Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In November 1983, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement No. 76, Extinguishment of Debt. The Statement permits corporations completing an in-substance defeasance to recognize an increase in earnings and earnings per share. High interest rates in 1984 and the Statement encouraged corporate managers to defease debt in substance and to show the associated increase in earnings per share.

The financial impact contrasts with those of accounting. Although in-substance defeasance leads to an increase in reported earnings, financial theory suggests that it leads to a decrease in the price of the defeasing corporation's common stock by doing the following: decreasing the amount of future cash flows, decreasing corporate liquidity, redistributing wealth from common shareholders to bondholders, and decreasing the debt-equity ratio. Only the change in the debt-equity ratio may lead to an expected increase in stock price. The other three influences lead to an expected decrease.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Conine

Thomas E.

Jr. , “Corporate Debt and Corporate Taxes: An Extension,” Journal of Finance (September 1980), pp. 1033–1043.

Conine

Thomas E.

Jr. , “Debt Capacity and the Capital Budgeting Decision,” Financial Management (Spring 1980), pp. 20–22.

Conine

Thomas E.

Jr. Tamarkin

Maurry

, “Divisional Cost of Capital Estimation: Adjusting for Leverage,” Financial Management (Spring 1985), pp. 54–58.

Financial Accounting Standards Board, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 76, Extinguishment of Debt (Stamford, Conn.: FASB, 1983).

Gilmer

R. H.

Jr. , “The Optimal Level of Liquid Assets: An Empirical Test,” Financial Management (Winter 1985), pp. 39–43.

Goodman

Hortense

Lorensen

Leonard

, Illustrations of Accounting for In Substance Defeasance of Debt (New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1986).

Marsulis

R. W.

, “The Effects of Capital Structure Change on Security Prices: A Study of Exchange Offers,” Journal of Financial Economics (June 1980), pp. 139–177.

McGoldrick

Beth

“Why Are CFOs So Excited about Defeasance?”

Institutional Investor (March 1984), pp. 75–83.

Modigliani

Franco

Miller

M. H.

, “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance, and the Theory of Investment,” American Economic Review (June 1958), pp. 261–297.

10.

Peavy

John W.

III Scott

Jonathan A.

, “The Effect of Stock for Debt Swaps on Security Returns,” The Financial Review (November 1985), pp. 303–327.

11.

Peterson

Pamela

Peterson

David

Ang

James

, “The Extinguishment of Debt through In-Substance Defeasance,” Financial Management (Spring 1985), pp. 59–67.

12.

Richards

Verlyn D.

McLaughlin

Eugene J.

, “A Cash Conversion Cycle Approach to Liquidity Analysis,” Financial Management (Spring 1980), pp. 32–38.

13.

Rubenstein

Mark E.

, “A Mean-Variance Synthesis of Corporate Financial Theory,” Journal of Finance (March 1973), pp. 167–181.

14.

Thode

Steven F.

Drtina

Ralph E.

Largay

James A.

III , “Operating Cash Flows: A Growing Need for Separate Reporting,” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance (Winter 1986), pp. 32–41.

15.

Van Horne

James C.

, “Of Financial Innovations and Excesses,” Journal of Finance (July 1985), pp. 621–631.

16.

Weil

Roman L.

, “De- or Misfeasance? A Look at the New FASB Ruling,” Barrons (December 5, 1983), pp. 50–77 passim.

17.

Weinstein

Mark

, “The Systematic Risk of Corporate Bonds,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (September 1981), pp. 257–278.

18.

Worthy

Ford S.

, “Manipulating Profits: How It's Done,” Fortune (June 25, 1984), pp. 50–54.

The Financial Implications of In-Substance Defeasance

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References