抑制投机的代价:来自“投资级”确立的证据

Asaf Bernstein
{"title":"抑制投机的代价:来自“投资级”确立的证据","authors":"Asaf Bernstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2700814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent regulatory restrictions on proprietary trading by banks, such as the “Volcker Rule”, have elevated discussion about the potential costs to non-financial firms of restricting investments of major institutional investors, such as banks. History provides some hints to the possible costs of excluding banks from “speculative” investments. On February 15th, 1936 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency unexpectedly announced that member banks of the Federal Reserve System, one of the largest investors in corporate bonds, were no longer allowed to purchase securities rated as speculative grade by rating agencies. This controversial ruling affected more than half of all publicly traded corporate bonds and represented the inception of federal rating-contingent bank investment restrictions. Using a fuzzy regression discontinuity at the investment grade cut-off, I find that following the announcement financing constraints induced by the exclusion of banks from the speculative grade corporate debt market cause a persistent 3-5% decline in the equity market value of firms requiring speculative financing. I find that this decline is concentrated among firms in industries reliant on external financing. This decline does not, however, appear to be driven by a change in perceived default risk or direct debt financing costs, since bond yields do not change. Instead, I find that firms who initially require speculative financing reduce the size of their debt issuances to improve their credit rating. These firms subsequently have less long-term debt, fewer investments, and slower asset growth in the years following the ruling. Overall these results provide evidence that regulators may need to consider the costs to non-financial firms of policies that attempt to curb speculative trading by banks.","PeriodicalId":10698,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Costs of Curbing Speculation: Evidence from the Establishment of 'Investment Grade'\",\"authors\":\"Asaf Bernstein\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2700814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent regulatory restrictions on proprietary trading by banks, such as the “Volcker Rule”, have elevated discussion about the potential costs to non-financial firms of restricting investments of major institutional investors, such as banks. History provides some hints to the possible costs of excluding banks from “speculative” investments. On February 15th, 1936 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency unexpectedly announced that member banks of the Federal Reserve System, one of the largest investors in corporate bonds, were no longer allowed to purchase securities rated as speculative grade by rating agencies. This controversial ruling affected more than half of all publicly traded corporate bonds and represented the inception of federal rating-contingent bank investment restrictions. Using a fuzzy regression discontinuity at the investment grade cut-off, I find that following the announcement financing constraints induced by the exclusion of banks from the speculative grade corporate debt market cause a persistent 3-5% decline in the equity market value of firms requiring speculative financing. I find that this decline is concentrated among firms in industries reliant on external financing. This decline does not, however, appear to be driven by a change in perceived default risk or direct debt financing costs, since bond yields do not change. Instead, I find that firms who initially require speculative financing reduce the size of their debt issuances to improve their credit rating. These firms subsequently have less long-term debt, fewer investments, and slower asset growth in the years following the ruling. Overall these results provide evidence that regulators may need to consider the costs to non-financial firms of policies that attempt to curb speculative trading by banks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2700814\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2700814","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近对银行自营交易的监管限制,如“沃尔克规则”(Volcker Rule),引发了有关限制银行等主要机构投资者投资对非金融公司的潜在成本的讨论。历史提供了一些提示,说明将银行排除在“投机性”投资之外可能付出的代价。1936年2月15日,美国货币监理署出人意料地宣布,作为公司债券最大的投资者之一,联邦储备系统的成员银行不再被允许购买被评级机构评为投机级的证券。这一有争议的裁决影响了所有公开交易的公司债券的一半以上,并标志着联邦评级附带银行投资限制的开始。使用投资级截止点的模糊回归不连续,我发现在宣布融资约束后,由于银行被排除在投机级公司债券市场之外,导致需要投机融资的公司的股票市场价值持续下降3-5%。我发现这种下降集中在依赖外部融资的行业的公司。然而,这种下降似乎不是由感知违约风险或直接债务融资成本的变化驱动的,因为债券收益率没有变化。相反,我发现最初需要投机性融资的公司会减少其债务发行规模,以提高其信用评级。随后,这些公司的长期债务减少,投资减少,在裁决后的几年里,资产增长放缓。总的来说,这些结果提供的证据表明,监管机构可能需要考虑试图遏制银行投机交易的政策对非金融公司的成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Costs of Curbing Speculation: Evidence from the Establishment of 'Investment Grade'
Recent regulatory restrictions on proprietary trading by banks, such as the “Volcker Rule”, have elevated discussion about the potential costs to non-financial firms of restricting investments of major institutional investors, such as banks. History provides some hints to the possible costs of excluding banks from “speculative” investments. On February 15th, 1936 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency unexpectedly announced that member banks of the Federal Reserve System, one of the largest investors in corporate bonds, were no longer allowed to purchase securities rated as speculative grade by rating agencies. This controversial ruling affected more than half of all publicly traded corporate bonds and represented the inception of federal rating-contingent bank investment restrictions. Using a fuzzy regression discontinuity at the investment grade cut-off, I find that following the announcement financing constraints induced by the exclusion of banks from the speculative grade corporate debt market cause a persistent 3-5% decline in the equity market value of firms requiring speculative financing. I find that this decline is concentrated among firms in industries reliant on external financing. This decline does not, however, appear to be driven by a change in perceived default risk or direct debt financing costs, since bond yields do not change. Instead, I find that firms who initially require speculative financing reduce the size of their debt issuances to improve their credit rating. These firms subsequently have less long-term debt, fewer investments, and slower asset growth in the years following the ruling. Overall these results provide evidence that regulators may need to consider the costs to non-financial firms of policies that attempt to curb speculative trading by banks.
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
期刊最新文献
The Real Consequences of Macroprudential FX Regulations Will the EU Taxonomy Regulation Foster a Sustainable Corporate Governance? Hedge Fund Management and Pricing Structure around the World Open Access, Interoperability, and the DTCC's Unexpected Path to Monopoly Indirect Investor Protection: The Investment Ecosystem and Its Legal Underpinnings
×
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