Reconsidering Creditor Governance in a Time of Financial Alchemy: Appendix

Jeremy McClane
{"title":"Reconsidering Creditor Governance in a Time of Financial Alchemy: Appendix","authors":"Jeremy McClane","doi":"10.52214/CBLR.V2020I1.7159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nFor many years corporate lenders have been a crucial force in the boardroom, providing a check on management and con- tributing to firm governance. However, as this Article docu- ments, lenders’ influence has receded in recent years for a large and important class of corporate borrowers. The culprit is a familiar one in a less familiar guise: the sale of loans by origi- nating banks for securitization—like that which gained noto- riety with pre-financial crisis mortgage-backed securities, but now are deployed in the market for corporate loans. As this Ar- ticle points out, the shift from relationship lending to arms- length securitization has the potential to intensify moral haz- ard, leading banks to provide less monitoring for their highly securitized clients. Recent data supports this narrative of debt governance dereliction with potentially enormous conse- quences: it heralds the disappearance of an important source of fiscal discipline and governance at a moment when U.S. cor- porations carry more debt than at any time in history (totaling half of U.S. gross domestic product), and an economic crisis threatens to expose companies whose debt has been poorly managed. \n \n \n \nThis Article presents a theoretical and empirical examina- tion of the dramatic change in creditor corporate governance and its implications. It shows how the diminishment of lend- ers’ role in governance is a predictable result of a confluence of forces in the financial markets, in particular, the use of struc- tured finance to securitize loans, which in turn has driven a lending market with diminishing checks on borrower profli- gacy. It also shows how this new market is weakening govern- ance norms in ways that are harmful to borrowing companies, lenders, and society as a whole. \nThe Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, it empirically documents the decline of lenders’ corporate gov- ernance interventions, cataloging original data on all borrower loan covenant violations—a primary mechanism by which lenders intervene in governance—from 2008 through 2018. Second, although many scholars have written about lenders’ role in corporate governance and securitization separately, this Article brings the two together. It thereby adds a missing com- ponent to an important literature by showing how corporate governance and the financial system affect each other, and pro- posing solutions to bolster both. \n \n \n \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":286992,"journal":{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/CBLR.V2020I1.7159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

For many years corporate lenders have been a crucial force in the boardroom, providing a check on management and con- tributing to firm governance. However, as this Article docu- ments, lenders’ influence has receded in recent years for a large and important class of corporate borrowers. The culprit is a familiar one in a less familiar guise: the sale of loans by origi- nating banks for securitization—like that which gained noto- riety with pre-financial crisis mortgage-backed securities, but now are deployed in the market for corporate loans. As this Ar- ticle points out, the shift from relationship lending to arms- length securitization has the potential to intensify moral haz- ard, leading banks to provide less monitoring for their highly securitized clients. Recent data supports this narrative of debt governance dereliction with potentially enormous conse- quences: it heralds the disappearance of an important source of fiscal discipline and governance at a moment when U.S. cor- porations carry more debt than at any time in history (totaling half of U.S. gross domestic product), and an economic crisis threatens to expose companies whose debt has been poorly managed. This Article presents a theoretical and empirical examina- tion of the dramatic change in creditor corporate governance and its implications. It shows how the diminishment of lend- ers’ role in governance is a predictable result of a confluence of forces in the financial markets, in particular, the use of struc- tured finance to securitize loans, which in turn has driven a lending market with diminishing checks on borrower profli- gacy. It also shows how this new market is weakening govern- ance norms in ways that are harmful to borrowing companies, lenders, and society as a whole. The Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, it empirically documents the decline of lenders’ corporate gov- ernance interventions, cataloging original data on all borrower loan covenant violations—a primary mechanism by which lenders intervene in governance—from 2008 through 2018. Second, although many scholars have written about lenders’ role in corporate governance and securitization separately, this Article brings the two together. It thereby adds a missing com- ponent to an important literature by showing how corporate governance and the financial system affect each other, and pro- posing solutions to bolster both.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
金融炼金术时代对债权人治理的再思考:附录
多年来,企业贷款机构一直是董事会的一股关键力量,为管理层提供制约,并为公司治理做出贡献。然而,正如本文所述,近年来,对于一个庞大而重要的企业借款者来说,贷款机构的影响力已经减弱。罪魁祸首是一个不太熟悉的伪装:由原始银行出售贷款证券化——就像金融危机前的抵押贷款支持证券一样,没有获得担保,但现在被部署在企业贷款市场上。正如这篇文章所指出的,从关系贷款到独立证券化的转变有可能加剧道德风险,并导致银行对其高度证券化的客户提供更少的监控。最近的数据支持了这种债务治理缺失的说法,可能会带来巨大的后果:它预示着在美国企业背负着比历史上任何时候都多的债务(总计占美国国内生产总值的一半)的时刻,一个重要的财政纪律和治理来源的消失,一场经济危机可能会暴露那些债务管理不善的公司。本文对债权人公司治理的剧烈变化及其影响进行了理论和实证研究。它表明,贷款人在治理中的作用的减弱是金融市场力量汇合的可预测结果,特别是使用结构性融资将贷款证券化,这反过来又推动了贷款市场,减少了对借款人概况的检查。它还表明,这个新市场正在削弱治理规范,对借贷公司、贷款人和整个社会都是有害的。这篇文章对文学有两个贡献。首先,它从经验上记录了贷款人对公司治理干预的减少,对所有借款人违反贷款契约的原始数据进行了分类,这是贷款人干预公司治理的主要机制,从2008年到2018年。其次,尽管许多学者分别论述了贷款人在公司治理和证券化中的作用,但本文将两者结合在一起。因此,它通过展示公司治理和金融体系如何相互影响,并提出支持两者的解决方案,为重要的文献增加了缺失的组成部分。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Financing Affordable Housing Through Opportunity Funds Subsidizing Gentrification: A Spatial Analysis of Place-Based Tax Incentives Reconsidering Creditor Governance in a Time of Financial Alchemy: Appendix How Place-Based Tax Incentives Can Reduce Geographic Inequality Amicus Brief on Arbitrability of the Discharge (Anderson v. Credit One Bank)
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1