[雙語翻譯]債務融資外文翻譯--投資者熟悉度和公司債務融資條件（英文）

1、Finance Research Letters 23 (2017) 263–268 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Finance Research Letters journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/frl Investor familiarity and corporate debt financing conditions Leo

2、nie Herrmann a , ?, Oscar A. Stolper b a Department of Financial Services, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Licher Straße 74, 35394 Giessen, Germany b Department of Accounting Green and Jame, 2013; Huberman,

3、 2001; Keloharju et al., 2012 ) and serves to enhance shareholder value (e.g. Joshi and Hanssens, 2010; Rao et al., 2004; Srivastava et al., 1998 ). Interestingly, however, while the impact of familiarity on shareholde

4、r behaviour is well-researched, investigations on how bondholders value familiarity are still rare, and, to the best of our knowledge, the role of familiarity among retail bond in- vestors has not been considered as yet.

5、 Given that a number of companies have recently targeted individual investors in their bond issuances, it is worthwhile to understand how private households arrive at their bond investment decisions. We fill this gap and

6、 thereby extend the few studies on the role of familiarity for corporate bond financing conditions in two important ways. First, while Nejadmalayeri et al. (2013) and Singh et al. (2005) do not distinguish between differ

7、ent investor groups, we focus on bonds issued in a market segment dominated by retail investors and thus improve our under- standing of how individual investors value corporate bonds. Second, prior research with respect

8、to the impact of familiarity on the cost of debt has analyzed the effect of corporate advertising on firm fundamentals and thus is confined to investor familiarity induced by product market visibility of a given company.

9、 However, as shown in a number of studies on how familiarity influences individuals’investment decisions, product market visibility is only one of several different antecedents ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: l

10、eonie.herrmann@wirtschaft.uni-giessen.de (L. Herrmann), oscar.stolper@wiwi.uni-marburg.de (O.A. Stolper). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.08.004 1544-6123/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. L. Herrmann,

11、O.A. Stolper / Finance Research Letters 23 (2017) 263–268 265 of familiarity, we follow Fang and Peress (2009) and search the online archive of the largest German financial newspaper ( Handelsblatt ) for articles co

12、ntaining the sampled companies’names in a first step. Second, we take the logarithm of the number of firm-specific articles published on any of the companies over the three years prior to the date of bond issuance as a p

13、roxy for corporate media visibility to retail investors (FAM_MEDIA). 6 Fifth and finally, recent contributions have found individuals’familiarity with corporate brands to be governed by un- conscious perceptions, too. S

14、pecifically, Song and Schwarz (2009) document that brand name fluency induces familiarity and Green and Jame (2013) find that people feel more comfortable when investing in companies with names that are eas- ier to prono

15、unce. Thus, to capture name fluency as an additional antecedent of familiarity, we calculate a fluency-score analogously to Green and Jame (2013) for each company in our sample (FAM_NAME). 7 2.2. Familiarity and bondhol

16、der value Interestingly, while the impact of familiarity on shareholder value has been investigated quite extensively, 8 research on the question how bondholders value familiarity is still scarce. Singh et al. (2005) ar

17、e the first to examine whether firms can use advertising and improve their product market visibility in an effort to reduce their overall cost of capital. The authors indeed report a positive spillover effect: advertisem

18、ent outlays lead to a lower WACC which, confirming earlier findings, enhances firm value and benefits shareholders. However, Singh et al. (2005) also provide evidence that higher levels of familiarity associate with high

19、er debt utilization as well as a higher default risk. Given that bondholders’return is highly sensitive to default risk ( Elton et al., 2001 ), their results suggest that, if anything, the cost of debt should increase

20、in brand familiarity. Nejadmalayeri et al. (2013) , in their study on product market visibility and corporate bonds, recently put this notion to the test and find that the net impact of advertisement-induced familiarity

21、 on credit spreads – i.e. the risk premium required by bondholders – is unclear. This implies that for the group of bond investors, other than for residual claimants, familiarity need not necessarily have economic value

22、(arising from a reduction of fundamental risk) and hence should not affect credit spreads. On the other hand, however, familiarity may spill over to investor behaviour in terms of the perceived riskiness of a firm’ s sec

23、urities. The experimental evidence of Heath and Tversky (1991) points to this link between familiarity and individuals’risk perception. The authors report that when agents have to choose between two identical games with

24、the same probability, they perceive the game they know less as being riskier. In a related study, Goetzmann and Kumar (2008) find that investors systematically perceive distant stocks as being riskier just because of the

25、ir geographic remoteness from home and a sense of unfamiliarity as a consequence thereof. Thus, high familiarity of a company among investors may lead to a scenario, in which, all else equal, “(…) investors are more will

26、ing to lend or invest in the equity of firms that they are familiar with”( Singh et al., 2005 , p. 434). Thus, if investors’familiarity with a company affects their individual perception of the company’ s risk in that

27、it lowers the risk premium they require, we would expect credit spreads to be significantly lower among the companies we identify as being familiar to retail investors. 3. Data and method Straightforwardly, we test these

28、 two competing hypotheses by investigating whether or not investor familiarity affects risk-adjusted credit spreads. To this end, we analyze a sample of 232 small-sized bonds (i.e. issue volumes from 10 million EUR to 25

29、0 million EUR) issued by German non-financials between January 2010 and June 2014 and especially marketed towards retail investors. 132 of the bonds under review are listed in a specifically designed German market segmen

30、t to promote SME bond issuances (“Mittelstandsanleihen”). 9 To analyze the distinctive impact of each of the identified antecedents of familiarity on how individual investors value corporate bonds, we regress each of th

31、e familiarity measures, together with a number of other parameters which have been shown to determine corporate default risk, on the credit spreads of the bonds under review. Following Klock et al. (2005) , we define th

32、e credit spread (SPREAD) as the difference between the internal rate of return of the sampled bond and the yield of German sovereign bonds with the same maturity at the time of issue. In line with previous contributions

33、to the literature explaining credit spreads (e.g. Chen et al., 2011b; Covitz and Downing, 20 07; Elton et al., 20 01 ), we control for each bond’ s credit rating capturing external assessment of default risk (RATING),

34、 10 maturity (MATURITY), and issue volume (ISSUEVOL) of the sampled bonds as well as and the balance sheet total of the 6 Due to the fact that the searches for some company names do not yield any results, we replace tho

35、se by 0.5 before taking logs. 7 Specifically, the fluency-score of Green and Jame (2013) aggregates (i) a length score, (ii) a dictionary score and (iii) Englishness. Note that, since we sample German firms, we adapt it

36、to reflect name fluency in Germany, i.e. substitute English with German when calculating the different scores. 8 Studies on the effectiveness of corporate advertisement provide some evidence suggesting that h

37、igher familiarity is associated with lower cost of equity. Specifically, a strong brand c.p. reduces a firm’ s vulnerability to competition and improves customer loyalty, leading to reduced cash

38、 flow variability ( Aaker and Jacobson, 1994; Anderson et al., 2004; Mizik and Jacobson, 2003 ). Suppliers of the equity capital should associate reduced cash flow variability with lower corporate risk and therefore

39、 demand a smaller risk premium. Thus, higher familiarity is expected to reduce a firm’ s cost of equity financing as well as to improve shareholder value ( Joshi and Hanssens, 2010; Rao et al., 2004; Srivastava et al.,

40、1998 ). 9 Herrmann (2017) explores the investor base of our sample of corporate bonds and reports that as much as 77% (45%) of the aggregate issue volume of bonds listed (not listed) as Mittelstandsa