Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Icarus of the 21st century: bond/monoline insurance

Icarus of the 21st century: bond/monoline insurance The business model of monoline insurers is to guarantee payments of debt issues in case of defaults by the issuer. Although sparse attention is given to monolines in literature, they play an important role in enabling municipalities and firms in refinancing. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of 181 articles from 1990 to 2020 from 23,130 records and a case study on the key monoline insurers. Key failure, success factors and demand for future monoline insurance are identified. Finally, the study explores monolines’ potential during COVID-19 and develops a framework for monoline governance and regulation.Design/methodology/approachThe study follows Briner and Denyer and Moher et al. to implement the systematic review. The methodology involves ascertaining the motivation behind the review, and formulating research questions; aggregating relevant prior literature from scientific databases, conducting quality assessment and synthesising the data; and conducting extensive analysis for framework development. Case study methodology foundation phase focuses on understanding the research philosophy. The second phase involves documenting the procedures involved. The final phase involves collecting the relevant quantitative and qualitative material. In addition, collecting empirical data from numerous sources allows triangulation.FindingsThe review results of 181 articles from 1990 to 2020 show that peak article counts occur in 2010 and 2013 (nine academic studies) and in 2008 and 2010 (six industry studies). Over- and under-explored domains happen to be bond pricing (86 academic studies) and bond markets (36 industry studies) and corporate bonds (19 academic studies), respectively. The study highlights failure factors such as adverse selection, premiums mispricings, inadequate capital and regulation, untimely downgrades and governance issues; and identifies success factors such as conservative underwriting, early financing, competitor business acquisitions and obtaining put-back claims. Potential during COVID-19 is discussed and a monoline governance framework is developed.Research limitations/implicationsSearch and selection criteria distortions may lead to sample selection bias in systematic reviews. Issue is addressed by using different permutations of the search key words to refine the search criteria. Reference list of collected final sample of articles are perused to identify additional articles. It is difficult to obtain verifiable empirical data on the bond/monoline insurers or their insured products, especially for the structured finance sector. Most of the information available on data stream and firm’s quarterly financial reports for publicly traded monoline/bond insurers and credit rating reports are included to overcome this issue.Practical implicationsDemand for bond/monoline insurance still persists even in the USA. Although borrowing costs are low, obtaining bank loans would be challenging for municipalities and corporates with increased risks. Especially, given worldwide government stimulus on wages, most municipalities would possess reduced budgets for public finance. Monoline insurance can play a key role in financing such projects. Thus, it is important to understand their unique traditional and transformed business model and applicability during and post-COVID-19. Given the near extinction of bond/monoline insurers during the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC), an adequate framework for bond/monoline insurers as developed in this study is key for future business continuity.Social implicationsThere is significant interest, especially, from the industry on monolines as identified in our systematic review. Monoline insurance has major effects on taxpayers, government policies and bond investors. They aid in financing public finance projects that have significant societal impact. This study contributes by filling existing gaps in the literature, especially, from a behavioural, ethical and social perspective of the monolines, regulators, other stakeholders and new entrants to the industry during COVID-19. This study links prior finance theories to the impact of bond/monoline insurer’s during the 2008 GFC and their stakeholders involved that has societal implications.Originality/valueThis study can be differentiated from prior research on monoline insurers as follows: The study identifies, gaps, similarities, trends between prior academic and industry literature and develop a bond/monoline governance framework; identifies key failure and success factors during the 2008 GFC crisis to develop the governance framework and identify monolines’ potential during COVID-19; as opposed to most prior literature that only focus on one (Drake and Neal, 2011 analyse MBIA) or two key bond/monoline insurers, this study focuses on five key bond/monoline insurers in detail and all other key insurers as well in the empirical analysis section. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Qualitative Research in Financial Markets Emerald Publishing

Icarus of the 21st century: bond/monoline insurance

Download PDF
52 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/icarus-of-the-21st-century-bond-monoline-insurance-n8JY06CGBV

References (251)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1755-4179
DOI
10.1108/qrfm-07-2020-0122
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The business model of monoline insurers is to guarantee payments of debt issues in case of defaults by the issuer. Although sparse attention is given to monolines in literature, they play an important role in enabling municipalities and firms in refinancing. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of 181 articles from 1990 to 2020 from 23,130 records and a case study on the key monoline insurers. Key failure, success factors and demand for future monoline insurance are identified. Finally, the study explores monolines’ potential during COVID-19 and develops a framework for monoline governance and regulation.Design/methodology/approachThe study follows Briner and Denyer and Moher et al. to implement the systematic review. The methodology involves ascertaining the motivation behind the review, and formulating research questions; aggregating relevant prior literature from scientific databases, conducting quality assessment and synthesising the data; and conducting extensive analysis for framework development. Case study methodology foundation phase focuses on understanding the research philosophy. The second phase involves documenting the procedures involved. The final phase involves collecting the relevant quantitative and qualitative material. In addition, collecting empirical data from numerous sources allows triangulation.FindingsThe review results of 181 articles from 1990 to 2020 show that peak article counts occur in 2010 and 2013 (nine academic studies) and in 2008 and 2010 (six industry studies). Over- and under-explored domains happen to be bond pricing (86 academic studies) and bond markets (36 industry studies) and corporate bonds (19 academic studies), respectively. The study highlights failure factors such as adverse selection, premiums mispricings, inadequate capital and regulation, untimely downgrades and governance issues; and identifies success factors such as conservative underwriting, early financing, competitor business acquisitions and obtaining put-back claims. Potential during COVID-19 is discussed and a monoline governance framework is developed.Research limitations/implicationsSearch and selection criteria distortions may lead to sample selection bias in systematic reviews. Issue is addressed by using different permutations of the search key words to refine the search criteria. Reference list of collected final sample of articles are perused to identify additional articles. It is difficult to obtain verifiable empirical data on the bond/monoline insurers or their insured products, especially for the structured finance sector. Most of the information available on data stream and firm’s quarterly financial reports for publicly traded monoline/bond insurers and credit rating reports are included to overcome this issue.Practical implicationsDemand for bond/monoline insurance still persists even in the USA. Although borrowing costs are low, obtaining bank loans would be challenging for municipalities and corporates with increased risks. Especially, given worldwide government stimulus on wages, most municipalities would possess reduced budgets for public finance. Monoline insurance can play a key role in financing such projects. Thus, it is important to understand their unique traditional and transformed business model and applicability during and post-COVID-19. Given the near extinction of bond/monoline insurers during the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC), an adequate framework for bond/monoline insurers as developed in this study is key for future business continuity.Social implicationsThere is significant interest, especially, from the industry on monolines as identified in our systematic review. Monoline insurance has major effects on taxpayers, government policies and bond investors. They aid in financing public finance projects that have significant societal impact. This study contributes by filling existing gaps in the literature, especially, from a behavioural, ethical and social perspective of the monolines, regulators, other stakeholders and new entrants to the industry during COVID-19. This study links prior finance theories to the impact of bond/monoline insurer’s during the 2008 GFC and their stakeholders involved that has societal implications.Originality/valueThis study can be differentiated from prior research on monoline insurers as follows: The study identifies, gaps, similarities, trends between prior academic and industry literature and develop a bond/monoline governance framework; identifies key failure and success factors during the 2008 GFC crisis to develop the governance framework and identify monolines’ potential during COVID-19; as opposed to most prior literature that only focus on one (Drake and Neal, 2011 analyse MBIA) or two key bond/monoline insurers, this study focuses on five key bond/monoline insurers in detail and all other key insurers as well in the empirical analysis section.

Journal

Qualitative Research in Financial Markets – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jan 12, 2022

Keywords: Bond insurance; Credit enhancements; Financial guarantors; Monoline insurance; Multi-line insurance; G11; G22; G30

There are no references for this article.