Do SWF investments matter for bond ratings? The role of corporate governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate the impact of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) equity ownership on bonds’ credit ratings of their target firms. Using a sample of 2045 bonds issued by 324 SWF target firms from 16 countries over the period 1996–2020, we find evidence linking SWF investments to lower likelihood of bond rating upgrades. Consistent with value‐reducing political agenda hypothesis, our results suggest that credit rating agencies perceive SWFs as a structure that could affect the quality of corporate governance and harm bondholder interests by leaving them vulnerable to losses. Our results also show that credit rating could be improved: (i) with SWF transparency and experience; (ii) when SWFs take a more passive investment stance; and (iii) within the financial crisis period. Finally, and interestingly, using generalized structural equation modelling, we provide evidence supporting the mediating role of target firm's corporate governance quality in the relationship between SWF investments and bond ratings. Our findings are robust to controls for the endogeneity and heteroscedasticity issues and to alternative sample compositions and regression frameworks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it