Monetary Policy and Corporate Debt Structure*

Lhuissier, Stéphane; Szczerbowicz, Urszula

doi:10.1111/obes.12443

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6 Because there might be a time lag between green bond issuance and the material effect generated by fund use (see the work of Lhuissier & Szczerbowicz, 2022). In addition, the majority of our sample green bonds have maturity between 3 and 5 years.…”

Section: Main Empirical Results and Robustnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate green bonds and carbon performance: An economic input–output life cycle assessment model‐based analysis

Wei

Yongsheng

2022

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a proprietary database of corporate green bonds issued in China, we investigate the effect of green bond issuance on firm‐level carbon performance and its impact mechanism. We utilize the Economic Input–Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO‐LCA) to evaluate corporate carbon performance and use all the 1074 firms that issued corporate bonds in 2009–2018 as the sample group. The empirical results reveal that the companies did not effectively achieve the expected carbon performance improvement post‐issuance. The mechanism analysis suggests that this might have been because the primary motivation for the companies to issue green bonds is to ease their financial constraints. Environmental regulations (at the national and industrial level) play a positive role in the relations between corporate green bond issuance and carbon performance. Overall, the findings raise an alert on the value of Chinese corporate green bonds in climate change mitigation and indicate the need for information disclosure and carbon performance‐linked supervision on green bond issuers.

show abstract

Section: Main Empirical Results and Robustnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate green bonds and carbon performance: An economic input–output life cycle assessment model‐based analysis

Wei

Yongsheng

2022

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gulan and Silvo (2021) developed a DSGE model with endogenous determination of direct market finance and intermediated credit and also find that: (i) monetary policy tightening shocks lead to a rebalancing of bank loans towards bonds; (ii) a higher bond share leads to a weaker transmission of policy rate shocks to the economy; and (iii) these mechanisms should also lead to a weaker transmission of monetary policy in the United States than in the euro area, given the higher share of bond finance in the former economy than in the latter. Lhuissier and Szczerbowicz (2018), Arce et al (2021) and Grosse-Rueschkamp et al (2019), distinguish between conventional and unconventional monetary policy and find differences in the response patterns across financing instruments. Adalid et al (2021) find that loan and bond finance act as substitutes in response to monetary policy shocks, as manifested by opposite adjustments to such shocks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…32SeeArce et al (2021),Bats (2020),Betz and De Santis (2021), De Santis and Zaghini (2021),Grosse-Rueschkamp et al (2019) orLhuissier and Szczerbowicz (2018), among others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonbank Financial Intermediation in Times of Crisis: Identifying Leadership in the G20 Countries

Evlakhova¹,

Amosova²

2022

JAER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-banking financial intermediation, which means the conduct of credit operations by financial institutions that do not have a license for this and was previously interpreted as “shadow banking”, has become a long-term trend in the development of the global financial market. The purpose of the study is to determine the changes in non-banking financial intermediation during periods of crises and the inter-crisis period, as well as to identify the leading countries in the development of non-banking financial intermediation in a long-term retrospective. A hypothesis is formulated that during periods of crises, not only does the volume of non-banking financial intermediation decrease (on a global scale and within national markets), but its structure also changes. To test the hypothesis, a cross-country comparative analysis of the level of development of non-banking financial intermediation based on the corresponding index was carried out, as well as clustering using the FOREL method to identify changes in the structure of global non-banking financial intermediation. As data sources, data from the Financial Stability Board Monitoring Dataset on Non-Bank Financial Intermediation and OECD. Stat data were used. The results of the study confirmed the correctness of the formulated hypothesis. On their basis, the directions for the development of non-banking financial intermediaries in the current conditions of the approaching recession of the world economy are determined: (1) maintaining the index of non-banking financial intermediation in the current range of values; (2) preservation of the polycluster structure of non-banking financial intermediation, since the decrease in the number of clusters occurs during periods of relative stability of the world economy; (3) increased heterogeneity of countries in terms of the level of non-banking financial intermediation. It is shown that the crisis caused by the pandemic had a stronger negative impact on non-banking financial intermediation than the global financial crisis. The theoretical significance of the results obtained is to identify the structure of global non-banking financial intermediation, as well as to propose a criterion for countries' leadership in terms of its level. The practical significance lies in the possibility of using the results obtained in the development of measures to ensure the stability of financial markets both at the global and national levels.

show abstract

“…See for instance[Denis and Mihov, 2003, Faulkender and Petersen, 2006, Hale and Santos, 2008, Rauh and Sufi, 2010.4 Other works studying the link between bond markets and monetary policy includeArce et al [2018],Ertan et al [2019],Giambona et al [2020], Todorov [2020],Becker and Ivashina [2014],Lhuissier and Szczerbowicz [2018],Elliott et al [2019],Kashyap et al [1996],Bolton and Freixas [2006] Becker and Ivashina [2015],Bubeck et al [2020]. and Di Maggio andKacperczyk [2017] also highlight the role of reach for yield, whilePelizzon et al [2019] shows the role of collateral eligibility on European corporate bond markets Crouzet [2019],Holm-Hadulla and Thürwächter [2020].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%