Socially Responsible Fixed-Income Funds

Abstract:  The growing importance of SRI in the investment arena has resulted in considerable academic interest in the performance of socially responsible equity mutual funds. Remarkably, no attempts have been made to evaluate the performance of mutual funds that invest in socially responsible fixed-income securities. This study fills that gap by measuring the performance of socially responsible bond and balanced funds relative to matched samples of conventional funds, over the period 1987–2003. Using multi-index performance evaluation models, we show that the average SRI bond fund performed similar to conventional funds, while the average SRI balanced fund outperformed its conventional peers by more than 1.3% per year. The expenses charged by SRI funds, match those charged by conventional funds and, evidently, do not cause SRI funds to underperform.     

Should more local governments purchase a bond rating?

We investigate whether issuers that choose to forgo a bond rating suffer an interest cost penalty greater than the cost of the rating. We use estimated ratings provided by Moody’s Investor Service to proxy for what the rating would have been if it had been purchased. We find that the primary factors associated with an issuer’s decision to purchase a rating are the rating expected by the issuer and the extent to which an issue is marketed locally. After controlling for self-selection bias, we find that the issuers that forgo a rating do not suffer an interest cost penalty.

Lemmings in the bond market? An empirical analysis of the term structure of credit spreads

The paper examines the credit spread between government and corporate bonds at different maturities. Theoretical models assume that credit risk premiums for high quality firms monotonously increase with maturity. We find evidence suggesting that bonds issued at maturities attracting the highest issuance volumes tend to have credit risk premiums that are on average 10 to 15 basis points higher than issues at nonconventional maturities. These results point out a shortcoming of existing theoretical models and show that the credit yield curve is not smooth, but affected by the local supply of issues at various parts of the yield curve. In addition, the empirical evidence presented in this paper indicates that firms utilizing the bond markets for funding could lower their funding costs by shifting the term of their debt away from the most commonly targeted maturities.

巨灾债券运行效应问题研究

在巨灾风险证券化产品中,巨灾债券交易最为活跃,也最具代表性,越来越多的保险公司、再保险公司及大型企业倾向于发行巨灾债券来转移、分散巨灾风险。作为功能上与再保险基本相似的新型风险管理工具,巨灾债券具有传统再保险不可比拟的优势。它不仅能使保险市场实现帕累托改进,对证券市场、国家财政也会产生深远的影响。最后,本文分析了巨灾债券在我国的发展前景。     

从美日经验看地方政府债券制度

地方政府债务风险已经成为威胁我国经济安全与社会稳定的巨大隐患。地方政府是制度变迁的主体,造成地方财政困境的根本原因在于地方政府事权、财权不对称,没有规范的制度化融资渠道。而只要存在中央与地方分权的财政联邦主义,就具备发行地方政府债券的前提。     

中国上市公司可转债发行动因:“后门权益”VS“代理成本”

本文以中国上市公司2002—2008年发行的可转债为研究样本进行实证研究,发现可转债发行公告的财富效应与该可转债实现转股可能性的预期正相关,具体而言,与发行公司的成长机会、财务困境风险水平正相关,并且与整体股市的状况也紧密相关。进一步结合可转债退市的分析表明,中国上市公司可转债融资是一种典型的后门权益融资。实证研究的结果不支持基于代理成本的动因假说。     

投融资平台维度下保障房建设的资金解困之策

在我国保障房建设面临局势紧迫、任务繁重、资金缺口大的形势下,国家允许地方政府投融资平台介入保障房的建设,这对保障房的建设无疑开启了新的纪元.文章在回顾了我国保障房建设历史的基础上,分析其建设过程中遇到的融资困境,探讨在地方政府投融资平台维度下通过发行保障性房债、开发性金融贷款、保障房信托基金(REITs)三种方式解决保障房建设资金短板问题的适宜性和可行性,并阐述了各种方法在实行过程中的或有风险及其防范.     

日本国债：安全资产还是风险潜在

金融危机后全球安全资产减少,使日本国债地位相对改善,成为世界金融市场的避险工具之一.但由于日本长期政府债务净额占GDP之比居高不下,国债信用已经受到损毁,主权信用评级被下调.从日本国内资金循环特征看,日本企业转变为储蓄大户的原因不是企业的盈利增加,而是由于资产负债表的调整压力使投资意愿降低,因此,日本政府只有不断增发国债来弥补筹资主体的缺位;日本国债期限结构的短期化和日益增长的利息负担使其面临的市场利率风险加大;同时,日本中央银行购买国债规模膨胀,不断冲击财政纪律的约束,财政赤字货币化风险隐藏其中.长期来看,日本泡沫经济崩溃后,资产去泡沫化的过程也正是国债泡沫化的过程.在日本财政改革前景未见定论,企业的投资需求尚未恢复的前提下,日本国债的可持续性存在巨大风险.     

我国发行高等教育债券的几点思考

随着我国高等学校规模的不断扩大,仅靠现有财政拨款和银行信贷资金为主的融资方式显然是不足的。一方面,过于单一的融资渠道不足以补充教育经费的投入不足且风险过高。另一方面,金融体系的功能无非是在资金的富裕方和资金的短缺方之间提供中介功能。由于不同资金的供给方和需求方的风险偏好存在差异,因而就决定了融资的渠道也应当是多元化的。事实上,通过金融体系实现高等学校的融资需求绝不止银行信贷资金一个内容。如果能够开辟各类新型的教育融资方式,无疑对高校获得资金和分散风险具有帮助。文章旨在从研究发行高等教育债券融资方式的意义入手,进一步提出完善我国现有高等教育债券融资方式．以期对实现高等教育经费来源多元化提供一定的参考。     

我国与不同类型国家企业总税率比较与启示

作为以间接税为主体税的中高收入国家,我国的企业“总税率”高于以间接税为主和以直接税为主的OECD国家,且不但高于高收入国家和中高收入国家的平均水平,也高于中低收入国家和低收入国家的平均水平。我国企业“总税率”偏高,原因在于“劳动税税率”和“其他税税率”较高。我国税制结构由以间接税为主向以直接税为主转变,但不应通过增加企业的直接税来实现;要有效降低我国企业的“总税率”,必须切实降低企业的“劳动税税率”和“其他税税率”。