افق های سرمایه گذاری سهامدار و تامین مالی بدهی بانک
ترجمه نشده

افق های سرمایه گذاری سهامدار و تامین مالی بدهی بانک

عنوان فارسی مقاله: افق های سرمایه گذاری سهامدار و تامین مالی بدهی بانک
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: Shareholder investment horizons and bank debt financing
مجله/کنفرانس: مجله بانکداری و مالی – Journal of Banking & Finance
رشته های تحصیلی مرتبط: مدیریت، اقتصاد
گرایش های تحصیلی مرتبط: مدیریت مالی، مالی، بانکداری، اقتصاد پول و بانکداری، اقتصاد مالی
کلمات کلیدی فارسی: افق سرمایه گذاری، تامین مالی بدهی، نظارت بر جلوگیری
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی: Investor horizon, Debt financing, Monitoring avoidance, Monitoring avoidance
نوع نگارش مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی (Research Article)
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.105656
دانشگاه: Mississippi State University, United States
صفحات مقاله انگلیسی: 17
ناشر: الزویر - Elsevier
نوع ارائه مقاله: ژورنال
نوع مقاله: ISI
سال انتشار مقاله: 2020
ایمپکت فاکتور: 2.531 در سال 2019
شاخص H_index: 135در سال 2020
شاخص SJR: 1.599 در سال 2019
شناسه ISSN: 0378-4266
شاخص Quartile (چارک): Q1 در سال 2019
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی: PDF
وضعیت ترجمه: ترجمه نشده است
قیمت مقاله انگلیسی: رایگان
آیا این مقاله بیس است: بله
آیا این مقاله مدل مفهومی دارد: دارد
آیا این مقاله پرسشنامه دارد: ندارد
آیا این مقاله متغیر دارد: دارد
کد محصول: E14208
رفرنس: دارای رفرنس در داخل متن و انتهای مقاله
فهرست مطالب (انگلیسی)

Abstract

1- Introduction

2- Hypothesis development

3- Data and variables

4- Empirical results

5- Robustness tests

6- Effects of shareholder investment horizons on other aspects of debt structure

7- Conclusion

Appendix B. Supplementary materials

Appendix A. Variable descriptions

References

بخشی از مقاله (انگلیسی)

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of institutional shareholder investment horizons on a firm’s use of bank debt. We find that short-term institutional ownership of the borrowing firm has a negative effect on bank debt financing. This finding provides evidence consistent with the monitoring avoidance incentives of short-term shareholders. In contrast, long-term institutional ownership has a positive impact on the firm’s reliance on bank debt financing. These effects are attenuated by higher managerial ownership and more motivated investors and are exacerbated by higher information opacity. Our results are robust to potential endogeneity concerns, the potential use of bonds, firm size effects, and alternative measures of investment horizon. Investigating the effects of investment horizons on other aspects of debt corroborates our main findings.

Introduction

Debt financing is an important source of funding for U.S. corporations. Firms can raise debt from arm’s-length investors, such as public bondholders, or from financial intermediaries, such as banks. Previous studies illustrate the relative benefits and costs of using bank debt as opposed to public debt (e.g. Diamond, 1984; Boyd and Prescott, 1986; Fama, 1985; Rajan, 1992; Chemmanur and Fulghieri, 1994). A few papers also explore firm characteristics, such as growth opportunities (Houston and James, 1996), credit quality (Denis and Mihov, 2003), corporate social capital (Hasan et al., 2017), or control-ownership divergence (Lin et al., 2013) as factors influencing a firm’s amount of bank debt. The impact of shareholder investment horizons on a firm’s use of bank debt, however, has not been explored in the literature. This study fills this void by investigating the association between institutional shareholder investment horizons and a firm’s percentage of debt held by banks using a comprehensive sample of U.S. firms from 1990 to 2015.

Institutional investors, who are more sophisticated than individual investors (Baghdadi et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2016; Prevost et al., 2016), are now the major owners of U.S. firms1; however, these investors are far from homogenous (Hotchkiss and Strickland, 2003; Ferreira et al., 2017). One important dimension by which they differ is the length of their investment horizons.2 This difference is economically important because institutional investors with short-term horizons have less incentive to spend resources on monitoring since they are less likely to invest long enough to recoup the costs of their monitoring efforts (Gaspar et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2007).