Abstract:Asset leverage has been the focus of academic research since the recent global financial crisis, and deleveraging has been at the heart of policy discussion. Leveraging and deleveraging are associated with the rise and fall of asset prices.In the modern financial system, collateral-based financial markets and monetary markets have become increasingly important. Investors can use their assets as collateral to borrow money. For instance, if a haircut is 20％, they can borrow an amount equal to 80％ of the asset value (here Loan-to-Value, or LTV is 80％).Generally, for an asset, the following holds: leverage = 1/ (1-LTV) = 1/haircut. The haircut reflects the lender's fear that the value of the collateral will fall in the future. The greater the fear, the higher the haircut, hence the leverage will be lower.Leverage theory a la Geanakoplos shows that an increase in leverage will increase the asset price, because higher leverage better reflects optimism about the price; while due to short-sale constraints, the pessimistic view cannot be incorporated in the price. Leverage-induced boom-bust cycles lead to a fragile financial system and a volatile economy. Leverage cycles are a recurring historical phenomenon. Margin finance in the stock and housing markets is related to the Great Depression of 1929 – 1933 and the Great Recession following the 2008 financial crisis, respectively. China's stock market crash of 2015 is also related to margin finance.Although theory and history both have shown the importance of the leverage cycle, due to the endogeneity of leverage and asset prices in the financial system, it is notoriously hard to establish the causal effect of leverage on asset prices. This study is the first to exploit a natural experiment in China's bond markets in which the same type of bonds traded in both the inter-bank market and the exchange has differential regulatory margin requirements. It exploits this experiment to identify the causal effect of leverage by using data on bonds issued from January 2017 to August 2017 in these two markets.The study makes the following contributions. First, it is among the first to use a natural experiment to identify the causal effects of leverage on asset prices. Second, it sheds light on the market microstructure in the bond market; third, it sheds light on macro-prudential regulation and monetary policy.The natural experiment is as follows. The China Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation Limited (CSDC) is in charge of the registration, depository, and clearing of bonds listed on the exchange, while the Shanghai Clearing House is in charge of those listed in the inter-bank market. On April 7th, 2017, the CSDCadjusted the pledging qualification for corporate bonds and removed from the collateral basket all corporate bonds listed on the exchange with a rating below AAA. This change only affected bonds issued after April 7 th, 2017.In this context, this paper tries to show that the change in spreads of AA bonds listed on the exchange is significantly larger than those listed on the inter-bank bond market.The main idea is to exploit this new regulation as a natural experiment, thus the AA bonds listed on the exchange are taken as the treatment group and those in the inter-bank bond market as the control group. Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we test whether the collateral requirement (hence leverage) caused a change in price. The sample is the AA bonds issued on the exchange (including both the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges) between January and August 2017.The paper finds that leverage can increase the price of a bond by as much as 70 basis points. This finding is consistent with theoretical predictions, and is robust to tests with different time windows for the new regulation and to placebo tests. This paper also tests for parallel trends to see whether companies in the sample strategically choose the venue of issuance, and finds that potential strategic shopping does not affect the results.The paper thus establishes the causal effect of leverage on asset prices. It has important implications for financial markets and monetary policy. For a long time, economists and central bankers have regarded interest rates as the most important variable in the economy. However, in the modern collateral-based financial system, leverage is sometimes more important. In terms of monetary policy, central banks have never regarded leverage as a tool, and this neglect has caused the failure of interest rate-based monetary policy and the recurrence of leverage cycles. An ideal monetary policy should take both leverage and interest rates into account.

Asset Growth Anomaly of Corporate Bonds: A Decomposition Analysis

Are corporate bond market returns predictable?

Evaluating the Default Risk of Bond Portfolios with Extreme Value Theory

The Predictability of the Corporate Bond Market Returns

Bond yield effects of corporate bond default: Evidence from bond default events of 2014–2022

The Cross-Section of Chinese Corporate Bond Returns

Reaching for Yield and the Cross Section of Bond Returns

Market Fragility and the Paradox of the Recent Stock-Bond Dissonance

Corporate bond default risk: A 150-year perspective

Are Capital Market Anomalies Common to Equity and Corporate Bond Markets? An Empirical Investigation Tarun Chordia, Amit Goyal, Yoshio Nozawa, Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, and Qing …

Maturity Mismatches of Chinese Listed Firms

Limits-to-arbitrage, investment frictions, and the asset growth anomaly

A Stepwise Regression Analysis of the Risk of Corporate Debt Default

Pledgeability and Asset Prices: Evidence from the Chinese Corporate Bond Markets

Asset Growth and Stock Market Returns: A Time-Series Analysis

Long Forward Probabilities, Recovery and the Term Structure of Bond Risk Premiums

International Corporate Bond Market: Uncovering Risks Using Machine Learning

How Leverage Affects Asset Prices:Evidence from a Natural Experiment in China's Bond Markets

The Aftermath of Covenant Violations: Evidence from China's Corporate Debt Securities

Anomaly Identification and Premium Mining: Evidence from Chinese Urban Construction Investment Bonds

Can ESG Performance Affect Bond Default Rate? Evidence from China