Railways and Underwriters 1880-1913

铁路和保险商 1880-1913

• 批准号: ES/Y010264/1
• 负责人: Tehreem Husain
• 金额: $ 14.9万
• 依托单位: London School of Economics and Political Science
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Fellowship
• 财政年份: 2023
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2023 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FY010264%2F1
• 关键词: Railways; Underwriters; 1880; 1913

The late 19th and early 20th century is characterised as a time of rising international integration in goods and financial markets. Sovereign and railway securities were the top-most avenues of British capital flows during 1880-1913. Railways were risky ventures characterised by high capital intensity, high upfront investments, long breakeven times and significant sunk costs, and were therefore structured as emergent Build-Operate-Transfer schemes, with both public and private shades in ownership and management. As a result of the characteristic nature of railway securities, governments had to mitigate significant severe information asymmetries in order to attract investment. A key means to achieve this was to employ reputable underwriters to raise railway financing on global stock exchanges. Underwriters acted as 'match-makers' between borrowers, investors and third parties like government (also acting as guarantors) and reduced information asymmetries by signalling their informed status or by acting as delegated monitors. By the end of nineteenth century, underwriters had an established market in sovereign securities, but their participation was even more critical to the success of railway securities. Investors paid close attention to the relationship between underwriters and borrowers especially under episodes of financial distress. In this context, and taking lead from Flandreau and Flores (2009), I argue that underwriters' market power and prestige guided investors to associate their name with safer products and built investor confidence in financing railway projects globally. In this background, the project aims to explores the under-researched role of underwriters, specifically the House of Barings in financing railways during 1880-1913. While I am already working on the evolution and shape of underwriter networks in railway financing over time during my Economic History Society Fellowship, I would extend this research in two directions.First, how did underwriters of railway issues behave during tranquil and crisis times? Arguably, shared financial intermediaries, underwriting both government and railway securities, can potentially have a detrimental effect during crisis episodes through possible spillovers from government to railways or vice versa. Exploring this question would highlight whether shared financial intermediaries acted as a channel for contagion during crisis times.Second, related to the above, what was the role of market-based solutions in the enforcement of railway debt contracts? Generally, bondholder committees improve market governance in terms of reducing the frequency of defaults and potential haircuts. In the aftermath of the Barings crisis of 1890, both sovereign and guaranteed railways were part of debt restructuring episodes in several Latin American nations such as Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela. While research has focused on the relevance of market-based solutions for sovereign debt restructuring, debt of guaranteed railways has been neglected. Overall, analysing debt restructuring has implications for our understanding on how global financial architecture was shaped in the aftermath of the crisis.I will use the Stock Exchange Yearbook, the Investors Monthly Manual and a scarcely used resource, the correspondences and ledgers of Barings agents in Argentina to understand how the network of intermediaries behaved during different phases of the business cycle. The project contributes to the literature on the global history of capitalism, financial history and railway financing during 1880-1913 in two ways. First, it expands our understanding on the role of underwriters during 1880-1913 in railways which has exclusively focused on sovereign securities. Second, the project would give a better understanding on the role of underwriters during crisis episodes. In this vein, it would contribute towards understanding the channels that can potentially result in contagion.

世纪末和20世纪初的特点是商品和金融市场的国际一体化程度不断提高。在1880-1913年期间，主权和铁路证券是英国资本流动的最主要渠道。铁路是高风险的事业，其特点是资本密集度高、前期投资高、盈亏平衡时间长和沉没成本高，因此，其结构是紧急的建设-运营-转让计划，在所有权和管理方面有公共和私人的影子。由于铁路证券的特点，政府必须缓解严重的信息不对称，以吸引投资。实现这一目标的一个关键手段是聘请信誉良好的承销商在全球证券交易所筹集铁路融资。承销商在借款人、投资者和政府等第三方（也充当中介）之间充当“媒人”，并通过表明其知情地位或充当受委托的监督者来减少信息不对称。到世纪末，承销商已经建立了一个主权证券市场，但他们的参与对铁路证券的成功更为关键。投资者密切关注承销商和借款人之间的关系，特别是在财务困境的情况下。在这种背景下，我以Flandreau和弗洛雷斯（2009）为榜样，认为承销商的市场力量和声望引导投资者将其名称与更安全的产品联系起来，并建立投资者对全球铁路项目融资的信心。在此背景下，该项目旨在探讨承销商（特别是巴林银行）在1880-1913年期间为铁路融资中所扮演的研究不足的角色。在我担任经济史学会奖学金期间，我已经在研究铁路融资承销商网络的演变和形态，我想从两个方向扩展这项研究：第一，在平静和危机时期，铁路问题的承销商是如何表现的？可以说，共同的金融中介机构，承销政府和铁路证券，可能会在危机期间产生不利影响，可能会从政府到铁路，反之亦然。探讨这一问题将突出共同的金融中介机构是否在危机时期充当了传染渠道。第二，与上述相关的是，基于市场的解决方案在执行铁路债务合同方面的作用是什么？一般来说，债券持有人委员会在减少违约频率和潜在的减值方面改善了市场治理。在1890年巴林银行危机之后，主权和担保铁路都是阿根廷、乌拉圭和委内瑞拉等几个拉丁美洲国家债务重组事件的一部分。虽然研究的重点是基于市场的解决办法对主权债务重组的相关性，但有担保的铁路债务却被忽视。总的来说，分析债务重组对我们理解危机后全球金融架构的形成具有重要意义。我将利用《证券交易所年鉴》、《投资者月度手册》和一个很少使用的资源，巴林银行在阿根廷的代理人的信件和分类账，来了解中介网络在商业周期的不同阶段是如何表现的。该项目以两种方式为1880-1913年期间的全球资本主义史、金融史和铁路融资文献做出了贡献。首先，它扩展了我们对1880-1913年铁路承销商角色的理解，这些承销商只关注主权证券。第二，该项目将使人们更好地了解承保人在危机期间的作用。在这方面，它将有助于了解可能导致蔓延的渠道。