Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:51:58.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiated versus Competitive Underwritings of Public Utility Bonds: Just One More Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Frank J. Fabozzi  and
Richard R. West
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the past decade, a number of papers [1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9] have explored the relative merits of negotiation versus competitive bidding in the underwriting of corporate bonds, particularly bonds issued by public utilities. Interest in this subject has been stimulated principally by an important public policy issue—namely, the SEC's posture vis a vis its Rule U–50. Originally promulgated in 1940, this rule required competitive bidding on certain classes of utility bonds. In 1974, however, it was “temporarily” suspended on the grounds that chaotic conditions in the market for these securities called for more flexibility in the way issues could be underwritten. While this suspension continues in effect, Rule U–50 could be reinstated at any time by the SEC.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1981 , pp. 323 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Dyl, Edward A., and Joehnk, Michael D.. “Competitive versus Negotiated Underwriting of Public Utility Debt.” The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Autumn 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Ederington, Louis H. “Negotiated versus Competitive Bidding for Corporate Bonds.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 31, No. 1 (03 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Ederington, Louis H. “Uncertainty, Competition, and Costs in Corporate Bond Underwriting.” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 2 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Findlay, M. Chapman III; Johnson, Keith B.; and Morton, T. Gregory. “An Analysis of the Flotation Cost of Utility Bonds, 1971–76.” The Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Fall 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Kessel, Rueben. “A Study of the Effects of Competition on the Tax-Exempt Bond Market.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 79 (07/08 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Parker, George G.C., and Cooperman, Daniel. “Competitive Bidding in the Underwriting of Public Utility Securities.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (12 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Sorenson, Eric. “The Impact of Underwriting Method and Bidder Competition upon Corporate Bond interest Cost.” journal of Finance, Vol. 34, No. 4 (09 1979).Google Scholar
[8]Sorenson, Eric. “Underwriting Competition and the issuance of Public Utility Debt.” Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
[9]Tallman, Gary D.; Rush, David F.; and Melicher, Ronald W.. “Competitive versus Negotiated Underwriting Costs for Regulated Industries.” Financial Management (Summer 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]West, Richard R. “New Issue Concessions on General Obligation Municipal Bonds: A Case of Monopsony Pricing.” Journal of Business (04 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]West, Richard R. “More on the Effects of Municipal Bond Monopsony.” Journal of Business (04 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar