公司债务按市值计价

Lorenzo Bretscher, Peter Feldhütter, Andrew Kane, L. Schmid
{"title":"公司债务按市值计价","authors":"Lorenzo Bretscher, Peter Feldhütter, Andrew Kane, L. Schmid","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3681817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Models of capital structure and credit risk make predictions about market valuations of debt, but are routinely tested on the basis of book debt from common data sources. In this paper, we propose to close this gap. We construct a rich data set on firm level debt market valuations by carefully matching data on corporate bond and loan secondary market transactions. We document significant discrepancies between market and book values, especially for distressed firms. We use our dataset to i) provide novel rules of thumb on how to adjust leverage and unlever returns using standard datasets, and ii) to revisit a number of prominent empirical patterns involving corporate debt. Using a market-based measure of Tobin's Q, we find little evidence for investment cash-flow sensitivity in our data. We find that using market debt values significantly improves default prediction, and do not detect a credit spread puzzle. In asset pricing tests, we find a leverage premium, but no evidence for a value premium after controlling for market leverage. Moreover, a novel measure of financial distress, namely market-to-book debt, predicts stock returns positively in the cross-section, inconsistent with a financial distress puzzle.","PeriodicalId":375725,"journal":{"name":"SPGMI: Capital IQ Data (Topic)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marking to Market Corporate Debt\",\"authors\":\"Lorenzo Bretscher, Peter Feldhütter, Andrew Kane, L. Schmid\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3681817\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Models of capital structure and credit risk make predictions about market valuations of debt, but are routinely tested on the basis of book debt from common data sources. In this paper, we propose to close this gap. We construct a rich data set on firm level debt market valuations by carefully matching data on corporate bond and loan secondary market transactions. We document significant discrepancies between market and book values, especially for distressed firms. We use our dataset to i) provide novel rules of thumb on how to adjust leverage and unlever returns using standard datasets, and ii) to revisit a number of prominent empirical patterns involving corporate debt. Using a market-based measure of Tobin's Q, we find little evidence for investment cash-flow sensitivity in our data. We find that using market debt values significantly improves default prediction, and do not detect a credit spread puzzle. In asset pricing tests, we find a leverage premium, but no evidence for a value premium after controlling for market leverage. Moreover, a novel measure of financial distress, namely market-to-book debt, predicts stock returns positively in the cross-section, inconsistent with a financial distress puzzle.\",\"PeriodicalId\":375725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SPGMI: Capital IQ Data (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SPGMI: Capital IQ Data (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3681817\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SPGMI: Capital IQ Data (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3681817","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

资本结构和信用风险模型对债务的市场估值做出了预测,但通常是在来自共同数据源的账面债务基础上进行测试的。在本文中,我们建议缩小这一差距。我们通过仔细匹配公司债券和贷款二级市场交易的数据,构建了一个丰富的公司级债务市场估值数据集。我们记录了市场价值和账面价值之间的显著差异,特别是对于陷入困境的公司。我们使用我们的数据集来i)提供关于如何使用标准数据集调整杠杆和无杠杆回报的新经验法则,以及ii)重新审视涉及公司债务的一些突出的经验模式。使用基于市场的托宾Q度量,我们在我们的数据中发现投资现金流敏感性的证据很少。我们发现使用市场债务值显著改善了违约预测,并且没有发现信用利差难题。在资产定价测试中,我们发现了杠杆溢价,但没有证据表明在控制市场杠杆后存在价值溢价。此外,一种新的金融危机衡量标准,即市净率债务,在横截面上预测股票回报为正,这与金融危机难题不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Marking to Market Corporate Debt
Models of capital structure and credit risk make predictions about market valuations of debt, but are routinely tested on the basis of book debt from common data sources. In this paper, we propose to close this gap. We construct a rich data set on firm level debt market valuations by carefully matching data on corporate bond and loan secondary market transactions. We document significant discrepancies between market and book values, especially for distressed firms. We use our dataset to i) provide novel rules of thumb on how to adjust leverage and unlever returns using standard datasets, and ii) to revisit a number of prominent empirical patterns involving corporate debt. Using a market-based measure of Tobin's Q, we find little evidence for investment cash-flow sensitivity in our data. We find that using market debt values significantly improves default prediction, and do not detect a credit spread puzzle. In asset pricing tests, we find a leverage premium, but no evidence for a value premium after controlling for market leverage. Moreover, a novel measure of financial distress, namely market-to-book debt, predicts stock returns positively in the cross-section, inconsistent with a financial distress puzzle.
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