Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies最新文献

I examine the underpricing of private bonds from U.S. issuers under Rule 144A and its relation to information asymmetry. The evidence shows that informationally opaque issuers prefer private placements, offering higher initial returns to attract informed investors and avoiding the elevated default premium they would face in public markets. On average, private bonds deliver 0.54% higher initial excess returns than public bonds. While underpricing is positively related to information asymmetry for public bonds, the relationship is weak for private bonds, as informed investors are less sensitive to dispersed market information. The underpricing of private bonds is stronger for an issuer's first private offering, but the higher returns do not persist beyond the first trading day. Overall, private bond issuance reflects firm incentives to target informed institutional investors in the bond market.

This paper reviews the economic foundations of green finance and how it works in practice. Public policy is essential for addressing climate externalities, but its impact is often limited by policy swings and the difficulty of coordinating across countries. These gaps have raised expectations for private investors, yet common channels such as divestment and engagement face structural hurdles: heterogenous investor preferences, fiduciary constraints, and weak links between ESG metrics and real economic outcomes. Recent research finds that sustainable investing tends to shift portfolios more than it cuts emissions. Transition-focused tools, including sustainability-linked bonds, show more promise. Overall, we argue that green finance is most effective as a complement to public policy and technological innovation, not a substitute for them.

This study examines whether and how fund networks influence the disposition effect of fund managers. We use quarterly data from Chinese open-ended equity funds for the period from 2013 to 2024. First, we demonstrate a negative relationship between fund networks and fund managers' disposition effects, indicating that the higher the centrality of the fund network, the lower the disposition effect of fund managers. Second, fund managers' stock-picking and market-timing abilities play a U-shaped moderating role in the relationship between network centrality and the disposition effect. Finally, higher fund performance ranking, industry concentration, and economic policy uncertainty weaken the negative impact of fund networks on the disposition effect of fund managers. This study provides better insights into how fund networks affect fund managers' dispositions.

This study examines the impacts of physical climate risks on banking stability using a global panel dataset (2005–2023). We analyze natural disasters, climate vulnerability and readiness, carbon pricing policies, and macroeconomic conditions using fixed-effects regression models. Our findings provide mixed evidence on the relationship between natural disasters and banking stability. Natural disasters typically increase nonperforming loans (NPLs), reduce liquidity, and lower capital adequacy, though effects vary substantially by context. Climate vulnerability significantly exacerbates liquidity pressures and equity reductions but also generates unexpected short-term stabilizing effects, possibly due to regulatory interventions. Climate readiness demonstrates selective effectiveness, moderating profitability volatility and enhancing liquidity and capital stability in certain contexts. Carbon pricing policies initially induce transitional challenges but yield substantial long-term stability benefits by incentivizing banks to shift toward sustainable asset portfolios. Macroeconomic conditions, notably GDP per capita and government debt levels, further moderate banks' resilience to climate shocks, revealing complex interactions that simultaneously amplify and mitigate banking vulnerabilities. These findings provide policy-relevant evidence, highlighting the necessity for tailored frameworks and context-specific risk management strategies that effectively balance transitional economic impacts with long-term financial resilience objectives.

Banks sit at the center of climate risk dynamics, as virtually all firms and households exposed to climate risks interact with banks through credit, deposits, and other financial services. We develop a framework for how climate risks map onto banks' credit, market, liquidity, and operational risks, and how bank risk management choices in turn shape real economic and climate outcomes. We highlight banks' dual role as absorbers and transmitters of climate risks: prudent management can enhance resilience, while credit rationing or mispricing may amplify vulnerabilities and inequality. By synthesizing recent literature and regulatory approaches, we underscore that climate-related financial risks are central to the banking sector and identify open questions for research and policy.

By analyzing 19 715 firm–year observations from 2640 companies across 38 OECD member economies between 2002 and 2023, this study examines the effect of climate risk exposure on firm default risk. Our findings suggest that firms with higher climate risk exposure, as measured by physical risk and transition risk indicators, are more likely to default. We then explore how financial constraints influence this relationship and find that innovation mitigates the impact of climate risk on default risk. However, firms should prioritize green innovation instead of increasing overall research and development (R&D) investment. Moreover, the relationship between climate risk exposure and default risk varies depending on financial constraints, industry climate sensitivity, and regulatory stringency. Overall, our study provides practical insights for managers, policymakers, and investors, underscoring the importance of integrating climate risk into firm assessments, investment strategies, and green technology transitions.

Commercial banks manage climate risk by pricing firm climate risk exposure into loan spreads. Using annual report disclosures, we measure this exposure and estimate its impact on loan pricing. A one-standard-deviation increase in climate risk exposure raises loan spreads by 40 basis points on average. Banks respond to firm transition risks but not to physical risks. This effect stems from transition risks that reduce firm profitability and increase default probabilities. In contrast, banks do not adjust loan spreads for physical risks which primarily cause losses in tangible assets. The pricing of climate risk intensifies for high leverage and risk firm, as these firms are more susceptible to climate-related shocks. External factors also matter: during periods of heightened public climate awareness and for banks with strong environmental commitments, the climate risk premium in loan spreads grows larger.

On June 26, 2023, Korea widened the allowable range of first-day returns for initial public offerings (IPOs) from a band of −37% to +160% to a band of −40% to +300% relative to the offer price. This study examines the impact of this regulatory change on IPO underpricing. While traditional finance theory predicts that relaxing price limits enhances price discovery, our empirical analysis finds no statistically significant effect of the reform on IPO underpricing. Although average initial returns increased modestly after the regulatory change, these differences are not statistically significant across various sample periods and model specifications. These findings suggest that the dynamics of IPO underpricing are unlikely to be driven solely by regulatory constraints. Instead, the persistently high levels of underpricing and oversubscription point to the potential importance of institutional features, such as conservative offer pricing and underwriters' reputational incentives, in shaping IPO underpricing.

We examine the relationship between firms' environmental and social (ES) performances and their resilience during significant negative shocks. In contrast to prior studies documenting greater resilience among US firms with higher ES scores due to social capital acquisition, we find the opposite trend among Korean firms. Following the COVID-19 outbreak, firms with higher ES scores exhibited worse stock performances. With more resources allocated toward ES engagement, these firms faced tighter financial and operational constraints, limiting their ability to respond flexibly to adverse shocks. Despite investing more in ES initiatives, Korean firms lacking transparent corporate governance failed to acquire their stakeholders' support.