UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN OF CONVERTIBLE DEBT

There are now two dominant theories of convertible debt held by academic economists. One theory which has been called the "risk-shifting" hypothesis–effectively views convertibles as an alternative to straight debt. The second–known as the "sig-nalling" (or "backdoor-equity") theory-treats convertibles as an alternative to ordinary equity. This article attempts to unify (or at least to illustrate the relationship between) these two theories by focusing on the design of the securities.
In structuring a convertible, managers and their investment bankers must make a variety of decisions. Besides the coupon rate, face value, issue size, and maturity, managers must also decide the conversion ratio (the number of shares promised per bond) and the amount of call protection afforded investors. Several of these design features have the effect of making a convertible more like a straight debt or a straight equity issue. The hypothesis underlying the authors' recent research is that the issuers of debt-like convertibles are attempting to address a somewhat different financing challenge than the issuers of convertibles that behave more like equity. Their findings suggest that the primary aim of "debt-like" convertible issues is to address investors' uncertainty and concerns about risk, whereas the main goal of "equity-like" convertibles is to minimize the "information costs" associated with raising new equity.     

CONVERTIBLE DEBT AND INVESTMENT INCENTIVES

In this paper we examine the effect of convertible debt on the investment incentives facing stockholders. The effect depends critically on the value of existing assets relative to the firm's investment requirements. With a restrictive dividend covenant, convertible debt mitigates the overinvestment incentive associated with risky debt but exacerbates the underinvestment incentive at higher values of existing assets. A less-restrictive dividend covenant exacerbates overinvestment under straight debt financing but reduces the underinvestment incentive induced by the conversion feature. In this context, a convertible debt contract with a less-restrictive dividend covenant maximizes firm value.     

THE CHOICE AMONG DEBT,EQUITY, AND CONVERTIBLE BONDS

The hybrid nature of convertible bonds continues to interest corporate financial managers, investors, and economists. While much theoretical and empirical research examines an issuer's choice between using straight debt and equity, little research evaluates how an issuer chooses among debt, equity, and convertible bonds. This study extends Marsh's [ 13 ] research on the differences between debt and equity issuers in the United Kingdom by examining U.S. industrial firms that issue debt, equity, or convertible bonds. It also illustrates how various distinguishing features influence the probability that each security will be issued.     

CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES: A TOLLBOX OF FLEXIBLE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR CORPORATE ISSUERS

During the 1990s, convertible and equity-linked securities emerged as a major source of financing for U.S. corporate issuers. Issuance volume grew steadily throughout the decade and the secondary market value of U.S. convertible securities now exceeds $200 billion. In this overview of the market, the authors discuss the following: (1) the growth of issuance volume in the U.S. equity-linked market; (2) the basic characteristics of convertible securities; (3) convertible debt alternatives; and (4) convertible preferred alternatives.
As a result of the proliferation of new convertible structures, corporate issuers are now able to adjust coupon/dividend, conversion premium, and call protection in order to meet their tax, accounting, rating agency, and cost-of-capital objectives. Historically, the convertible new issue market has had a broad variety of issuers, spanning all industry sectors as well as both investment grade and high yield credits. But in the last two years, the most aggressive issuers have been technology-oriented companies, including telecommunications, Internet, hardware, software, and biotechnology concerns. Such technology-related issuers, which are often rated below investment grade and unable to secure straight debt capital, are generally in heavy-spending phases and view convertible bonds as a source of inexpensive financing. At the same time, investment-grade, "old-economy" issuers have continued to use convertible securities selectively, in most cases as cheap "quasi-equity" in the context of mergers and acquisitions, or as a tax-deferred strategy for selling cross-holdings of stock.     

A SEQUENTIAL SIGNALING MODEL OF CONVERTIBLE DEBT ISSUE AND CALL POLICIES

This paper offers a new explanation for why some risk‐averse firms may prefer to issue callable convertible debt. Here, the convertible debt issue and call policies are integrated into a unified financing policy. It is then shown that for firms with relatively low unsystematic risk, convertible debt issuance followed by an appropriate in‐the‐money signaling call policy reduces more unsystematic equity risk than equity, callable straight debt, or their combination. The model is modified to incorporate asymmetric information at the issue stage to explain the stock price behavior at announcements of convertible debt sales.     

THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PRICING AND UNDERWRITING SPREAD IN THE NEW ISSUE CONVERTIBLE DEBT MARKET

The objective of this research is to measure the interaction among pricing variables in new issues of convertible debt. In underwriting convertible debt issues, there is a simultaneous tradeoff among the conversion premium, yield, and underwriting spread. Since the three endogenous variables are interrelated, a simultaneous equation model is used to test for this interaction. Based on a sample of 264 new convertible debt offerings, the results indicate underpricing in terms of conversion premium and yield as well as simultaneous increases in yield and underwriting spread.     

CONVERTIBLE DEBT AND RISK‐SHIFTING INCENTIVES

I argue that convertible debt, in contrast to its perceived role, can produce shareholders’ risk‐shifting incentives. When a firm's capital structure includes convertible debt, every investment decision affects not only the distribution of the asset value but also the likelihood that the debt will be converted and thereby the distribution of the firm's leverage. This suggests that managers can engage in risk‐increasing projects if a higher asset risk generates a more favorable distribution of leverage. Empirical evidence using 30 years of data supports my argument.