1976
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1976.tb01891.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Valuing Corporate Securities: Some Effects of Bond Indenture Provisions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

14
1,010
1
13

Year Published

1997
1997
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,836 publications
(1,038 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
14
1,010
1
13
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, when the coefficient β 2 is chosen on some small level, for example β 2 = 0.7, greater A decreases D (1) . Contrary to D (1) , greater A decreases D (2) and D (3) . These payoffs to the bondholders at the default time are always less than A.…”
Section: Numerical Examplesmentioning
confidence: 70%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Thus, when the coefficient β 2 is chosen on some small level, for example β 2 = 0.7, greater A decreases D (1) . Contrary to D (1) , greater A decreases D (2) and D (3) . These payoffs to the bondholders at the default time are always less than A.…”
Section: Numerical Examplesmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…This is nothing but the first-passage-time model of Black & Cox [2], except for the default boundary. In this case, the payoff to the bondholder at maturity is…”
Section: Example 31mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…One fruitful approach has been provided by the contingent claims analysis, pioneered by Merton (1974), Black & Cox (1976), Brennan & Schwartz (1978) and Leland (1994). A recent contribution in this strand of literature has been provided by Goldstein et al (2001), who take the EBIT-value of a firm to be the relevant state variable, upon which contingent claims can be valued.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%