Liquidity risk and expected corporate bond returns

This paper studies the pricing of liquidity risk in the cross section of corporate bonds for the period from January 1994 to March 2009. The average return on bonds with high sensitivities to aggregate liquidity exceeds that for bonds with low sensitivities by about 4% annually. The positive relation between expected corporate bond returns and liquidity beta is robust to the effects of default and term betas, liquidity level, and other bond characteristics, as well as to different model specifications, test methodologies, and a variety of liquidity measures. The results suggest that liquidity risk is an important determinant of expected corporate bond returns.     

Liquidity risk of corporate bond returns: conditional approach

We study the exposure of the US corporate bond returns to liquidity shocks of stocks and Treasury bonds over the period 1973–2007 in a regime-switching model. In one regime, liquidity shocks have mostly insignificant effects on bond prices, whereas in another regime, a rise in illiquidity produces significant but conflicting effects: Prices of investment-grade bonds rise while prices of speculative-grade (junk) bonds fall substantially (relative to the market). Relating the probability of these regimes to macroeconomic conditions we find that the second regime can be predicted by economic conditions that are characterized as “stress.” These effects, which are robust to controlling for other systematic risks (term and default), suggest the existence of time-varying liquidity risk of corporate bond returns conditional on episodes of flight to liquidity. Our model can predict the out-of-sample bond returns for the stress years 2008–2009. We find a similar pattern for stocks classified by high or low book-to-market ratio, where again, liquidity shocks play a special role in periods characterized by adverse economic conditions.     

Corporate Yield Spreads and Bond Liquidity

We find that liquidity is priced in corporate yield spreads. Using a battery of liquidity measures covering over 4,000 corporate bonds and spanning both investment grade and speculative categories, we find that more illiquid bonds earn higher yield spreads, and an improvement in liquidity causes a significant reduction in yield spreads. These results hold after controlling for common bond‐specific, firm‐specific, and macroeconomic variables, and are robust to issuers' fixed effect and potential endogeneity bias. Our findings justify the concern in the default risk literature that neither the level nor the dynamic of yield spreads can be fully explained by default risk determinants.     

Multimarket trading and corporate bond liquidity

Global bonds are international securities traded and settled efficiently in multiple markets. This paper examines global bonds to evaluate the effects of multimarket trading on corporate bond liquidity and pricing. The results show that global bonds are significantly more liquid than similar-sized domestic bonds of the same issuers, and their liquidity advantage is reflected in higher market valuations. These findings support microstructure models that predict a positive relation between the number of potential investors and liquidity in over-the-counter markets, and help explain the increasing use of global bonds by corporate issuers.     

Determinants of yield spread dynamics: Euro versus US dollar corporate bonds

This paper presents a systematic comparison between the determinants of euro and US dollar yield spread dynamics. The results show that US dollar yield spreads are significantly more affected by changes in the level and the slope of the default-free term structure and the stock market return and volatility. Surprisingly, euro yield spreads are strongly affected by the US (and not the euro) level and slope. This confirms the dominance of US interest rates in the corporate bond markets. Interestingly, I find that liquidity risk is higher for US dollar corporate bonds than euro corporate bonds. For both regions, the effect of changes in the bid-ask spread is mainly significant during periods of high liquidity risk. Finally, the results indicate that the credit cycle as measured by the region-specific default probability significantly increases US yield spreads. This is not the case for euro yield spreads.     

Dynamic effects of idiosyncratic volatility and liquidity on corporate bond spreads

We study the dynamic impact of idiosyncratic volatility and bond liquidity on corporate bond spreads over time and empirically disentangle both effects. Using an extensive data set, we find that both idiosyncratic volatility and liquidity are critical mainly for the distress portfolios, i.e., low-rated and short-term bonds; for others only volatility matters. The effects of volatility and liquidity shocks on bond spreads were both exacerbated during the recent financial crisis. Liquidity shocks are quickly absorbed into bonds prices; however, volatility shocks are more persistent and have a long-term effect. Our results overall suggest significant differences between how volatility and liquidity dynamically impact bond spreads.     

公司债券市场流动性有效衡量及实证检验

摘要：公司债券的流动性问题越来越受到研究者的关注，而且随着理论研究扩展和实践的加深，流动性出现了很多不同的度量指标。本文在对公司债券市场流动性测量方法进行总结的基础上，实证检验了我国公司债券的流动性状况，分析了当前公司债券市场流动性存在的问题，并提出改革公司债券流动性的相关建议。     

Comparing possible proxies of corporate bond liquidity

We consider nine different proxies (issued amount, listed, euro, on-the-run, age, missing prices, yield volatility, number of contributors and yield dispersion) to measure corporate bond liquidity and use a four-variable model to control for interest rate risk, credit risk, maturity and rating differences between bonds. The null hypothesis that liquidity risk is not priced in our data set of euro corporate bonds is rejected for eight out of nine liquidity proxies. We find significant liquidity premia, ranging from 13 to 23 basis points. A comparison test between liquidity proxies shows limited differences between the proxies.     

Liquidity,the Value of the Firm,and Corporate Finance

The theory of corporate finance has been based on the idea that a company's market value is determined mainly by just two variables: the company's expected after‐tax operating cash flows or earnings, and the risk associated with producing them. The authors argue that there is another important factor affecting a company's value: the liquidity of its own securities, debt as well as equity. The paper supports this argument by reviewing the large and growing body of evidence showing that differences—and changes—in liquidity can have major effects on the pricing of corporate stocks and bonds or, equivalently, on investors' required returns for holding them. The authors also suggest that the liquidity of a company's securities can be managed by corporate policies and actions. For those companies whose value is likely to be increased by having more liquid securities—which is by no means true of all companies (mature firms that don't need outside capital may well benefit from having more concentrated ownership and hence less liquidity)—management should consider actions such as reducing leverage and substituting dividends for stock repurchases as well as measures designed to increase the effectiveness of their disclosure and investor relations program and the size of their investor base.     

Liquidity,the Value of the Firm,and Corporate Finance*

The theory of corporate finance has been based on the idea that a company's market value is determined mainly by just two variables: the company's expected aftertax operating cash flows or earnings, and the risk associated with producing them. The authors argue that there is another important factor affecting a company's value: the liquidity of its own securities, debt as well as equity. The paper supports this argument by reviewing the large and growing body of evidence showing that differences—and, perhaps even more important, sudden changes—in liquidity can have major effects on the pricing of corporate stocks and bonds or, equivalently, on investors' required returns for holding them. The authors also suggest that the liquidity of a company's securities can be managed by corporate policies and actions. For those companies whose value is likely to be increased by having more liquid securities—which is by no means true of all companies (for example, mature firms with little need for outside equity are likely to benefit from having more concentrated ownership and hence less liquidity)—management should consider actions such as reducing leverage and substituting dividends for stock repurchases as well as measures designed to increase the effectiveness of their disclosure and investor relations program and the size of their retail investor base.