Table 5.

Mechanism II—Counterparty risk pass-through.

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
|$\Delta {\textit {CustPD}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}^{IV}$||$\Delta {\textit {SumInj}}_i$||$\Delta {\textit {NoInj}}_i$|
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=0 \rbrace$|0.0160.393***0.367***0.218***0.210***
(0.1)(4.5)(4.3)(2.7)(2.7)
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=1 \rbrace$|0.515***−0.0110.0290.429**0.547**
(3.4)(−0.1)(0.2)(2.1)(2.4)
p-value for difference0.0040.0050.0200.1680.083
R20.2850.2570.2550.2500.250
No. firms887/7921,980/6632,090/5532,300/3432,316/327
No. observations21,09121,09121,09121,09121,091
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
|$\Delta {\textit {CustPD}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}^{IV}$||$\Delta {\textit {SumInj}}_i$||$\Delta {\textit {NoInj}}_i$|
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=0 \rbrace$|0.0160.393***0.367***0.218***0.210***
(0.1)(4.5)(4.3)(2.7)(2.7)
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=1 \rbrace$|0.515***−0.0110.0290.429**0.547**
(3.4)(−0.1)(0.2)(2.1)(2.4)
p-value for difference0.0040.0050.0200.1680.083
R20.2850.2570.2550.2500.250
No. firms887/7921,980/6632,090/5532,300/3432,316/327
No. observations21,09121,09121,09121,09121,091

Notes: This table reports results for estimations of equation (5) on various subsamples of firms for the period 2006–2009. More specifically, the different columns report results for sample splits based on the change in buyer PDs (column 1); the change in sales in buyer industries (column 2); the change in sales in buyer industries instrumented using the precrisis export share of each industry (column 3); the change in the sum of the claims underlying the injunctions issued on behalf of each seller (column 4); and the change in the number of injunctions issued on behalf of each seller (column 5). The changes are from 2007 to 2009 in all cases. In column (1), |$T_i^{\textit {High}}$| is equal to zero for firms in the bottom three deciles of the |$\Delta {\textit {CustPD}}_{j(c)}$| distribution, and to one for firms in the top three deciles. In remaining columns, |$T_i^{\textit {High}}$| is equal to zero if Ti ≤ 0 and equal to one if Ti > 0. Reported p-values correspond to one-sided tests, where the null hypothesis is that the estimates of β are equal in each pair and the alternative hypothesis that the coefficients are larger for firms with |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=1$| in columns (1), (4), and (5), and for firms with |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=0$| in columns (2) and (3). The number of firms refer to the numbers of firms for which |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=0$| and |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=1$|⁠, respectively. t-statistics calculated using robust standard errors clustered at the firm-level are reported in parentheses. **Significant at 5%; ***significant at 1%.

Table 5.

Mechanism II—Counterparty risk pass-through.

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
|$\Delta {\textit {CustPD}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}^{IV}$||$\Delta {\textit {SumInj}}_i$||$\Delta {\textit {NoInj}}_i$|
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=0 \rbrace$|0.0160.393***0.367***0.218***0.210***
(0.1)(4.5)(4.3)(2.7)(2.7)
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=1 \rbrace$|0.515***−0.0110.0290.429**0.547**
(3.4)(−0.1)(0.2)(2.1)(2.4)
p-value for difference0.0040.0050.0200.1680.083
R20.2850.2570.2550.2500.250
No. firms887/7921,980/6632,090/5532,300/3432,316/327
No. observations21,09121,09121,09121,09121,091
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
|$\Delta {\textit {CustPD}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}$||$\Delta {\textit {Sales}}_{c(i)}^{IV}$||$\Delta {\textit {SumInj}}_i$||$\Delta {\textit {NoInj}}_i$|
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=0 \rbrace$|0.0160.393***0.367***0.218***0.210***
(0.1)(4.5)(4.3)(2.7)(2.7)
|${\textit {Crisis}}_t \cdot \hat{\tau }_i^{07} \cdot \mathbb {1} \lbrace T_i^{\textit {High}}=1 \rbrace$|0.515***−0.0110.0290.429**0.547**
(3.4)(−0.1)(0.2)(2.1)(2.4)
p-value for difference0.0040.0050.0200.1680.083
R20.2850.2570.2550.2500.250
No. firms887/7921,980/6632,090/5532,300/3432,316/327
No. observations21,09121,09121,09121,09121,091

Notes: This table reports results for estimations of equation (5) on various subsamples of firms for the period 2006–2009. More specifically, the different columns report results for sample splits based on the change in buyer PDs (column 1); the change in sales in buyer industries (column 2); the change in sales in buyer industries instrumented using the precrisis export share of each industry (column 3); the change in the sum of the claims underlying the injunctions issued on behalf of each seller (column 4); and the change in the number of injunctions issued on behalf of each seller (column 5). The changes are from 2007 to 2009 in all cases. In column (1), |$T_i^{\textit {High}}$| is equal to zero for firms in the bottom three deciles of the |$\Delta {\textit {CustPD}}_{j(c)}$| distribution, and to one for firms in the top three deciles. In remaining columns, |$T_i^{\textit {High}}$| is equal to zero if Ti ≤ 0 and equal to one if Ti > 0. Reported p-values correspond to one-sided tests, where the null hypothesis is that the estimates of β are equal in each pair and the alternative hypothesis that the coefficients are larger for firms with |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=1$| in columns (1), (4), and (5), and for firms with |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=0$| in columns (2) and (3). The number of firms refer to the numbers of firms for which |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=0$| and |$T_i^{\textit {High}}=1$|⁠, respectively. t-statistics calculated using robust standard errors clustered at the firm-level are reported in parentheses. **Significant at 5%; ***significant at 1%.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close