Search results

In this two-part case, Richard Davis and Stephen Hodgetts, co-owners of D&H Management LLC, are trying to come to terms with changes in the real estate market‐changes that have made their rental homes worth less than their mortgages and at best yielding at most a break-even cash flow. In Part A Davis and Hodgetts are weighing the following options: (1) sell all of the properties, assume a loss (walk away with nothing), and avoid the negative cash flow; (2) walk away from all of the properties, assume a loss (walk away with nothing), and avoid the negative cash flow; (3) delay paying the mortgage on some of the homes, allow these properties, if necessary, to go into foreclosure, and in the interim use the positive cash flow to shore up some of the more positive cash flow homes; (4) contact all of the lenders and try to renegotiate the mortgages so as to have lower monthly rates.

In Part B Davis proposes that he and Hodgetts go their separate ways. Davis walks away with the two properties that have mortgages in his name, while Hodgetts obtains the four properties that have mortgages in his. From Hodgettsʼ perspective this is a losing proposition since (1) he would have to take over the management of four “loser” properties rather than Davisʼs two, an ʼunfairʼ split of the liabilities; (2) he had no interest in managing properties; and (3) he and Davis would be splitting up a long-standing team.

The authors investigate whether the effects of stock buyback announcements on credit default swap (CDS) spread changes for US firms depend on macroeconomic conditions. The authors find that abnormal CDS spreads increase for small-sized firms announced to repurchase a higher share ratio during the normal period. In contrast, abnormal CDS spreads decrease for big-sized firms regardless of the magnitude of the repurchase ratio during the crisis period. The results of this study suggest that the wealth transfer effect dominates the signaling effect for small-sized firms with higher target ratios during the normal period. In contrast, the signaling effect is stronger for bondholders of big-sized firms during the crisis period.