Does the choice between fixed price and make whole call provisions reflect differential agency costs?

Michael J. Alderson, Fang Lin and Duane R. Stock

Journal of Corporate Finance, 2017, vol. 46, issue C, 442-460

Abstract: Bonds with either fixed price or make whole call provisions allow for the efficient recontracting of claims, but they differ in terms of their ability to mitigate debt agency costs. Controlling for the influence of bondholder-shareholder conflicts on both the level of covenant protection and selection of a particular type of call provision, we show that firms select call provisions with greater sensitivity to changes in the option-free value of the bond when agency problems are more severe. Our findings are consistent with the Barnea, Haugen and Senbet (1980) theorem that firms select fixed price callable debt to mitigate bondholder-shareholder conflicts.

Keywords: Fixed price call provision; Make whole call provision; Debt agency costs; Restrictive covenants (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G12 G32 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119917302729
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:corfin:v:46:y:2017:i:c:p:442-460

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.08.007

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Corporate Finance is currently edited by A. Poulsen and J. Netter

More articles in Journal of Corporate Finance from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().