Debt Analysts' Views of Debt-Equity Conflicts of Interest
Debt Analysts' Views of Debt-Equity Conflicts of Interest
Debt Analysts' Views of Debt-Equity Conflicts of Interest
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
To control for other information, we include a variable that indicates whether conflict<br />
events were announced by the firm in the six-month period prior to a bond’s issuance. 31 We also<br />
add a control for equity analysts’ recommendations and include the Federal Funds rate at the date<br />
<strong>of</strong> the bond’s issuance. By including this latter variable, we control for the effect <strong>of</strong><br />
macroeconomic changes on the firm’s cost <strong>of</strong> borrowing. To control for a borrower’s credit risk,<br />
we include rating fixed effects. Finally, we include industry fixed effects which capture industry-<br />
level characteristics, such as asset tangibility, that are likely to affect the <strong>of</strong>fering yield.<br />
The estimation <strong>of</strong> Equation (4) is presented in Column 1 <strong>of</strong> Table 8. The coefficient on<br />
Conflict Discuss Neg Prior 6M is positive and significantly different from zero, suggesting that<br />
negative conflict event discussions in debt analysts’ reports preceding a bond’s issuance lead to a<br />
higher bond <strong>of</strong>fering yield. Economically, a negative conflict-discussion tone prior to the bond<br />
issuance (relative to neutral or positive discussions) increases the <strong>of</strong>fering yield by 27 basis<br />
points, which represents 4.0% <strong>of</strong> the median bond yield <strong>of</strong> the sample firms.<br />
In Column 2 <strong>of</strong> Table 8, we examine whether the effect <strong>of</strong> conflict discussions on<br />
<strong>of</strong>fering yields depends on the bond’s credit riskiness. We find some evidence to support our<br />
prediction that when debt is <strong>of</strong> low credit quality, debt yields are more sensitive to new<br />
information. The coefficients on the conflict discuss measure are increasing as creditworthiness<br />
declines, with the coefficient on Conflict Discuss Neg Prior 6M: BBB-A Rating significant at the<br />
10% one-sided level and the coefficient on Conflict Discuss Neg Prior 6M: Below BBB Rating<br />
significant at the 5% level. An untabulated test shows a significant difference in coefficients<br />
between the medium (highest) credit risk category and the lowest one, with a p-value <strong>of</strong> 0.08<br />
31 Compared to the Conflict Event Firm Announcement variable used in CDS and bond volume analyses in prior<br />
sections, we omit dividend distributions from the variable’s definition. Almost all <strong>of</strong> our <strong>of</strong>fering yield sample firms<br />
distribute dividends in the six-month period prior to a new bond issuance (the period over which Conflict Event<br />
Prior 6M is estimated for yield analysis). Hence if we include dividend distributions in our definition, the Conflict<br />
Event Firm Announcement Prior 6M variable would have negligible variation.<br />
37