Debt covenant selection: An empirical examination
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT How are debt covenants selected? Which firm and industry factors are significant in the covenant selection process? Previous research by the current authors examined individual debt covenants to determine if identifiable patterns exist and if there is a significant difference in debt covenant utilization among industry classifications. The evidence suggested that not only are there identifiable patterns, but that debt covenants are systematically grouped into packages. A theory of debt covenant utilization was offered to explain the theoretical significance of each of the independent variables that appear to influence selection. This paper offers additional insight. It develops a model to test the significance of the independent variables and the patterns and predictability of use. After identifying the significant variables, the authors explain the implications of their findings to current financial management. (ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.) INTRODUCTION Equity enjoyed years of a bull from 1982 to early 2000, when the value of U. S. common stocks peaked at approximately $17 trillion in value of the Wilshire 5000 index. The stock slide began in the year 2000, and this downward trend continued in the days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States' homeland. Throughout 2002, as equity markets struggled to stage several comeback rallies, the market's bad news shifted to huge business failures and bankruptcies, due to deceit and outright fraud in Fortune 100 companies such as Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom. The Wilshire 5000 index further declined during 2002 to end the year at a value of only about $10 trillion, a stunning paper loss approximating $7 trillion over the three year period (Browning, 2003). Indeed, investor confidence in equities has deteriorated so much, that one maj or Canadian investment broker recently stated that investors have totally lost faith in the stock market (Wahl, 2002). For many of these stock-shy investors, both corporate and individuals, investing in corporate bonds is becoming an increasingly attractive alternative, despite historically low interest rates. The increased attractiveness of bonds is due not only to the recent volatility of equity markets, but also to the reduced transactions costs and increased liquidity of corporate bonds for individual investors. Previously, corporate bond issues were funneled through only a few Wall Street dealers, resulting in bond prices being controlled by this small group. In recent years, more bonds are being issued in smaller increments without substantially increasing transactions costs, thus making them more attractive to individual purchasers. Additionally, research and analysis on thousands of bond issues has recently become available to the investing public on the Internet (Updegrave, 2001). The combined result of these factors is that non-institutional bond can buy investment grade corporate bond issues more easily and at more competitive prices than before. With many fleeing equity markets seeking to preserve their investment capital, perceived risk will be a critical factor in bond selection. Spurned equity are likely to examine bond covenants more now than at any other time in recent decades. In addition to the usual decisions made with new debt offerings, financial managers may need to be particularly attentive to bond covenant selection. While they may be more important to still reeling from equity portfolio shrinkage and corporate fraud scandals, covenants can be quite costly to issuers. The challenge to management will be to include only those covenants which are necessary to make the issue marketable, and no more. The number and characteristics of the necessary covenants will vary considerably by issuer and by issue at any given point in time. This study provides insight into debt covenant selection for financial managers of companies considering new debt offerings. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».