Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T22:12:13.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lender Forbearance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2020

Andrew Bird
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business apmb@andrew.cmu.edu
Aytekin Ertan
Affiliation:
London Business School aertan@london.edu
Stephen A. Karolyi
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business skarolyi@andrew.cmu.edu
Thomas G. Ruchti*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business
*
ruchti@andrew.cmu.edu (corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We use a threshold-based design to study ex post discretion in lenders’ contractual enforcement of covenant violations. At preset thresholds, lenders enforce contractual breaches only infrequently, but this enforcement is associated with material consequences (e.g., fees and renegotiations). Enforcement varies significantly over time and peaks when credit conditions are tightest, indicating that enforcement is procyclical. Costly coordination reduces enforcement: Syndicates with ex ante restrictive voting requirements enforce at lower rates. Consistent with theories of lender competition and implicit contracting, enforcement rates are lower for borrowers with access to alternative sources of financing and well-reputed lead arrangers.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington
Supplementary material: PDF

Bird et al. supplementary material

Appendix D

Download Bird et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 285.2 KB