Search results

Pay, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently based upon inferences regarding the value of faculty research. Meanwhile, departmental, college and university reputations are frequently based on perceptions regarding the quality of research being produced by its faculty. Making correct inferences requires accurate measurement of research quality, which is often based upon the journal through which results are shared. This research expands upon the research found elsewhere through its detailed investigation of leading journals in two business disciplines, including examination of four different citation-based measures and four journal characteristics which are exogenous to the quality of any individual piece of research. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This study assists in the development of an accurate perspective regarding research quality, by studying the popular Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor. A further expansion on the past literature is consideration of three newer journal quality metrics: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and percentage of articles cited. Top-tier journals in finance and information systems are compared to evaluate the consistency of these measures across disciplines. Differences in journal characteristics and their impact on citation-rate based measures of quality are also examined. The potential impact of discipline-based variation in acceptance rate, issue frequency, the time since journal inception and total reviewers are put forth as additional potential exogenous factors that may impact the perception of journal quality. t-Tests are employed for discipline comparisons, while correlation and multiple regression are used for journal characteristic analysis.

There is a significant difference in the JCR impact measures of high-quality finance journals vs high-quality information systems journals, which are correlated with a variety of journal-specific factors including the journal’s acceptance rate and frequency of issue. Information systems journals domination of finance journals persists whether one considers mean, median, minimum or maximum impact factors. SJR measures for finance journals are consistently higher than information systems journals, though the SJR value of any individual journal can be quite volatile. By comparison, the SNIP metric rates premier information systems journals higher. Over 12 percent more of the articles in leading information systems journals are cited during the initial three years.

Logical extensions of this research include examining journals in other business disciplines. One could also evaluate quality measures reaction to variation in journal characteristics (i.e. changes in acceptance rates). Furthermore, one could include other measures of journal quality, including the recently released CiteScore metric. Such research will build on the present research and improve the accuracy of research quality assessment.

To the extent that citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors vary across disciplines as demonstrated by our investigation, discipline-specific traits should be considered adjusted for, when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. For instance, finance faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 53 percent above the discipline’s average, while information systems faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 18 percent below the discipline’s average. Furthermore, discipline-specific differences in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research in the process of making recommendations regarding salary adjustments, retention and promotion.

Quantity and quality of research are two hallmarks of leading research institutions. Assessing research quality is very problematic because its definition has changed from being based on review process (i.e. blind refereed), to acceptance rates, to impact factors. Furthermore, the impact factor construct has been a lightning rod of controversy as researchers, administrators and journals themselves argue over which metric to employ. This research is attempting to assess how impact factors and journal characteristics may influence the impact factors, and how these interactions vary business discipline. The research is especially important and relevant to the authors which separately chair departments including finance and information systems faculty, and therefore are in roles requiring assessment of faculty research productivity including quality.

This study is a detailed analysis of bibliographic aspects of the top-tier journals in two quantitative business areas. In addition to the popular JCR, SJR and SNIP measures of performance, the analysis studies the seldom-examined percentage of the article cited metric. A deeper understanding of citation-based measures is obtained though the evaluation of changes in how journals have been rated on these metrics over time. The research shows that there are discipline-related systematic differences in both citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors and that these discipline-specific traits should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. Furthermore, discipline-specific difference in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making personnel and remuneration decisions.

This chapter differentiates the effect of solicited credit ratings (SCRs) and unsolicited credit ratings (UCRs) on bank leverage decision before and after the credit rating change. We find that banks with UCRs issue less debt relative to equity when the credit rating changes are approaching. Such findings are also prominent when bank credit rating moves from investment grade to speculative grade. After credit rating upgrades (downgrades), banks with unsolicited (solicited) credit ratings are inclined to issue more (less) debt relative to equity than those with solicited (unsolicited) credit ratings. We conclude that SCR and UCR changes lead to significantly different effects on bank leverage decision.

In this paper, the authors use a new methodology, called paper affiliation index, to create finance journal ranking using expert judgment and research impact, both of which are based on secondary, objective measures, thus making it possible to produce lists every year without human manipulation at virtually no cost.

Bibliometrics. Python implementation.

A new ranking with 65 finance journals.

This procedure helps to reduce bias and to deal with known problems associated with current methodologies. The data used in the methodology comes from public sources; the procedure is therefore easily replicable. This methodology is not subject-dependent and thus can be transferred to other realms of knowledge. Once the bibliometric institutional data has been gathered, the procedure is not computationally costly: a Python implementation of the algorithm executes the whole computation in a few seconds. Results seem to correct the pernicious Matthew effect which is so evident in citation-based methods.

The institutional classification created includes all institutions that have contributed papers to the field of finance. The procedure helps to reduce bias and to deal with known problems associated with current methodologies. The data used in the methodology comes from public sources, the procedure is therefore easily replicable. The methodology is not subject-dependent and thus can be transferred to other realms of knowledge. Once the bibliometric institutional data has been gathered, the procedure is not computationally costly.

Although the pervasive influence of investor sentiment in equity markets is well documented, little is known about behavioral manifestations in bond markets. In this paper, we explore the impact of investor sentiment on corporate bond yield spreads. Our results reveal that bond yield spreads co‐vary with sentiment, and sentiment‐drivenmispricings and systematic reversal trends are very similar to those for stocks. Bonds appear underpriced (with high yields) during pessimistic periods and overpriced (with low yields) when optimism reigns. Consequent reversals result in predictable trends in post‐sentiment yield spreads.When beginning‐of‐period sentiment is low, subsequent yield spreads are low; high sentiment periods are followed by high spreads. High‐yield bonds (low ratings, Industrials and Utilities, extreme maturities or low durations, specially if low rated) demonstrate greater susceptibility to mispricings due to sentiment compared to low‐yield bonds. The incremental yield spread gap between highand low‐yield bonds converges subsequent to periods of low sentiment, and diverges after high sentiment. Equity attributes marginally influence the impact of sentiment on bond spreads, but mostly for distressed bonds only.

Bond rating studies have received and continue to receive considerable attention in the literature on government finance. This study focuses on two major issues of municipal bond ratings that occupy the center-stage of these discussions: What charac-teristics does a rating institution analyze when assigning rating to a government? How significant are these characteristics in predicting the ratings given by these institutions? Using a combination of economic, financial, and demographic factors, the study reexamines these questions on a select group of cities.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate credit rationing across firms in euro zone countries, as it relates to its own sovereign credit ratings.

The authors utilize firm-level data from the Survey on Access to Finance of Enterprises for the period 2009-2013 conducted by the European Central Bank.

A negative association between the rating of sovereign creditworthiness and credit rationing is identified, while credit rationing varies substantially even among countries with the highest quality of sovereign bonds. Credit rationing is lower in sovereigns with high-quality ratings and higher in sovereigns near default. These results remain intact when fundamental firm characteristics (e.g. firm’s age and size, sector of economic activity, financial situation, etc.) are taken into consideration. This indicates that the interconnection of sovereign debt risk with domestic credit market outcomes is robust.

The present study contributes to the relevant literature by performing a detailed analysis of credit rationing for euro zone SMEs and by exploring the link between sovereign credit rating and credit rationing during the sovereign debt crisis period.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a cohesive review of the major findings in the literature concerning the Global Financial Crisis.

Papers published in top-rated finance and economics journal since the crisis up to the present were reviewed. A large number of these were selected for inclusion, primarily based on the number of citations they had received adjusted for the amount of time elapsed since their publication, but also partly based on how well they fit in with the narrative.

Much has been done to investigate the causes of the Global Financial Crisis, its effects on various aspects of the financial system, and the effectiveness of regulatory measures undertaken to restore the financial system. While more remains to be done, the existing body of research paints an interesting picture of what happened and why it happened, describes the interrelationships between the mortgage markets and financial markets created by the large scale securitization of financial assets, identifies the problems created by these inter-linkages and offers possible solutions, and assesses the effectiveness of the regulatory response to the crisis.

This study summarizes a vast amount of literature using a framework that allows the reader to quickly absorb a large amount of information as well as identify specific works that they may wish to examine more closely. By providing a picture of what has been done, it may also assist the reader in identifying areas that should be the subject of future research.

The question is whether debt market investors see through managers' attempts to hide their pension obligations. The authors establish a robust relation between understated pension liabilities and corporate bond yield spreads after controlling for factors that have been previously identified as having a significant impact on firms' cost of borrowing. The results support the idea that bond market investors are not being misled by the use of high pension liability discount rates by some companies to lower their reported pension obligations. For a small fraction of debt issuers, the reported pension liabilities are larger than the pension liabilities valued at the stipulated interest rate benchmarks. For these issuers with overstated pension liabilities, bond investors adjust their borrowing costs downward.

The authors investigate the relation between corporate bond yield spreads and understated pension liabilities relative to long-term Treasury and high-grade corporate bond yields. They aim to answer two questions. First, what are the sizes of over or understated pension liabilities relative to guideline benchmarks? Second, do debt market investors see through the potential management manipulation of pension discount rates? The authors find that firms with large understated pension liabilities face higher marginal borrowing costs after taking into account issue-specific features, firm characteristics, macroeconomic conditions and other pension information such as funded status and mandatory contributions.

The average understated projected benefit obligations (PBOs) are understated by $394.3 and $335.6, equivalent to 3.5 and 3.0% of the beginning of the fiscal year market value, respectively. The average understated accumulated benefit obligations (ABOs) are understated by $359.3 and $305.3 million, equivalent to 3.1 and 2.6%, of the beginning of the fiscal year market value, respectively. Relative to AA-grade corporate bond yields, the average difference between firm pension discount rates and benchmark yields becomes much smaller; the percentage of firm pension discount rates higher than benchmark yields is also much smaller. As a result, understated pension liabilities become negligible. The authors establish a robust relation between corporate bond yield spreads and measures of understated pension liabilities after controlling for issue-specific features, firm characteristics, other pension information (funded status and mandatory contributions), macroeconomic conditions, calendar effects and industry effects.

S&P Rating Services recognizes the issue that there is considerably more variability in discount rate assumptions among companies than in workforce demographics or the interest rate environment in which firms operate (Standard and Poor's, 2006). S&P also indicates that it would be desirable to normalize different discount rate assumptions but acknowledges that it is difficult to do so. In practice, S&P Rating Services conducts periodic surveys to see whether firms' assumed discount rates conform to the normal standard. The paper makes an initial attempt to quantify the size of understated pension liabilities and their impact on corporate bond yield spreads. This approach can be extended to study firms' costs of equity capital, the pricing of seasoned equity offerings and the pricing of merger and acquisition transaction deals, among other questions.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how entrepreneurs demand for external finance changed as the economy continued to be mired in its third and fourth years of the global financial crisis (GFC) and whether or not external finance has become more difficult to access as the recession progressed.

Using a large-scale survey data on over 30,000 UK small- and medium-sized enterprises between July 2011 and March 2013, the authors estimate a series of conditional probit models to empirically test the determinants of the supply of, and demand for external finance.

Older firms and those with a higher risk rating, and a record of financial delinquency, were more likely to have a demand for external finance. The opposite was true for women-led businesses and firms with positive profits. In general finance was more readily available to older firms post-GFC, but banks were very unwilling to advance money to firms with a high-risk rating or a record of any financial delinquency. It is estimated that a maximum of 42,000 smaller firms were denied credit, which was significantly lower than the peak of 119,000 during the financial crisis.

This paper provides timely evidence that adds to the general understanding of what really happens in the market for small business financing three to five years into an economic downturn and in the early post-GFC period, from both a demand and supply perspective. This will enable the authors to consider what the potential impacts of credit rationing on the small business sector are and also identify areas where government action might be appropriate.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between executive pay disparity and the cost of debt.

The authors use a sample of syndicated bank loans granted to United States (US) listed firms from 1992 to 2014 and adopt the loan yield spread (Chief Executive Officer (CEO) pay slice) as the main proxy for the cost of debt (executive pay disparity). The authors also use the Heckman two-stage model to address the sample selection bias and the two-stage least squares and propensity score matching methods to control the potential endogeneity issues. To test different views about executive pay disparity, the authors adopt the cash-to-stock ratio to proxy for managerial risk-shifting incentives.

The authors find that the cost of debt is significantly higher for firms with larger executive pay disparity, which is robust to sample selection bias, endogeneity concerns, alternative measures and various controls. This positive relationship increases with the risk-shifting incentives of CEOs instead of other top executives, which supports the managerial power view, and is stronger for firms with higher levels of financial distress. The findings suggest that creditors view executive pay disparity are associated with higher credit risk and CEO entrenchment.

This paper reveals one “dark” side of executive pay disparity: it increases the cost of debt and identifies a significant role played by CEOs' risk-shifting incentives. The authors provide direct evidence of the relevance of pay differential to corporate credit analysis.