Free Essay

Capital Structure and Its Product Market Determinants

In: Business and Management

Submitted By himjoshin
Words 3270
Pages 14
41

Asia-Pacific Business Review
Vol. VI, No. 2, April - June 2010 pp. 41-49, ISSN: 0973-2470

Capital Structure and Product Market Determinants: Empirical Evidence from the Indian Automobile Industry
Himanshu Joshi
This paper provides insights into the way in which the capital structure is determined by product market determinants, research and development activity and profitability. This paper is an attempt to test relevance of empirical evidences found in matured markets to the Indian market condition. Automobile industry is taken up for the study because of its oligopoly nature and easy availability of product prices. Some of the results are very different from the similar studies conducted in the advanced economies. It is found that the firms in the same industry can have different capital structures and there is a negative correlation between the profitability and capital structure of the companies. Interestingly, no correlation is found between R&D expenses and capital structure of the company. It was also concluded that no extra market power is attained because of high leverage. Keywords: Capital Structure, Product Market, Market Structure, Profitability, Market Power, Capital Expenditure

Introduction
Capital structure refers to the way a corporation finances its assets through some combination of equity, debt, or hybrid securities. A firm’s capital structure is thus, the composition or ‘structure’ of its liabilities. The modern theory of capital structure began with the celebrated paper of Modigliani and Miller (1958). Their paper paved way for the development of alternative theories by showing under what conditions capital structure is irrelevant. The alternative theories include agency cost theory, Asymmetric information theory, Product/input market interactions theory, corporate control considerations theory and the tax incentive theory. All these theories have been subjected to extensive empirical testing in the context of developed countries, particularly USA. A few studies report international comparison of capital structure determinants. Similar studies have been conducted in emerging markets of South East Asia that provide evidence on capital structure and its determinants. (Pandey, 2001; Annuar and Shamsher, 1993; Ariff, 1998). The recent focus of the researches on capital structure has been on the interaction between capital structure and product market structure. Brander and Lewis (1986), Bolton and Scharfstein (1990), Maksimovic (1988), and Ravid (1988) offer theoretical framework for linkage between capital structure and market structure. Phillips (1995) provides surveys of the

theoretical and empirical relationship between capital structure and market structure. Chevalier (1993), and Phillips (1995) investigated the empirical relation between capital structure and market structure for US Companies. Rathinasamy, Krishnaswamy and Mantripragada (2000) conducted similar study in the international context using data from 47 countries. Predicted cubic relationship between capital structure and market power and tested it for Malaysia. Present study is an attempt to find out the relevance of capital structure and product market power interaction evidences in the Indian context. This paper tried to answer few important questions: Do Firms in the same industry have same capital structures? Is this the case that more leverage would lead to aggressive production and create Market power to the firm? Do highly leveraged firms tend to indulge in more research and development activities? Empirical studies are conducted to find the relation between variables like Profitability, R&D and sales expenses with Debt- Equity ratio in case of Indian Automobile Industry. Auto mobile industry is chosen because of its oligopoly nature and easy availability of product prices. Some of the results are very different from the similar studies conducted in the developed economies. It is found out that Firms in the same industry can have different capital structures and there is negative correlation between the Profitability and Debt-Equity ratio of the companies. Interestingly no correlation is

Fore School of Management, B – 18 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi – 110016, India E-mail: himjoshin@rediffmail.com

42

found in R&D expense with Debt-Equity ratio of the company.

Theoretical Framework
Firms raise investment funds in a number of ways. They can borrow from banks and other financial institutions or they can issue various kinds of debt, preferred stock, warrants, and common equity. A firm’s mix of these different sources of capital is referred to as its capital structure. Capital structure could be defined in different ways. In the US, it is common to define capital structure in terms of long term debt ratio. In a number of countries, particularly the emerging markets, companies employ both short term and long term debt for financing their assets, including current assets. For testing the validity of empirical evidences found in the developed economies in Indian context we have defined our dependent variable - capital structure as long term Debt to Equity ratio. Market structure implies a firm’s monopoly, or oligopoly or competitive power. We have taken up the case of Indian automobile industry which is characterised as an oligopoly market. Firms in the oligopoly market can benefit from debt if higher debt to equity ratios allows them to commit to an aggressive output policy that they otherwise would not be able to carry out. (Brander and Lewis, 1986). A firm may wish to send a message to its competitors that it plans to increase its production. If the competitors ignore this message, the added production is likely to reduce the product prices and thus reduce profit for both the firms and its competitors. However if this message is credible, the competitors may accommodate the firm by reducing its output instead of engaging in price war. In this case, the aggressive policy does increase the firm’s profits. When aggregate industry demand for a product is highly uncertain, higher output generally increases risk because it leads to higher profits when product demand turns out to be high, but lower profits when demand turns out to be low. Hence, since higher leverage increases firm’s appetite for risk, the greater a firm’s leverage, the greater its incentive to produce at high level of output. So there should be positive relation between firm’s capital structure and market power. Another important finding in capital structure and market power interaction is the negative relation

between operating profit and leverage. The relation reflects pecking order of financing behavior. When firms generate substantial amounts of cash from their operations, they tend to pay down debt before paying out dividends and repurchasing shares. When firms generate insufficient cash to cover investment needs, they tend to borrow rather than issue stock to cover the shortfall. There exists negative relationship between Selling and Research & Development expenses and capital structure. Firms with large selling and R&D expenses may have little taxable earnings and hence, may only be able to utilize rarely, if at all, debt tax shields. In addition, firms with high R&D and selling expenses are likely to be growth firms that produce specialized products. To the extent that these are indeed growth firms, these firms are not likely to have access to sizable amounts of debt financing because of the debt holder- equity holder conflicts.

Literature Review
The modern theory of capital structure began with the celebrated paper of Modigliani and Miller (1958). Their paper paved way for the development of alternative theories by showing under what conditions capital structure is irrelevant. Harris and Raviv (1991) have identified five categories of determinants of capital structure. Based on the determinants these are some of the theories. (i) Agency cost theory (ii) Asymmetric information theory (iii) The Theoretical Tax Incentive. (iv) Corporate control considerations theory (v) Product/input market interactions theory A significant fraction of the effort of researchers has been devoted to models in which capital structure is determined by agency costs, i.e., costs due to conflicts of interest. Research in this area was initiated by Jensen and Meckling (1976) building on earlier work of Fama and Miller (1972). Agency models have been among the most successful in generating interesting implications. In particular, these models predict that leverage is positively associated with firm value, default probability, extent of regulation, free cash flow, liquidation value, extent to which the firm is

Asia-Pacific Business Review

Vol. VI, No. 2, April - June 2010

43

a takeover target, and the importance of managerial reputation. Also, leverage is expected to be negatively associated with the extent of growth opportunities, interest coverage, the cost of investigating firm prospects, and the probability of reorganization following default. Finally, the result that firm value and leverage are positively related follows from the fact that these two endogenous variables move in the same direction with changes in the exogenous factors. Therefore, leverage increasing (decreasing) changes in capital structure caused by a change in one of these exogenous factors will be accompanied by stock price increases (decreases). The introduction into economics of the explicit modeling of private information has made possible a number of approaches to explaining capital structure. In these theories, firm managers or insiders are assumed to possess private information about the characteristics of the firm’s return stream or investment opportunities. This stream of research began with the work of Ross (1977) and Leland and Pyle (1977). In another, capital structure is designed to mitigate inefficiencies in the firm’s investment decisions that are caused by the information asymmetry. This branch of the literature starts with Myers and Majluf (1984) and Myers (1984). Myers and Majluf (1984) imply that leverage increases with the extent of the informational asymmetry. Ross (1977), Leland and Pyle (1977), Blazenko (1987), John (1987), Poitevin (1989), all derive a positive correlation between leverage and value in a cross section of otherwise similar firms. Ross (1977) also predicts a positive correlation between leverage or value and bankruptcy probability, while Leland and Pyle (1977) predict a positive correlation between value and equity ownership of insiders. Following the growing importance of takeover activities in the 1980’s, the finance literature began to examine the linkage between the market for corporate control and capital structure. These papers exploit the fact that common stock carries voting rights while debt does not. Harris and Raviv (1988) and Stulz (1988), capital structure affects the outcome of takeover contests through its effect on the distribution of votes, especially the fraction owned by the manager. Harris and Raviv (1988) also show that targets of unsuccessful tender offers will have more debt on average than targets of proxy fights. They also show that among firms involved in proxy fights, leverage

is lower on average when the incumbent remains in control. In theoretical tax incentive, hypothesis is that an increase in tax rate will increase value of firm taxshield. The firm reduces income by deducting paid interest on debt and thereby reducing their tax liabilities. An increase in tax rates should hence increase leverage. Capital structure models based on product/input market interactions are in their infancy. These theories have explored the relationship between capital structure and either product market strategy or characteristics of products/inputs. The strategic variables considered are product price and quantity. These strategies are determined to affect the behavior of rivals, and capital structure in turn affects the equilibrium strategies and payoffs. Models involving product or input characteristics have focused on the effect of capital structure on the future availability of products, parts and service, product quality, and the bargaining game between management and input suppliers. The models show that oligopolists will tend to have more debt than monopolists or firms in competitive industries (Brander and Lewis, 1986), and that the debt will tend to be long term (Glazer, 1989). If, however, tacit collusion is important, debt is limited, and debt capacity increases with the elasticity of demand (Maksimovic, 1988). Firms that produce products that are unique or require service and/or parts and firms for which a reputation for producing high quality products is important may be expected to have less debt; other things equal (Titman, 1984). Phillips (1995) provides surveys of the theoretical and empirical relationship between capital structure and market structure. Chevalier (1993), and Phillips (1995) investigated the empirical relation between capital structure and market structure for US Companies. Rathinasamy, Krishnaswamy and Mantripragada (2000) conducted similar study in the international context using data from 47 countries. Pandey (2001) predicted cubic relationship between capital structure and market power and tested it for Malaysia.

Research Methodology
The data for Indian automobile companies for last six years have been collected from CMIE Prowess. Capital structure data for NIFTY fifty companies is collected

© Asia-Pacific Institute of Management, New Delhi

44

from national stock exchange website. Hypotheses were formulated and statistically tested using various statistical tools. The tools used in this study are ANOVA single factor, t-test and correlation. We have tested relationship of capital structure with various determinants like product market power, research and development expenditures, Selling expenses and profitability. We have defined our dependent variable of capital structure as long term debt to equity ratio. Product market power is defined as average change in product prices divided by net investment. Product prices are calculated by dividing annual sales by number of units being sold. For measuring relationship between R&D expenditure and capital structure we have calculated R&D expenses to Sales Ratio. For measuring relationship between selling expenses and capital structure we have calculated Sales expenses to Sales Ratio.

firms. Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a negative correlation between profitability and capital structure for Indian automobile firms. Hypothesis IV: There is a negative correlation between selling expenses and capital structure. Null Hypothesis H0: There is no correlation between Selling Expense and capital structure for Indian automobile firms. Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a negative correlation between Selling Expense and capital structure for Indian automobile firms. Hypothesis V: There is positive correlation between R&D expenses and capital structure. Null Hypothesis H0: There is no correlation between R&D expenses and capital structure for Indian automobile firms. Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a positive correlation between R&D Expense and capital structure for Indian automobile firms. Hypothesis VI: There is a positive correlation between Market power and capital structure. Null Hypothesis H0: There is no correlation between Market Power and capital structure for Indian automobile firms. Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is a positive correlation between Market Power and capital structure for Indian automobile firms.

Results and Discussions
Based on theoretical framework we have formulated the following hypotheses for purpose of empirical testing: Hypothesis I: Firms in the same Industry tend to choose similar capital structure. Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in capital structure within Indian automobile industry firms. Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is significant difference in capital structure within Indian automobile industry firms. Hypothesis II: Firms in different industries would choose different capital structures. Null Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference in capital structure for Nifty Fifty firms and Indian automobile firms. Alternative Hypothesis H1: There is significant difference in capital structure for Nifty Fifty firms and Indian automobile firms. Hypothesis III: There is a negative correlation between profitability and capital structure. Null Hypothesis H0: There is no correlation between profitability and capital structure for Indian automobile

Hypotheses Testing
To test first hypothesis which is Firms in the same Industry tend to choose similar capital structure, we have calculated debt equity ratios for various firms in Indian automobile industry. Our null hypothesis in this case therefore is “there is no significant difference in capital structure within the Indian automobile industry firms”. Table 1 - a shows the data for debtequity ratio for various firms in Indian automobile industry. Firms with Zero or near zero debt are not included. Table 1 - b shows the statistics of ANOVA test conducted for debt –equity ratios of various firms in the automobile industry. The P-value (Table 1 - b)

Asia-Pacific Business Review

Vol. VI, No. 2, April - June 2010

45

Table 1(a): Debt-Equity Ratios for Various Firms under Indian Automobile Industry Year Ford HM Hyundai M&M Mahindra Renault Tata Motors 0.457 0.322 0.594 0.5409 2002 1.7671 2003 1.588 1.824 0.519 0.63 2004 1.979 3.609 0.254 0.227 2005 2.265 0.981 0.273 0.441 2006 1.174 1.451 0.254 0.239 0 0.414 2007 0.83 1.318 0.431 0.433 0.438 0.312 0.471 1.109 0.506 0.775 2008

Table 1(b): ANOVA Statistics for Debt –Equity Ratios of Various Firms in the Automobile Industry Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS 11.1931 7.50782 18.7009 df 5 27 32 hypothesis which is Firms in different industries would choose different capital structures. The result is as expected and in line with the other research done in developed market. Table 3 shows the Average Debt-Equity Ratio, Average Profitability to Sales Ratio, Average Selling Expense to Sales Ratio, Average R&D Expense to Sales Ratio, and Market Power Ratio for Indian Automobile Firms. To test our third hypothesis, which is, there is negative correlation between profitability and capital structure, we have formulated null hypothesis, there is no correlation between profitability and capital structure for firms in Indian automobile industry and our alternative hypothesis is that there is negative correlation between profitability and capital structure. To measure profitability we have calculated PBIT to total assets ratio for Indian automobile industry firms for last six years (Table 3). Table 4 shows the summary statistics of correlation coefficient between capital structure and profitability. Since test statistic (-2.6764) falls out of acceptance level (critical statistics -2.015), null hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is proved to be true. We found that there exists a negative correlation between profitability and capital structure. MS 2.23861 0.27807 F 8.05061 P-value 9.42E-05 F Crit. 2.57189

being less than 0.05 our null hypothesis cannot be accepted. Therefore firms in the same industry need not have similar capital structure. The result is against what has been proved in earlier research conducted in developed economies. The difference in the result can be attributed to the difference in the structure of players in both the countries. In India most of the firms are either joint venture between domestic and foreign players or foreign subsidiary. Most of the funding in these companies is through equity from the holding companies. Players like Maruti Suzuki, General Motors and HSCI have Zero tolerance to Debt. To test our second hypothesis which is, firms in the different industries would choose different capital structures, we have compared average debt equity ratio of Indian automobile industry with average debt-equity ratio for Nifty 50 companies. Our null hypothesis in this case therefore is, there is no significant difference among the capital structure of firms from different industries. Table 2 - a shows the comparative data for average debt-equity ratio for Nifty fifty companies and firms of Indian automobile industry. Table 2 - b shows the summary statistics of T-test for debt –equity ratio of Indian –automobile firms with Nifty fifty companies. The P-value for two tails is 0.088253142 which is less than 0.05 therefore rejecting our null hypothesis and proving alternative

© Asia-Pacific Institute of Management, New Delhi

46

Table 2(a): Average Debt-Equity Ratio for Nifty Fifty Companies and Firms of Indian Automobile Industry 2003 Market D-E Ratio Automobile Ind D-E Ratio 0.74418 0.73101 2004 0.70846 0.8029 2005 0.68864 0.57699 2006 0.7134 0.39339 2007 0.81218 0.38448 2008 0.59184 0.41724

Table 2(b): Summary Statistics of T-test for Debt- Equity Ratio of Indian – Automobile Firms with Nifty Fifty Companies Variable 1 Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Determinants of Capital Market

...DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE Introduction Modern theory of capital structure instigated with the seminal paper of Modigliani and Miller [1]. In brief, the MM theory states that the market value of a firm is determined by its earning power and the risk of its underlying assets, and is independent from its corporate financing decisions. In fact, the MM theory provided conditions under which a firm’s financial decisions do not affect the value of the firm. The fundamental conditions under which a firm’s leverage becomes irrelevant to its market value, hence the MM proposition hold includes: * No taxation * No transaction costs exist * No default risk * Perfect and frictionless markets * Firms and investors can borrow at the same interest rate The MM theorem might seem extraneous but it provides cornerstone for corporate finance. However, the classic question “How do firms choose their capital structure?” remain unanswered. In finance, the term ‘capital structure’ refers to the technique followed by corporations to  finance its assets through combination of equity, debt, or hybrid securities [2]. In simple terms, a firm's capital structure is the symphony of its liabilities. For example, a firm that possesses $40 billion in equity and $60 billion in debt is said to be 40% equity-financed and 60% debt-financed. The firm's ratio of debt to equity that is 60% is referred to as the ‘firm's leverage’. Leverage and Gearing are two terms that are often......

Words: 1172 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...CapStrMktPower I M Pandey CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND MARKET POWER I. M. Pandey Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380015 India E-mail: impandey@iimahd.ernet.in W. P. No. 2002-03-01 March 2002 i CapStrMktPower I M Pandey CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND MARKET POWER I M Pandey ABSTRACT This paper provides new insights on the way in which the capital structure and market power and capital structure and profitability are related. We predict and show that capital structure and market power, as measured by Tobin’s Q, have a cubic relationship. That is, at lower and higher ranges of Tobin’s Q, firms employ higher debt, and reduce their debt at intermediate range. This is due to the complex interaction of the market conditions, agency problems and bankruptcy costs. We also show saucer-shaped relation between capital structure and profitability because of the interplay of agency costs, costs of external financing and debt tax shield. To our knowledge, we are the first to uncover these results. Key words: capital structure; market structure; market power; Tobin’s Q; riskshifting; moral hazard; agency problems; pecking order; trade-off theory; asset substitution. ii CapStrMktPower I M Pandey CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND MARKET POWER INTRODUCTION In corporate finance, works of Modigliani and Miller (1958; 1963) about capital structure irrelevance and tax shield advantage paved way for the development of alternative theories and a series of...

Words: 6718 - Pages: 27

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...1 Capital Structure Group 58 1. Overview of New Zealand Industry Selection We have chosen 12 different industries with in 21 listed companies belong to 21 NZX industry groups shows in Table 1 below. The three latters in brackets followed by each company name are their listed symbol in New Zealand Stock Exchange. Table 1 List of Selected Industries and Firms. 1) Consumer | 7) NZ Debt Market | Pumpkin Patch Limited (PPL) | New Zealand Government Stock (GOV) | The Warehouse Group Limited (WHS) | Tower Capital Limited (TWC) | 2) Finance & Other Services | 8) NZAX | Pyne Gould Group Ltd (PGC) | JASONS TRAVEL MEDIA LIMITED (JTM) | Summerset Group Holdings Limited (SUM) | New Zealand Wool Services International Limited (WSI) | 3) Food & Beverages | 9)Ports | Delegat's Group Limited (DGL) | Auckland International Airport Limited (AIA) | 4) Investment | Port of Tauranga Limited (POT) | ASB Capital Limited (ASB) | 10) Property | Kingfish Limited (KFL) | Kiwi Income Property Trust (KIP) | 5) Leisure & Tourism | Augusta Capital Limited (AUG) | SKYCITY Entertainment Group Limited (SKC) | 11) Transport | Tourism Holdings Limited (THL) | Air New Zealand Limited (AIR) | 6) Media & Telecommunications | Freightways Limited (FRE) | Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited (TEL) | 12). Overseas | | Oceana Gold (OGC) | 2. Purpose The purpose of this report is to analyse and evaluate the changes of capital structure......

Words: 7174 - Pages: 29

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...Factors Influencing Corporate Capital Structure in Three Asian Countries: Evidence from Japan, Malaysia and Pakistan Muhammad Mahmud and Gobind M. Herani and A.W. Rajar and Wahid Farooqi KASBIT, KABIT, Sindh University, Indus Institute of Higher Education 20. April 2009 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15003/ MPRA Paper No. 15003, posted 4. May 2009 07:34 UTC Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 3(1):9-17 (Spring 2009) http://indus.edu.pk/journal.php Economic Factors Influencing Corporate Capital Structure in Three Asian Countries: Evidence from Japan, Malaysia and Pakistan Muhammad Mahmud*, Gobind M. Herani** A. W. Rajar*** and Wahid Farooqi**** ABSTRACT This study is an attempt to determine the factors that influence a firm’s choice of capital structure in three Asian countries: Japan, Malaysia and Pakistan. The specific objective is to investigate if country’s economic factors play a significant role in determining capital structure between markets. These countries are chosen in order to represent three different stages of economic development. Literature review reveals that considerable research has been made in the industrialized countries on the similar topic. Capital structure is one of the most complex areas of strategic financial decision making due to its interrelationship with macroeconomic variables. This study reveals that per capita GNP growth for Japan and Malaysia is significantly related to capital structure of firm and......

Words: 4126 - Pages: 17

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...Theory of Capital Structure Relevance Under Imperfect Information Author(s): Robert Heinkel Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Finance, Vol. 37, No. 5 (Dec., 1982), pp. 1141-1150 Published by: Blackwell Publishing for the American Finance Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2327840 . Accessed: 19/05/2012 14:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Blackwell Publishing and American Finance Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Finance. http://www.jstor.org THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE * VOL. XXXVII, NO. 5 * DECEMBER 1982 A Theory of Capital Structure Relevance Imperfect Information ROBERT HEINKEL* under ABSTRACT Firms raise debt and equity capital to finance a positive net present value project in perfectly competitive capital markets; firm insiders know the function generating the random firm cash flow but potential capital suppliers do not. Taking into account the incentives of insiders to misrepresent their firm type,......

Words: 4499 - Pages: 18

Premium Essay

Determinants of a Company's Capital Structure

...determining the best financing mix or capital structure for his firm. Capital structure could have two effects. First, firms of the same risk class could possibly have higher cost of capital with higher leverage. Second, capital structure may affect the valuation of the firm, with more leveraged firms, being riskier, being valued lower than less leveraged firms. If we consider that the manager of a firm has the shareholders' wealth maximisation as his objective, then capital structure is an important decision, for it could lead to an optimal financing mix which maximises the market price per share of the firm. Capital structure has been a major issue in financial economics ever since Modigliani and Miller (henceforth referred to as MM) showed in 1958 that given frictionless markets, homogeneous expectations, etc., the capital structure decision of the firm is irrelevant. This conclusion depends entirely on the assumptions made. By relaxing the assumptions and analysing their effects, theory seeks to determine whether an optimal capital structure exists or not, and if so what could possibly be its determinants. If capital structure is not irrelevant, then there is also another thing to consider: the interaction between financing and investment. But in order to try to distinguish the effects of various determinants on capital structure, it is assumed in this paper that the investment decision is held constant. II. TRADITIONAL VIEW OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE In 1959,......

Words: 1142 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...Capital Structure Stewart C. Myers The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Spring, 2001), pp. 81-102. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309%28200121%2915%3A2%3C81%3ACS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D The Journal of Economic Perspectives is currently published by American Economic Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/aea.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR,......

Words: 12907 - Pages: 52

Free Essay

Capital Structure

...Global Economic Review Vol. 37, No. 1, 107Á123, March 2008 Performance and Capital Structure of Privatized Firms in Europe ´ ´ MARIA JOSE ARCAS & PATRICIA BACHILLER Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain ABSTRACT The objective of this paper is to analyze whether there are differences in performance between private firms and recently privatized firms in the European Union, as well as to determine whether ownership (state-owned versus private) and regulation affect capital structure. Focusing on economic reasons that justify privatizations, we analyze whether there are differences between recently privatized state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private firms in their profitability, leverage and efficiency during the period 1999Á2002. Also, we analyze the determinants of the capital structure of these firms. Contrary to previous studies, our results show that privatized firms are not less efficient than firms with private ownership. KEY WORDS: Privatization, efficiency, capital structure, regression, Wilcoxon test Summary In recent decades, the privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has been one of the most common policies carried out in economies worldwide and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have also been involved in this phenomenon. Many studies have focused on the impact of privatization on the performance of the privatized......

Words: 7717 - Pages: 31

Premium Essay

Market Structures

...Abstract Present unit deals with the Concept of Market Structure which comprises of different market conditions under which the firms produce and sell products in the market. The unit also elaborates upon various Forms of Market Structure such as Perfect Market and * Imperfect Market (*Monopoly, Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly). The conditions and determination of price under various Forms of Market Structure have been discussed. The content based classroom activity has been suggested at the end. It will help in developing Critical Thinking & Analytical ability among students which is the demand of this subject. Questions based on the content to check the progress have been included. Different types of Questions such as Very Short Answer Type, Short Answer Type, and Long Answer Type questions (based on Board pattern) are also given under' Additional Questions’. List of URL’s have been mentioned in the end. You are requested to search those web links for more interesting details about the unit covered in the present module. This will enable you to develop more interesting Teaching- Learning Classroom Processes for children. Learning objectives After going through the material/ unit you will be able to: 1. Define the term ‘Market Structure’. 2. State the Elements of Market structure. 3. Explain the Determinants of Market Structure. 4. Classify various Forms of Market Structure. 5. Define Perfect and Imperfect forms of market. 6. Explain the features/Characteristics of......

Words: 3978 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...No. 19 [Special Issue - October 2011] Perceived Relationship between Corporate Capital Structure and Firm Value in Nigeria Semiu Babatunde ADEYEMI Department of Accounting University of Lagos Lagos, Nigeria Collins Sankay OBOH Department of Accounting University of Lagos Lagos, Nigeria Abstract This study examined the empirical effects of corporate capital structure (financial leverage) on the market value of a selection of firms listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. Both primary and secondary data were obtained for analysis employing both descriptive and inferential statistics for analysis. A sample size of 150 respondents and 90 firms were selected for both primary data and secondary data respectively. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse the primary data, while Chi-Square was used to draw inference of perceived relationship between capital structure and firm value. The results of the study suggested that a positively significant relationship exists between a firm’s choice of capital structure and its market value in Nigeria. The study suggested that listed firms in Nigeria should strategically plan and manage their capital structure in order to maximize their market values. Keywords: Capital structure, market value, Nigeria, debt, equity. 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to the Study After the Modigliani-Miller (1958 and 1963) paradigms on firms’ capital structure and their market values, there have been considerable debates, both in theoretical and empirical......

Words: 7951 - Pages: 32

Premium Essay

Determinants of Bank Capital Structure

...Mekelle University College of Business and Economics Department of Accounting and Finance THE DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE Evidence from Commercial Banks in Ethiopia By K i b ro m M e h a ri F i s s e h a Reg.No.-CBE/PR0025/01 Research Project Submitted to the Department of Accounting and Finance, College of Business and Economics, Mekelle University, for the partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Finance and Investment Under the Guidance of Aregawi Gebremichael (Ph.D. Candidate) Assistant Professor May, 2010 Mekelle, Ethiopia i THE DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE Evidence from Commercial Banks in Ethiopia By Kibrom Mehari Fisseha Reg. No. CBE/PR0025/01 ii DECLARATION I, Kibrom Mehari Fisseha, hereby declare that the project work entitled “The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from Commercial Banks in Ethiopia” submitted by me for the award of the degree of Master of Science in Finance and Investment of Mekelle University, is original work and it hasn’t been presented for the award of any other Degree, Diploma, Fellowship or other similar titles of any other university or institution. Place: Mekelle Signature: Date: May, 2010 ………………….. KIBROM MEHARI FISSEHA iii CERTIFICATION I certify that the project work entitled “The Determinants of Capital Structure” is a bona-fide work of Mr. Kibrom Mehari who carried out the research under my guidance. Certified further, that to the best of......

Words: 26591 - Pages: 107

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...Capital Structure Capital Structure is the proportion of debt, preference and equity capitals in the total financing of the firm’s assets. The main objective of financial management is to maximize the value of the equity shares of the firm. Given this objective, the firm has to choose that financing mix/capital structure that results in maximizing the wealth of the equity shareholders. Such a capital structure is called as the optimum capital structure. At the optimum capital structure, the weighted average cost of capital would be the minimum. The capital structure decision influences the value of the firm through its cost of capital and can affect the share of the earnings that pertain to the equity shareholders. Introduction to Capital Structure Theories There are 4 basic Capital Structure theories. They are: 1. Net Income Approach 2. Net Operating Income Approach 3. Modigliani-Miller (MM) Approach and 4. Traditional Approach Generally, the capital structure theories have the following assumptions: 1. There are no corporate taxes (this assumption has been removed later). 2. The firms use only 2 sources of financing namely perpetual debts ad equity shares 3. The firms pay 100% of the earnings as dividend. This means that the dividend pay-out ratio is 100% and there are no earnings that are retained by the firms. 4. The total assets are given which do not change and the investment decisions are assumed to be constant. ...

Words: 8178 - Pages: 33

Premium Essay

Capital Structure

...Bachelor of Finance & Banking Thesis -------------------------------------- The impact of capital structure on profitability of listed construction companies on Hanoi Stock Exchange from 2008 to 2013 FALL 2014 Instructor Mr. Tran Viet Dung Group members Nguyen Thi Thanh Tam (FB00464) Nguyen Thi Viet Chinh (FB00405) Hoang My Linh (FB00073) Dang Thi Hong Hanh (FB00253) Nguyen Thi Kieu Trang (FB00078) Hanoi, December 2014 Table of Contents List of tables 3 List of figure 4 Abstract 5 Chapter 1: Introduction and Thesis Outline 6 1. Background 6 2. Research objective 8 3. Research question 8 4. Data and methodology 8 4.1 Data 8 4.2 Methodology 9 5. Thesis outline 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review and theoretical models 10 1. Theorem review 10 1.1. Modigliani- Miller theorem review 10 1.2. Agency theory 12 1.3. Trade-off theory 14 1.4 Pecking Order Theory 19 1.5 Market-timing theory 20 2. Variable review 22 2.1. Return on Asset and Return on Equity 22 2.2. Capital structure 23 3. Empirical studies 24 3.1. Relationship between capital structure and firm performance 24 3.2. Empirical studies of relationship between determinants of capital structure and profitability 28 4. Summary of the empirical studies 30 Chapter 3: Methodology 31 1. Introduction 31 2. Data collection methods 32 2.1. Sampling techniques 32 2.2. Data collection procedure 34 3. Variables and......

Words: 20311 - Pages: 82

Premium Essay

Determinants of Capital Structure for Listed Industrial Product Companies in Malaysia

...the capital structure. The theory of Capital structure is closely related to the firm’s cost of capital. It is one of the effective tools of management to manage the cost of capital. Capital structure is the mix of the long-term sources of funds used by the firm. The primary objective of capital structure decisions is to maximize the market value of the firm or achieving the maximization of shareholders wealth through an appropriate mix of long-term sources of funds and an optimal capital structure is reached at a point where the cost of the capital is minimum. To design the capital structure, the element that should consider is first, the wealth maximization is attained and second, is the best approximation to the optimal capital structure. In finance, capital structure refers to the way a corporation finances its assets through some combination of equity, debt, or hybrid securities (Saad, 2010). In short, capital structure is a mixture of a company's debts (long-term and short-term), common equity and preferred equity in financing its assets. Capital structure is essential on how a firm finances its overall operations and growth by using different sources of funds and it is one of the most important decisions made by financial management. 2 The capital structure of financing pattern decision is a significant managerial decision. It influences shareholders’ wealth. As a result, the market value of the share may be affected by the capital structure......

Words: 10584 - Pages: 43

Premium Essay

American Home Products (Ahp): Business Case on Capital Structure

...change EBIT = 1,12 / 1,11 = 1,009 Higher DFL means higher EPS variability 0% 1 30% 1,06 50% 1,1 70% 1,15 Debt to Capital = total debt / net worth Higher DtC ratio means higher risk 0% 0,009 30% 0,428 50% 0,99 70% 2,33 3. How much potential value, if any, can AHP create for its shareholders at each of the three proposed levels of debt? EPS goes up as % of debt goes up ($3.18 - $3.49) 0% $3.18 30% $3.33 50% $3.41 70% $3.49 Dividends rise 0% $1.90 30% $2.00 50% $2.04 70% $2.10 4. What capital structure would you recommend as appropriate for AHP? To determine the ‘debt capacity’ of a firm: EBIT/Interest Current: 954.8/2.3 = 415 Debt @ 30%: 922.2/52.7 = 17.5 • 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Debt @ 50%: 922.2/87.8 = 10.5 Debt @ 70%: 922.2/122.9 = 7.5 All are great, so need to look at more figures What are the advantages of leveraging AHP? Access to additional capital • Tax shield – debt is tax deductible • Increase in shareholder value • Increase in EPS • Increase in Dividends What are the disadvantages? a. Higher risk How would leverage up affect the company’s taxes? a. As debt goes up, so do the tax shield benefits How would the capital markets react to a decision by the company to increase the use of debt in its capital structure? a. The market will expect higher return. How much might AHP implement a more aggressive capital structure policy? a. They are becoming more risky b. They are separating from the grip of the CEO (who will......

Words: 482 - Pages: 2