Covenant-Light Contracts and Creditor Coordination

Bo Becker, V. Ivashina
{"title":"Covenant-Light Contracts and Creditor Coordination","authors":"Bo Becker, V. Ivashina","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2756926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2015, 70% of newly-issued leveraged loans had weaker enforcement features, called covenant-light or “cov-lite;” this is nearly a three-time increase in cov-lite issuance compared to a previous peak in 2007. We evaluate whether this development can be attributed to market overheating, increased borrower demand for cov-lite loans, or a rise in creditor coordination costs. The last hypothesis stems from the increasing involvement of non-bank institutions and, in particular, the rise of mutual fund participation in the leveraged loan market after the financial crisis. Based on the wider syndication, (narrower) skills, and diverse incentives of non-bank institutional lenders, optimal contracts between them and corporate borrowers likely involve fewer monitoring tools and weaker control rights. We evaluate these explanations of cov-lite contract provisions in a large sample of U.S. loans for the 2001–2014 period. Consistent with creditor-driven explanations for cov-lite issuance, we show that cov-lite prices compress as the prevalence of cov-lite rises. Time patterns in cov-lite issuance closely match inflows to institutional lenders, and at a given time, cov-lite loans are, overwhelmingly, those with the highest ownership by structured products and/or mutual funds. The number and share of structured products and mutual funds also impact the propensity toward other contractual features that influence when and how creditors have control. However, these factors are less relevant in explaining the strength of restrictions on indebtedness, liens, payments, or assets sales.","PeriodicalId":187122,"journal":{"name":"Swedish House of Finance Research Paper Series","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"77","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swedish House of Finance Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2756926","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 77

Abstract

In 2015, 70% of newly-issued leveraged loans had weaker enforcement features, called covenant-light or “cov-lite;” this is nearly a three-time increase in cov-lite issuance compared to a previous peak in 2007. We evaluate whether this development can be attributed to market overheating, increased borrower demand for cov-lite loans, or a rise in creditor coordination costs. The last hypothesis stems from the increasing involvement of non-bank institutions and, in particular, the rise of mutual fund participation in the leveraged loan market after the financial crisis. Based on the wider syndication, (narrower) skills, and diverse incentives of non-bank institutional lenders, optimal contracts between them and corporate borrowers likely involve fewer monitoring tools and weaker control rights. We evaluate these explanations of cov-lite contract provisions in a large sample of U.S. loans for the 2001–2014 period. Consistent with creditor-driven explanations for cov-lite issuance, we show that cov-lite prices compress as the prevalence of cov-lite rises. Time patterns in cov-lite issuance closely match inflows to institutional lenders, and at a given time, cov-lite loans are, overwhelmingly, those with the highest ownership by structured products and/or mutual funds. The number and share of structured products and mutual funds also impact the propensity toward other contractual features that influence when and how creditors have control. However, these factors are less relevant in explaining the strength of restrictions on indebtedness, liens, payments, or assets sales.
轻契约契约与债权人协调
2015年,70%的新发行杠杆贷款的执行特征较弱,被称为“低门槛”(cov-lite);与2007年的上一个峰值相比,这一数字增长了近三倍。我们评估这种发展是否可以归因于市场过热,借款人对低成本贷款的需求增加,或债权人协调成本上升。最后一种假设源于非银行机构越来越多地参与杠杆贷款市场,尤其是金融危机后共同基金参与杠杆贷款市场的增多。基于更广泛的辛迪加、(狭义的)技能和非银行机构贷款机构的多样化激励,它们与企业借款人之间的最优合同可能涉及更少的监控工具和更弱的控制权。我们以2001-2014年期间美国贷款的大样本为例,评估了这些对合约条款的解释。与债权人驱动的低成本债券发行解释一致,我们表明低成本债券的价格随着低成本债券的普及而压缩。低门槛贷款发行的时间模式与机构贷款的资金流入密切匹配,在特定时间,低门槛贷款绝大多数是结构性产品和/或共同基金持有比例最高的贷款。结构性产品和共同基金的数量和份额也影响对其他合同特征的倾向,这些特征会影响债权人何时以及如何拥有控制权。然而,这些因素在解释对负债、留置权、付款或资产出售的限制力度时相关性较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信