have a higher level of systemic risk. Other loan purposes do not show this positive relationship. The main drivers influencing this relationship positively are the bank’s interconnectedness to other LBO financing banks and its size. Lending experience with a specific PE sponsor, experience with leading LBO syndicates or a bank’s credit rating, however, lead to a lower impact of the LBO loan exposure on systemic risk.