[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]債務(wù)融資外文翻譯--投資者熟悉度和公司債務(wù)融資條件

1、3300 英文單詞， 英文單詞，18500 英文字符，中文 英文字符，中文 5600 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Herrmann, Leonie, and Oscar A. Stolper. “Investor familiarity and corporate debt financing conditions.“ Finance Research Letters 23 (2017): 263-268.Investor familiar

2、ity and corporate debt financing conditionsLeonie Herrmann, Oscar A. StolperAbstractThis study contributes to our understanding of how retail bondholders value familiarity with the issuer. Using a sample of corporate bon

3、ds issued by German non-financials and especially marketed to individual investors, we document that – besides product market visibility – three previously unconsidered antecedents of investor familiarity, i.e. local vis

4、ibility, media visibility and overall recognition of the bond-issuing company, are negatively associated with credit spreads. Given that company visibility does not necessarily result in a reduction of fundamental risk f

5、or the group of bondholders, the finding that higher familiarity relates to lower risk premia suggests heuristic decision behaviour among retail investors where a familiarity bias reduces the perceived risk of bond inves

6、tments.Keywords: Investor familiarity ;Retail investors; Company visibility ;Cost of capital ; Cost of debt; Corporate bonds1. IntroductionA robust finding from the literature studying the impact of company visibility on

7、 asset allocation decisions is that familiarity breeds equity investment (e.g. Barber and Odean, 2008; Green and Jame, 2013; Huberman, 2001; Keloharju et al., 2012) and serves to enhance shareholder value (e.g. Joshi and

8、 Hanssens, 2010; Rao et al., 2004; Srivastava et al., 1998). Interestingly, however, while the impact of familiarity on shareholder behaviour is well-researched, investigations on how bondholders value familiarity are st

9、ill rare, and, to the best of our knowledge, the role of familiarity among retail bond investors has not been considered as yet. Given that a number of companies have recently targeted individual investors in their bond

10、issuances, it is worthwhile to understand how private households arrive at their bond investment decisions.We fill this gap and thereby extend the few studies on the role of familiarity for corporate bond financing condi

11、tions in two important ways. First, while Nejadmalayeri et al. (2013) and Singh et al. (2005) do not distinguish between different investor groups, we focus on bonds issued in a market segment dominated by retail investo

12、rs and thus improve our understanding of how individual investors value corporate bonds. Second, prior research with respect to the impact of familiarity on the cost of debt has analyzed the effect of corporate advertisi

13、ng on firm fundamentals and thus is confined to investor familiarity induced by product market visibility of a given company. However, as shown in a number of studies on how familiarity influences individuals’ investment

14、 decisions, product market visibility is only one of several different antecedents of familiarity. Hence, we apply a comprehensive conceptualization of investor familiarity and capture the individual contribution of re

15、cognition, local visibility, media visibility, product market visibility, and name fluency, all of which have been shown to drive investor familiarity.Our results suggest that low-visibility firms carry significant risk

16、premia also in terms of debt financing conditions. Beyond the role of product market visibility, we show that familiarity brand may arise from being a customer of that brand, high product market visibility generally enha

17、nces individuals’ familiarity with certain companies regardless of whether or not they consume the branded product. Straightforwardly, the rationale here is that “(…) while such advertising is presumably aimed at increas

18、ing the firms’s market share in the product market, at a minimum it should make the firm’s name and products better known to both consumers and investors” (Grullon et al., 2004, p. 440). Since we lack the micro data to c

19、ontrol for individuals’ customer relationships with the firms under review, we proxy for product market visibility as an antecedent of retail investor familiarity by differentiating between sampled companies operating on

20、 business-to-consumer markets – i.e expected to feature a high relative product market visibility to consumers – and firms offering business-to-business products and services (FAM_PRDCT).Moreover, a company’s media visib

21、ility has been found to impact the degree to which people perceive it as familiar (Barber and Odean, 2008; Engelberg and Parsons, 2011; Fang and Peress, 2009). To measure the impact of this antecedent of familiarity, we

22、follow Fang and Peress (2009) and search the online archive of the largest German financial newspaper (Handelsblatt) for articles containing the sampled companies’ names in a first step. Second, we take the logarithm of

23、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 proxy for corporate media visibility to retail investors (FAM_MEDIA).Fifth and finally,

24、recent contributions have found individuals’ familiarity with corporate brands to be governed by unconscious perceptions, too. Specifically, Song and Schwarz (2009) document that brand name fluency induces familiarity an

25、d Green and Jame (2013) find that people feel more comfortable when investing in companies with names that are easier to pronounce. Thus, to capture name fluency as an additional antecedent of familiarity, we calculate a

26、 fluency-score analogously to Green and Jame (2013) for each company in our sample (FAM_NAME).2.2. Familiarity and bondholder valueInterestingly, while the impact of familiarity on shareholder value has been investigated

27、 quite extensively, research on the question how bondholders value familiarity is still scarce. Singh et al. (2005) are the first to examine whether firms can use advertising and improve their product market visibility i

28、n an effort to reduce their overall cost of capital. The authors indeed report a positive spillover effect: advertisement outlays lead to a lower WACC which, confirming earlier findings, enhances firm value and benefits

29、shareholders. However, Singh et al. (2005) also provide evidence that higher levels of familiarity associate with higher debt utilization as well as a higher default risk. Given that bondholders’ return is highly sensiti

30、ve to default risk (Elton et al., 2001), their results suggest that, if anything, the cost of debt should increase in brand familiarity. Nejadmalayeri et al. (2013), in their study on product market visibility and corpor

31、ate bonds, recently put this notion to the test and find that the net impact of advertisement-induced familiarity on credit spreads – i.e. the risk premium required by bondholders – is unclear. This implies that for the

32、group of bond investors, other than for residual claimants, familiarity need not necessarily have economic value (arising from a reduction of fundamental risk) and hence should not affect credit spreads.On the other hand

33、, however, familiarity may spill over to investor behaviour in terms of the perceived riskiness of a firm’s securities. The experimental evidence of Heath and Tversky (1991) points to this link between familiarity and in

34、dividuals’ risk perception. The authors report that when agents have to choose between two identical games with the same probability, they perceive the game they know less as being riskier. In a related study, Goetzmann