动态对冲激励、债务和权证

C. Hennessy, Yuri Tserlukevich
{"title":"动态对冲激励、债务和权证","authors":"C. Hennessy, Yuri Tserlukevich","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.559409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a static setting, Green (1984) shows that a warrant contract can eliminate the asset substitution problem created by debt. In contrast, we show that when the firm chooses volatility dynamically, no warrant can eliminate asset substitution, as equity is always risk-loving when the firm is near default. The hedging incentive produced by a warrant is weakest when the option is out of the money, precisely when the speculative incentive due to limited liability is strongest. Although warrants mitigate dynamic asset substitution, we show that they exacerbate the agency problem of premature default (underinvestment). Indeed, unless a firm has sufficient volatility discretion, the costs of premature default dominate. For firms with sufficient volatility discretion, where warrants potentially increase value, they do so only if they grant large equity stakes. The optimal warrant contract entails \"maximum deterrence,\" fully diluting existing shareholders upon conversion.","PeriodicalId":411978,"journal":{"name":"EFA 2004 Maastricht Meetings (Archive)","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dynamic Hedging Incentives, Debt, and Warrants\",\"authors\":\"C. Hennessy, Yuri Tserlukevich\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.559409\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a static setting, Green (1984) shows that a warrant contract can eliminate the asset substitution problem created by debt. In contrast, we show that when the firm chooses volatility dynamically, no warrant can eliminate asset substitution, as equity is always risk-loving when the firm is near default. The hedging incentive produced by a warrant is weakest when the option is out of the money, precisely when the speculative incentive due to limited liability is strongest. Although warrants mitigate dynamic asset substitution, we show that they exacerbate the agency problem of premature default (underinvestment). Indeed, unless a firm has sufficient volatility discretion, the costs of premature default dominate. For firms with sufficient volatility discretion, where warrants potentially increase value, they do so only if they grant large equity stakes. The optimal warrant contract entails \\\"maximum deterrence,\\\" fully diluting existing shareholders upon conversion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":411978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EFA 2004 Maastricht Meetings (Archive)\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EFA 2004 Maastricht Meetings (Archive)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.559409\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EFA 2004 Maastricht Meetings (Archive)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.559409","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

在静态环境下,Green(1984)表明权证合约可以消除债务带来的资产替代问题。相反,当企业动态选择波动率时,没有权证可以消除资产替代,因为当企业接近违约时,股权总是喜欢风险的。权证产生的套期保值激励在期权亏钱时最弱,而有限责任导致的投机激励恰恰是最强的。虽然权证可以缓解动态资产替代,但我们发现它们加剧了过早违约(投资不足)的代理问题。事实上,除非一家公司有足够的波动性自由裁量权,否则过早违约的成本将占主导地位。对于拥有足够波动性自由裁量权的公司来说,权证可能会增加价值,它们只有在授予大量股权的情况下才会这样做。最优权证合约需要“最大威慑”,即在转换时充分稀释现有股东。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dynamic Hedging Incentives, Debt, and Warrants
In a static setting, Green (1984) shows that a warrant contract can eliminate the asset substitution problem created by debt. In contrast, we show that when the firm chooses volatility dynamically, no warrant can eliminate asset substitution, as equity is always risk-loving when the firm is near default. The hedging incentive produced by a warrant is weakest when the option is out of the money, precisely when the speculative incentive due to limited liability is strongest. Although warrants mitigate dynamic asset substitution, we show that they exacerbate the agency problem of premature default (underinvestment). Indeed, unless a firm has sufficient volatility discretion, the costs of premature default dominate. For firms with sufficient volatility discretion, where warrants potentially increase value, they do so only if they grant large equity stakes. The optimal warrant contract entails "maximum deterrence," fully diluting existing shareholders upon conversion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信