Do Lenders Still Monitor? Leveraged Lending and the Search for Covenants

Frederick Tung
{"title":"Do Lenders Still Monitor? Leveraged Lending and the Search for Covenants","authors":"Frederick Tung","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3882862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It was once conventional wisdom that lenders routinely influenced corporate managers’ decision making. Covenants constrained borrower risk taking and compelled specific affirmative obligations to protect lenders. Recent policy discussion, however, laments loan markets’ turn to various forms of high-risk lending. So-called leveraged loans — relatively risky, below-investment-grade loans — more than doubled in outstanding dollar terms, growing from about $550 billion in 2010 to $1.2 trillion by 2019. These risky loans have taken up a larger and larger share of the loan markets over time. More leveraged loans are also “covenant-lite,” issued without traditional financial maintenance covenants. And regulators worry about “add-backs” — borrowers’ growing practice of making upward adjustments to projected earnings that tend to weaken leverage constraints. Moreover, bank regulatory changes have incentivized “originate-to-distribute” loan syndications that enable non-bank lenders to hold and trade leveraged loans too risky for banks to keep. Syndicated lending now involves greater and greater participation by nonbank or “institutional” lenders like hedge funds, CLOs (collateralized loan obligations), and mutual funds. Commentators worry about the new species of risky loans, with their dearth of traditional covenants and the fewer instances of lender intervention, which may portend instability in debt markets. At the same time, weakened covenant protections may lead to weakened corporate governance. In this Article, I respond to these fears, arguing that they may be overblown. The increasing share of leveraged and covenant-lite loans may not necessarily evidence undisciplined debt issuance. Many seemingly troublesome loans are issued as subparts of deals that include loans with traditional covenants and cross-default provisions, which effectively constrain borrower behavior. Though add-backs may increase firm leverage, they may also improve the informativeness of earnings-based financial covenants. In addition, while the incidence of loan covenant violations has dropped dramatically across U.S. public firms, recent research suggests that covenants have become more efficient. In effect, covenants are doing more with less. Financial covenants have generally become less restrictive and more discriminating in differentiating distress from non-distress situations.","PeriodicalId":57292,"journal":{"name":"公司治理评论","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"公司治理评论","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3882862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It was once conventional wisdom that lenders routinely influenced corporate managers’ decision making. Covenants constrained borrower risk taking and compelled specific affirmative obligations to protect lenders. Recent policy discussion, however, laments loan markets’ turn to various forms of high-risk lending. So-called leveraged loans — relatively risky, below-investment-grade loans — more than doubled in outstanding dollar terms, growing from about $550 billion in 2010 to $1.2 trillion by 2019. These risky loans have taken up a larger and larger share of the loan markets over time. More leveraged loans are also “covenant-lite,” issued without traditional financial maintenance covenants. And regulators worry about “add-backs” — borrowers’ growing practice of making upward adjustments to projected earnings that tend to weaken leverage constraints. Moreover, bank regulatory changes have incentivized “originate-to-distribute” loan syndications that enable non-bank lenders to hold and trade leveraged loans too risky for banks to keep. Syndicated lending now involves greater and greater participation by nonbank or “institutional” lenders like hedge funds, CLOs (collateralized loan obligations), and mutual funds. Commentators worry about the new species of risky loans, with their dearth of traditional covenants and the fewer instances of lender intervention, which may portend instability in debt markets. At the same time, weakened covenant protections may lead to weakened corporate governance. In this Article, I respond to these fears, arguing that they may be overblown. The increasing share of leveraged and covenant-lite loans may not necessarily evidence undisciplined debt issuance. Many seemingly troublesome loans are issued as subparts of deals that include loans with traditional covenants and cross-default provisions, which effectively constrain borrower behavior. Though add-backs may increase firm leverage, they may also improve the informativeness of earnings-based financial covenants. In addition, while the incidence of loan covenant violations has dropped dramatically across U.S. public firms, recent research suggests that covenants have become more efficient. In effect, covenants are doing more with less. Financial covenants have generally become less restrictive and more discriminating in differentiating distress from non-distress situations.
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
贷款机构还在监控吗?杠杆贷款和契约的寻找
放贷机构经常影响企业管理者的决策,这曾经是一种传统智慧。契约限制了借款人的风险承担,并强制规定了保护贷款人的具体肯定性义务。然而,最近的政策讨论对贷款市场转向各种形式的高风险贷款感到遗憾。所谓的杠杆贷款——风险相对较高,低于投资级别的贷款——按未偿还美元计算增加了一倍多,从2010年的约5500亿美元增长到2019年的1.2万亿美元。随着时间的推移,这些高风险贷款在贷款市场中所占的份额越来越大。更多的杠杆贷款也是“低门槛贷款”,发行时没有传统的金融维护条款。监管机构还担心“附加回调”——借款人对预期收益进行向上调整的做法日益增多,这往往会削弱杠杆约束。此外,银行监管改革激励了“从发起到分销”的贷款银团,使非银行贷款机构能够持有和交易风险太大、银行无法保留的杠杆贷款。银团贷款现在越来越多地涉及非银行或“机构”贷款人,如对冲基金、贷款抵押债券(clo)和共同基金。评论人士对新型风险贷款感到担忧,因为它们缺乏传统的契约,贷款人的干预也越来越少,这可能预示着债务市场的不稳定。同时,契约保护的弱化可能导致公司治理的弱化。在这篇文章中,我对这些担忧做出了回应,认为它们可能被夸大了。杠杆贷款和低门槛贷款所占比例的不断上升,未必证明债务发行无纪律。许多看似麻烦的贷款是作为交易的一部分发放的,其中包括带有传统契约和交叉违约条款的贷款,这些条款有效地约束了借款人的行为。虽然附加回调可能会增加公司的杠杆,但它们也可能提高基于收益的金融契约的信息量。此外,尽管美国上市公司违反贷款契约的发生率大幅下降,但最近的研究表明,契约已经变得更加有效。实际上,契约是用更少的钱做更多的事。金融契约在区分困难情况和非困难情况方面,一般已变得不那么具有限制性,而且更具歧视性。
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
135
期刊最新文献
ProMarket 11 Recommends Financial Advisor with AI, Yet It Gets No Interest from Italian Financial Services. Why R. Abravanel Is Wrong and Why No Italian Google Exists Corporate Real Estate Usage and Firm Valuation: Evidence from a Dynamic Partial Adjustment Model Rights of Secured Creditors under Indian Insolvency Law Do Lenders Still Monitor? Leveraged Lending and the Search for Covenants Once Bitten, Twice Shy: Learning From Corporate Fraud and Corporate Governance Spillovers
×
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