返回列表 发帖

With free cash flows, borrowers can accumulate cash or voluntarily pay down debts. However, sometimes creditors impose a mandatory repayment covenant called "excess cash flow sweep" in loan contracts to force borrowers to repay debts ahead of schedule. About 17 percent of borrowers in the authors' sample (1995-2006) have this covenant attached to at least one of their loans. The author finds that the sweep covenant is more likely to be imposed on borrowers with higher leverage (i.e., where risk shifting by equity holders is more likely). The results are robust to including borrower fixed effects or using industry median leverage as a proxy. The covenant is more common also in borrowers where equity holders appear to have firmer control, e.g., when more shares are controlled by institutional block holders, when firms are incorporated in states with laws more favorable to hostile takeovers, or when equity holders place higher valuation on excess cash holdings.

These determinants suggest that the sweep covenant may be motivated by creditor-shareholder conflicts. Finally, the author shows that the covenant has real effects: borrowers affected by the sweep covenant indeed repay more debts using excess cash flows, and they spend less in capital investment and pay out fewer dividends to shareholders

TOP

怎么ANALYST FORUM没什么东西?

TOP

QUOTE:
以下是引用ak56在2010-6-7 1:22:00的发言:

 1.降低equity风险 (不好说,按理说:对equity而言,拿着现金比还债好)

 2.增加分红           (肯定错)

 3.增加net income   (对,我记得我的卷上是这个选项)

 4.增加税盾            (错,降低税盾:对)

有选项3吗?你在哪考的

TOP

来自国外评论
 
would like to hear from other retakers
Posted by: gjertsen (IP Logged)
Date: June 6, 2010 09:39AM

My impression of the exam yesterday was.... wow. That felt like a *gift* compared to last year. Pretty sure I botched the first ethics vignette and probably was a little weak on Derivatives, but overall I thought it was fairly straightforward, no surprises, etc.

The biggest surprise was probably calculating a prepayment when we were given not the PSA or the CPR, but the SMM!!

Those of you who took Level 2 last year: did you feel like it was a completely different experience? My theory is that when they first went to the 3 choice format they wanted to make sure it wasn't too easy, and made it a really hard test, and then maybe the pendulum swung back a little too far the other direction

TOP

QUOTE:
以下是引用efeepower在2010-6-7 1:30:00的发言:

2) dealer 1 has bigger spread than dealer 2. I picked expectation on FX volatility.

3) how much foreign currency for 1 dollar using dealer 2?

4) if future rate is higher than expected future rate (I calculated it based on int rate), borrow or lend $?

3)C  3.75?THE BIGGESTONE

4)BUY THE CURRENCY 

TOP

QUOTE:
以下是引用jjkate2001在2010-6-7 1:39:00的发言:
北美的数量最后一题ARCH模型,给了一张表,问你两组结果哪个反映了异方差,这题选什么啊?

我选的C  TTEST都没有显著性

TOP

QUOTE:
以下是引用zyjzyj1975在2010-6-7 1:38:00的发言:

我觉得dealer spread应该是illiguidity造成的

如果WIDER  SPREAD  2个原因  一是 INCREASED VOLATILITY   一是 ILLIQUIDITY 题目说的啥不知道了

TOP

QUOTE:
以下是引用jjkate2001在2010-6-7 1:50:00的发言:

我也选的C,看了题目上t test两个值都小于2,就猜了都没问题吧

应该没问题  。。

TOP

数学还有几道送分的  R2=0.3   F=14  AUTOCORRELATION

TOP

QUOTE:
以下是引用jjkate2001在2010-6-7 1:57:00的发言:
道德下午卷好像有一题说是有一个分析师喜欢和公司的建议反向操作,然后他帮顾客和自己的账户这么操作了,问有没有问题。这题选什么啊,我很拿不准。。。

我选违反   和公司意见相反

TOP

返回列表