Creditor Intervention, Investment, and Growth Opportunities

Abstract

We show that creditors do not just ensure that inefficient investment is not undertaken, but also do not preclude efficient investment. Examining what happens following a debt covenant violation, a situation through which creditors acquire some control rights over the firm, we find that investment declines when the firm has few growth opportunities but it may increase otherwise. The results are robust to the use of different proxies for growth opportunities. The firm’s performance improves but it suffers dividend cuts and increased CEO turnover. The results suggest that creditors consider the benefits of growth opportunities as a source of future cash flows to meet outstanding debt obligations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Daniels and Ramirez (2011), Lee and Sharpe (2009) and Preece and Mullineaux (1994) find empirical evidence consistent with the monitoring role of banks.

  2. 2.

    In a robustness test available upon request, we find similar results four quarters after the covenant violation.

  3. 3.

    These covenants are: Min Current Ratio; Min Net Worth; Min Tangible Net Worth; Min Fixed Charge Coverage; Min Debt Service Coverage; Min Interest Coverage; Min Cash Interest Coverage; Max Leverage Ratio; Max Debt to Cash-Flow; Max Debt to Tangible Net Worth; Max Debt to Equity; Required Lenders (%); Term Changes (%), Collateral Release (%); Max Investment Basket.

  4. 4.

    This is reasonable given that many loans have cross-default clauses, which often means that if the firm is in technical default in one loan, it is automatically considered as in technical default in all of its outstanding loans.

  5. 5.

    As a reference point, in Sufi’s database that includes violations of all covenants there are 16.56 % of covenant violations (3572 observations) that correspond to 644 different firms (34.58 % of the total).

  6. 6.

    These numbers are in line with those from Chava and Roberts (2008) for non-financial firms in the merged CRSP-Compustat database for the period from 1987 to 2005.

  7. 7.

    The results also hold when we use the median value of the market-to-book ratio for the industrial sector (at a secondary SIC code level) instead of the sample median to classify a firm according to its growth opportunities.

  8. 8.

    Using a dummy variable allows us to easily recognize when the firm has many growth opportunities over a period of time, more specifically over four consecutive quarters. The reason why we focus on a period instead of a point in time is to make sure that we are in fact picking up growth-firms and excluding firms that happen to be above the median by chance at a given quarter. Moreover, we are excluding the possibility that an unexpected jump in growth opportunities contemporaneous to the covenant violation may drive the effect in the firm’s investment policy and other dependent variables. This allows us to be more rigorous in the empirical strategy.

  9. 9.

    Vassalou and Xing (2004) find that default risk is related to the market-to-book value of the firm. Nevertheless, our descriptive statistics in Tables 1 and 2 show that average Z-scores are quite high suggesting that default risk may not be an immediate concern.

  10. 10.

    Another proxy for growth opportunities that generates similar conclusions is the past sales growth rate of the firm. Either R&D expenses, past sales growth rate or both are used by Adam and Goyal (2008); Billett et al. (2007); Durnev and Kim (2005); Goyal et al. (2002); Johnson (2003); Rountree et al. (2008), among others.

  11. 11.

    Chava and Roberts (2008) also show that there is a decrease of 0.8 % of capital, using a different sample and a slightly different model specification as they do not control for the differential effect of growth opportunities in violating firms.

  12. 12.

    We thank a referee for providing this intuition.

  13. 13.

    For example, Nash et al. (2003) find that there is a negative relation between the incidence of (some) covenants and growth opportunities, while Bradley and Roberts (2004) find the opposite.

  14. 14.

    We have also conducted estimations of annual M&A and CEO turnover data using cumulative covenant violations. In this case, the dependent variables are advanced by one year. The results are similar to those presented in Panel A of Table 10.

  15. 15.

    See e.g. Roberts and Whited (2012) for a description of the regression discontinuity methodology.

  16. 16.

    We have also carried out an instrumental variable fixed-effect estimation using as instrument of covenant violation a prediction of this variable in terms of Growth Opportunities, Default Distance, (Default Distance) 2, Size, Leverage, Cash-flow and Z-score. The results, available upon request, show that there are no major differences relative to the results in the paper - the main difference is that the coefficients of the main explanatory variables are slightly less negative or equivalently more positive. This outcome indicates that the (negative) reverse causality from investment to covenant violation is much less important than the causality proposed from covenant violation to investment.

References

  1. Adam T, Goyal VK (2008) The investment opportunity set and its proxy variables. J Finan Serv Res 31(1):41–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aghion P, Bolton P (1992) An incomplete contracts approach to financial contracting. Rev Econ Stud 59:473–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andrade G, Kaplan SN (1998) How costly is financial (not economic) distress? Evidence from highly leveraged transactions that became distressed. J Financ 52(5):1443–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beneish MD, Press E (1993) Costs of technical violation of accounting-based debt covenants. Account Rev 68(2):233–257

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beneish MD, Press E (1995) The resolution of technical default. Account Rev 70(2):337–353

    Google Scholar 

  6. Berlin M, Mester LJ (1992) Debt covenants and renegotiation. J Financ Intermed 2(2):95–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Billett MT, King THD, Mauer DC (2007) Growth opportunities and the choice of leverage, debt maturity, and covenants. J Financ 62(2):697–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bradley M, Roberts MR (2004) The structure and pricing of corporate debt covenants. SSRN Working Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=466240

  9. Brailsford TJ, Yeoh D (2004) Agency problems and capital expenditure announcements. J Bus 77(2):223–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Broussard JP, Buchenroth SA, Politte EA (2004) CEO incentives, cash flow, and investment. Financ Manage 33(2):51–70

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chava S, Roberts MR (2008) How does financing impact investment? The role of debt covenants. J Financ 63(5):2085–2121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chava S, Kumar P, Warga A (2010) Managerial agency and bond covenants. Rev Financ Stud 23(3):1120–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen KCW, Wei KCJ (1993) Creditors’ decisions to waive violations of accounting-based debt covenants. Account Rev 68(2):218–232

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dahiya S, Saunders A, Srinivasan A (2003) Financial distress and bank lending relationships. J Financ 58:375–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Daniels K, Ramirez GG (2011) Information, credit risk, lender specialization, and loan pricing: Evidence from the DIP Financing Market. J Finan Serv Res 34:35–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Demiroglu C, James CM (2010) The information content of bank loan covenants. Rev Financ Stud 23(10):3700–3737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dewatripont M, Tirole J (1994) A theory of debt and equity: Diversity of securities and manager-shareholder congruence. Q J Econ 109:1027–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Diamond DW (1991) Monitoring and reputation: The choice between bank loans and directly placed debt. J Polit Econ 99:689–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dichev ID, Skinner DJ (2002) Large-sample evidence on the debt covenant hypothesis. J Account Res 40(4):1091–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Durnev A, Kim EH (2005) To steal or not to steal: Firm attributes, legal environment, and valuation. J Financ 60(3):1461–1493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ferreira D, Ferreira MA, Mariano B (2012) Board structure and capital structure. SSRN Working Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=2021522

  22. Gârleanu N, Zwiebel J (2009) Design and renegotiation of debt covenants. Rev Financ Stud 22(2):749–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gopalakrishnan V, Parkash M (1995) Borrower and lender perceptions of accounting information in corporate lending agreements. Account Horizons 9:13–26

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goyal VK (2005) Market discipline of bank risk: Evidence from subordinated debt contracts. J Financ Intermed 14:318–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goyal VK, Lehn K, Racic S (2002) Growth opportunities and corporate debt policy: The case of the U.S. defense industry. J Finan Econ 64:35–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Finan Econ 3(4):305–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson SA (2003) Debt maturity and the effects of growth opportunities and liquidity risk on leverage. Rev Financ Stud 16(1):209–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kahan M, Yermack D (1998) Investment opportunities and the design of debt securities. J Law Econ Organization 14:136–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee K-W, Sharpe IG (2009) Does a bank’s loan screening and monitoring matter? J Finan Serv Res 35:33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Myers SC (1977) Determinants of corporate borrowing. J Finan Econ 5:147–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nash RC, Netter JM, Poulsen AB (2003) Determinants of contractual relations between shareholders and bondholders: Investment opportunities and restrictive covenants. J Corp Financ 9:201–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nini G, Smith DC, Sufi A (2009) Creditor control rights and firm investment policy. J Finan Econ 92(3):400–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nini G, Smith DC, Sufi A (2012) Creditor control rights, corporate governance, and firm value. Rev Financ Stud 25:1713–1761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Park C (2000) Monitoring and structure of debt contracts. J Financ 55(5):2157–2195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Preece DC, Mullineaux DJ (1994) Monitoring by financial intermediaries: Banks vs. Nonbanks. J Financ Serv Res 8(3):193–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rajan R, Winton A (1995) Covenants and collateral as incentives to monitor. J Financ 50(4):1113–1146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Reisel N (2010) On the value of restrictive covenants: An empirical investigation of public bond issues. SSRN Working Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=644522

  38. Roberts MR, Sufi A (2009a) Renegotiation of financial contracts: Evidence from private credit agreements. J Finan Econ 93(2):159–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Roberts MR, Sufi A (2009b) Control rights and capital structure: An empirical investigation. J Financ 64(4):1657–1695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Roberts, MR, Whited TM (2012) Endogeneity in empirical corporate finance. Handbook of the Economics of Finance Volume 2, Elsevier. George Constantinides, Milton Harris, and Rene Stulz, eds

  41. Rountree B, Weston JP, Allayanis G (2008) Do investors value smooth performance? J Finan Econ 90(3):237–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schlingemann FP (2004) Financing decisions and bidder gains. J Corp Financ 10:683–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith CW, Warner JB (1979) On financial contracting: An analysis of bond covenants. J Finan Econ 7(2):117–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sufi A (2007) Bank lines of credit in corporate finance: An empirical analysis. Rev Financ Stud 22(3):1057–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sweeney AP (1994) Debt covenant violations and managers’ accounting responses. J Account Econ 17(3):281–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vassalou M, Xing Y (2004) Default risk and equity returns. J Financ 59(2):831–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josep A. Tribó Giné.

Additional information

We would like to thank two anonymous referees, Andrés Almazán, Albert Banal, Michael Brennan, Max Bruche, Luis Coelho, María Gutiérrez, Miguel Manjón, Pablo Ruiz-Verdú, and seminar participants at the MF Conference 2011, Gerzensee ESSFM 2010, the EFMA Meetings 2010, the EEA-ESEM Meetings 2009, Foro de Finanzas 2009, JEI 2009 and the PFN Conference 2010 for helpful comments. Financial support from Comunidad de Madrid (Grants 2009/00138/001 and 2011/00099/001) and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Grants ECO2012-36559, ECO2009-10796, ECO2009-08308, SEJ2006-09401 and Consolider Grant CSD2006-16) is gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining errors are our own.

Appendix

Appendix

Variable definitions

Current ratio (CR) Current assets/current liabilities
Net worth (NW) Total assets – total liabilities
Tangible net worth (TNW) Current assets + net plant, property, and equipment + other assets – total liabilities
CR default distance Current ratio – covenant current ratio threshold
NW default distance Net worth – covenant net worth threshold
TNW default distance Tangible net worth – covenant tangible net worth threshold
Default Distance Relative minimum {CR default distance, NW default distance, TNW default distance}
Covenant violation Variable equal to 1 if CR, NW and/or TNW default distance is negative. It is equal to 0 otherwise.
Investment Capital expenditures adjusted for fiscal quarter/lagged net property plan and equipment.
Growth opportunities Variable equal to 1 if the market-to-book ratio (R&D expenses over sales) exceeds the sample median of the market-to-book ratio (R&D expenses over sales) for the last four consecutive quarters (from current quarter to current-3). It is equal to 0 otherwise.
ROA Operating income before depreciation/total assets
Total debt Debt in current liabilities + long term debt
Market-to-book ratio (Market value of equity + total debt)/total assets
Size Log of total assets deflated by the all-urban CPI (year 2000)
Leverage Total debt/total assets
Cash-flow (Income before extraordinary items + depreciation)/lagged net property plan and equipment
(Altman’s) Z-score 3.3 × A + 0.99 × B + 0.6 × C + 1.2 × D + 1.4 × E; where A = EBIT/total assets; B = net sales/total assets; C = market value of equity/total liabilities; D = working capital/total assets; E = retained earnings/total assets.
Liquidity Cash/lagged net property plan and equipment
Covenant Capex Variable equal to 1 if an outstanding loan at a given quarter includes a covenant on capital expenditures. It is equal to 0 otherwise.
Payout ratio Dividends/EBITDA
Debt issuance (Total debt – lagged total debt)/total assets
Spread Total (fees and interests) annual spread paid over LIBOR for each dollar drawn down from the loan (All-in Spread Drawn variable from Dealscan).
Maturity Maturity of a loan in months
Amendment Variable equal to 1 if there is a change in the terms of an outstanding loan contract as reported in Dealscan. It is equal to 0 otherwise.
Lending Relationship Variable equal to 1 if the firm has more than one previous lending relationship with a lead lender in a current lending syndicate. It is equal to 0 otherwise.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mariano, B., Tribó Giné, J.A. Creditor Intervention, Investment, and Growth Opportunities. J Financ Serv Res 47, 203–228 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-013-0188-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Covenants
  • Growth opportunities
  • Investment
  • Performance
  • Syndicated loans

JEL classification

  • G21
  • G32