Explore publications.

We study the sinking fund provision in 1,533 nonconvertible corporate bonds issued from 1980 to 1996 with the year 1996 being the last year of inclusion for these provisions in fixed coupon non-convertible corporate bonds. The period 1980 to 1996 is classified as the period of high interest rates (Tewari, Byrd, and Ramanlal, 2015). We find that the provision addresses agency issues due to reinvestment risk, credit improvement, and growth options. When the interest rates are high, investment grade issues with sinking fund have longer maturities (> 20 years) by a ratio exceeding 4:1, while non-sinking fund issues have shorter maturities (≤ 20 years) by a ratio of about 2:1. High yield issues with sinking fund experience credit risk improvement, while non-sinking fund issues experience credit risk deterioration. When the rates are low and expected to rise, the provision is likely to present accumulation threat to the firm thereby, deterrent to its use by the firms. Also, firms use the sinking fund as a call option to capture the benefits of growth. These results suggest that the sinking fund provision has the potential to make a comeback in the corporate debt in a high-interest rate environment and when the rates are likely to fall. The current environment of persistent high rates presents conditions ripe for inclusion of the sinking fund provision in the corporate bonds.

Previous study finds that the firms with inferior growth options tend to issue callable bonds. Typically, these firms are characterized by stock underperformance. Previous study also finds that the floating rate as a superior alternative to the call provision, which is restrictive, when the interest rates are likely to fall. We study the long-term stock performance of floating rate notes (FRNs) issuing firms, issued when the interest rates are high. Stock overperformance would suggest floating rate as a preferred choice by the firms with high growth options rather the call option. We find that the FRNs are generally investment grade with extremely rare presence of a call option. We perform the analysis using Buy and hold abnormal return (BHAR) as the proxy for the long-term stock overperformance/underperformance. A sample of floating rate notes issued (1654) from 1992 to 2007, a period of high interest rates, reveals significant overperformance by the floating rate notes issuing firms in the high-rate paradigm. High growth firms, in the high-rate environment, significantly benefit from the floating rate provision which is less restrictive and less costly than the call option, which typically provides call protection period and pays a call premium. Floating rate provision better mitigates the interest rate risk for the firms in the high-rate environment. We find that the smaller, high growth, higher leverage, less profitable firms with greater agency issues benefit more from issuing FRNs in the high-rate environment. Our study has relevance to the stock portfolio construction and performance. We also perform a comparative analysis using the sample of floating rate notes issued (270) during 2008 to 2018, a period of low interest rates, and find stock underperformance. The implications are that the call option likely is a better choice for the firm since the firm preserves the right to forego exercising the option.

We examine the security and firm characteristics of a sample of 2,027 non-convertible investment grade floating rate securities (bonds) issued by the US based firms between 1980 and 2018. These bonds pay a coupon based on short term reference rate, such as fed funds rate, plus a fixed quoted margin. Considerable number (81.6%) of these issues are between 1992 and 2007 signifying floating rate as an effective mechanism to mitigate firm’s interest rate risk when the rates are high and expected to fall. A positive and significant abnormal return (CAR = 0.27%), in the event window surrounding issue date, provides strong evidence that the floating rate is viewed as a less restrictive provision as compared to the call option. Majority of the issues (89.3%) are non-callable since the floating rate mitigates interest rate risk for the issuing firm. Lack of put provision in these bonds (in only 7.35% of the sample issues) signifies no significant investor concerns of falling bond prices. Regression analysis reveals that firms with growth options and with higher leverage experience positive CAR due to the financial flexibility these bonds provide. Firms with higher level of information asymmetry benefits less from issuing these securities since most of these bonds (90.13%) are issued at par therefore, the price is not likely to carry information content that mitigates information asymmetry between the firms and the investors.

We document frequency distribution of 4315 two-party, non-equity alliances undertaken by the U.S. based firms between 1986 and 2015 in 11industries and find that on an aggregate basis, the firms which form multiple alliances based on the exploitation motive are as likely to enter into alliance as the firms that enter into multiple alliances based on the exploration motive. However, we find strong evidence that the firms that enter into alliances on three or more occasions are driven by the exploration motive while, the firms that enter into alliances one and one or two times are driven by the exploitation motive.  The average cumulative abnormal returns (ACAR) for all of the three subsamples of firms that undertook one, one or two, and three or more alliances during the time period for this study are all positive but exhibit a declining trend.  Firms that are larger in terms of total assets engage more frequently in alliances than smaller firms.  Returns to firms that enter into three or more alliances are sensitive to the leverage employed and the likelihood of bankruptcy whereas returns to firms that enter into only one or one or two alliances are affected significantly by the considerations of competitive forces.