Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from Pakistani Firms

By Syed Ali Danish Bukhari Fa10-Mba-004 E.mail: ali_danish_4@yahoo.com

January 2012

Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from Pakistani Firms

Abstract: We tried to found out the factors which have a role a determination of optimal capital structure. Our research was backed by the tradeoff theory and pecking order theory and model used to measure the variables is fixed effect model. We used leverage in accordance with previous researches as dependent variable because it leads to least cost of capital that is the basis of optimal capital structure. We used tangibility, profitability and size as independent variable and then apply regression to find their relationship. According to the research paper we used as a model paper, the result was that tangibility and profitability were negatively related to debt ratio and size proved to be insignificant at 5 percent level. Key words: Capital Structure, Leverage, Tangibility, Profitability, Size Field of research: Finance Introduction: In order to understand the determinants of capital structure, its basic to understand that what capital structure is. Capital structure is defined as a mix of long term debt, short term debt, common and preferred stock. Decisioning regarding Capital structure is most critical in any company because it has direct influence on other financial decisions. Thus we can say every companys financial decisions rest on the decision of capital structure. These decisions include portfolio investment, project expansion and starting, dividend policies and merger decisioins.The

goal behind every financial decision is to maximize shareholders value by lowering coast of capital. Thus it is necessary for a researcher to assist in finding the right mix of debt financing and equity financing in order to find an optimal capital structure at which there is lest coast of capital. Miller and Modigliani were the first researchers who conducted ground breaking research on capital structure in 1958.After that much research has been done in this area following the footsteps of Miller and Modigliani. One drawback of these researches is that most researchers have done their research on capital structure of developed countries and very few have been done in developing countries. This creates a situation that whether the results acquired from the research in developing countries are applicable in developing countries as well. Similarly are the factors affecting the capital structure in developing countries are the same as in developing countries. According to the factors affecting emerging economies and those of developed countries have some common characteristics. According to (Modigliani, F. & Miller, M.H, 1958), the capital structure of a company has nothing to do with the value of a company i.e. any mix of debt and equity financing does not increase or decrease firms value. It is the assets that create the value of firm irrespective of their acquisition through debt or equity. However this is subject to perfect capital market. Later (Modigliani & Miller, 1963) accounted for the impact of taxes on firms value and capital structure and found that debt financing proves to be cheaper than equity financing because of the tax shield benefits that arises through the use of debt financing. This leads us to the trade-off theory which means that benefit from the use of debt financing is limited up to the optimal level and after that various costs declines the benefits of using debt financing. Thus in order to acquire

an optimal capital structure one has to look an optimal debt level or ratio that minimizes the cost of capital. (Lev and Pekelman, 1975; Ang, 1976; Taggart, 1977; Jalilvand and Harris, 1984). Our study of research will then be to looking the determinants of debt adjustment that will lead to optimal debt level at which cost of capital is least as in accordance with (Rajan and Zingales, 1995; Baker and Wurgler, 2002; Fama and French, 2002). The rest of the research article is organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes the literature related to past researches in this regard. Section 3 defines the data and methodology. Literature Review: The very first research article written on capital structure was by Modigliani and Miller (1958).According to them there is no relationship between firms value and capital structure mix provided that there is perfect capital market in which there is no transaction cost no taxes and no bankruptcy cost. As there is no existence of perfect conditions thus this leads to generation of more theories. One of these theories is trade-off theory according to which optimal debt adjustment is affected by the taxes, cost of distress and bankruptcy cost. When the debt financing exceeds ascertain level, the cost of debt financing becomes more than the tax shield benefit. This also increases bankruptcy cost as more and more debt is applied the debt providers will demand higher rate of return due to increased uncertainty of debt repayment Baxter (1967). DeAngelo and Masulis (1980) provided more insight on the model of Modigliani and Miller and included tax advantages and other non cash advantages such as depreciation charges and founded that every firm has internal optimal capital structure. Another theory provided against MM theory is agency theory.Accodeing to agency theory an optimal debt level can be achieved by reducing the agency cost of a firm. To pursue this, various techniques are applied. One of these techniques according to Jensen and Meckling (1976) is to

provide more ownership to the managers of a firm so that their obligation will become more directed towards achieving owners goals as their land owners goals will be aligned. Another method is to use more of debt financing which will decrease equity part of capital structure and this intern will increase the ownership of managers thus again aligning their interest to the interest of the owners of the company. Agency cost can also be reduced by using more debt financing which increases bankruptcy chances and hence managers will be more cautious to reduce the risk and fear of job loss will demand them to increase their efforts and less consumption of firms resources (Grossman and Hart, 1982). Debt usage in firm is supported by Harris and Reviv (1990).According to them debt usage in capital structure is better because in many cases mangers dont provide right information to owners and sometimes also hide the information related to liquidation of firm. They do so because they want to prolong their employment and receive remuneration from the firm. Amihud and Lev (1981) also state that managers want to ensure their employment by reducing the unemployment risk and thus want to go for their own interest only. Increasing the debt financing part will empower the bondholders as they will more in-depth understanding of the firms inner matters and can take over firm in case of default. In contrast to trade-off theory, there is pecking order theory according to which information level about the firms position is different of management and outsiders Myers and Majluf (1984) When firms acquire more debt financing and issue debt, it disperse a good news to the market that company financial health is good that it can generate cash flows to cater the debt cost which is interest payment and principle amount payment. Thus it increases the firms value by increasing the confidence level of investors Ross (1977).

Thus after going through various articles we are able to determine the variables for this research which are leverage as our dependent variable and tangibility, size and profitability as independent variables Leverage: Debt to total asset ratio is used to measure the leverage of firm (Bokpin and Arko, 2009). Different researches used book value or market value methods for determining leverage (Titman and Wessels 1988, Rajan and Zingales 1995).We are taking here the total value do debt in Book value of debt because in we will take data from Pakistani firms and Pakistani firms mostly take short term debt financing. Mostly debt financing comes through commercial banks. Firm size are small and they cant guarantee long-term debt therefore large part of debt in Pakistan is short term debt as same case goes with developing countries (Arko,2009) Tangibility of Asset (TG): The trade-off theory suggests a positive relationship between tangibility and leverage. The reason is that more number of fixed assets can be used as a security for obtaining more debt i.e. they can be used as collateral. (Harris and Raviv, 1991; Myers, 1977; Myers and Majluf, 1984; Thornhill et al., 2004; Williamson, 1988).In contrast to this pecking order theory showed negative relationship between the two variables. The reason is the difference between the maturity level of fixed assets and short term debt financing (Acaravc, 2004; Saylgan et al., 2006).In order to measure the tangibility of asset, we will use ratio of total fixed asset to total asset ratio.Net amount of fixed assets means that depreciation in subtracted from cost to come at net amount of fixed assets (Erdinc Karadeniz & Onal, 2009) H1: A firm with higher percentage of fixed assets will have higher debt ratio

Size (S) In trade-off theory again there is a positive relationship between the firm size and the leverage. (Ang, 1992; Antoniou et al., 2002; Bevan and Danbolt, 2002; Homaifar et al., 1994; Wiwattanakantang, 1999).The reason is large size of firm allow them to diversify which reduces the bankruptcy cost which help to gain more leverage. The pecking order theory shows a negative relationship between the two variables (Rajan and Zingales, 1995; Zou and Xiao, 2006).The reason is asymmetry of information in large firms is less severe. However empirical studies have shown positive relationship (Dalbor and Upneja, 2002; Gaud et al., 2005; Huang and Song, 2006; Pandey, 2004; Qian et al., 2007; Saylgan et al., 2006).We will apply log of total assets to better compare variance among all the values of sales (Joshua Abor, 2009). H2: There is negative relationship between size and leverage of the firm. Profitability (P) In the case of profitability, the pecking order theory and trade-off theory again shows opposite results. Pecking order theory shows a negative relationship and trade-off theory shows a positive relationship between profitability and leverage. (Benito, 2003; Krasker, 1986; Myers, 1984; Myers and Majluf, 1984; Narayanan, 1988; Qian et al., 2007).According to trade-off theory more profitability leads to more ability of obtaining debt and pecking order argues that more profitable firms use more of internal financing rather than debt financing.Emperical results show negative relationship (Acaravc, 2004; Allen, 1991; Barton and Gordon, 1988; Chen, 2004; Huang and Song, 2006; Pandey, 2004; Saylgan et al., 2006; Tong and Green, 2005; Wiwattanakantang, 1999) while some studies show insignificant relationship Tang and Jang (2007)In order to measure the profitability of the firm we will use the ratio of profitability (Joshua Abor, 2009).

H3: Firms with higher profitability will have lesser leverage

Independent Variable

Dependent Variable

Data & Methodology The research is based on data extracted from publications of State Bank of Pakistan which include financial statement analysis and provides important information regarding financial accounts of listed companies on Karachi Stock Exchange. We excluded all firms in financial sector as the capital structure of these firms is not comparable to capital structures of firms in non financial sector. Therefore we excluded all banks, insurance companies and investment companies and other financial institutions. State Bank of

Pakistan publications Financial statement analysis of Non financial sector 2006-2010 is used for data extraction related to research.

Model to be used in this research is the fixed effect model and variables are defined in this model as LV = 1 + 2Tg + 3S + 4P + Where LV T S P = Leverage = Tangibility = Size = Profitability =Error term

References

Rajan, R. a. Z., L. . (1995). What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. The Journal of Finance, 50, 1421-1460. Modigliani, F. & Miller, M.H. (1958), The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment, The American Economic Review, 48, 261-97. Modigliani, F. & Miller, M.H. (1963), Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: a correction, The American Economic Review, 53, 433-43. Lev, Baruch & Pekelman, Dov, (1975). "A Multiperiod Adjustment Model for the Firm's Capital Structure," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, 30, 75-91 Jalilvand A. & Harris R.S, (1984). Corporate Behavior in Adjusting to Capital Structure and Dividend Targets: An Econometric Study. The Journal of Finance, 39, 127-145. Taggart, R. A. (1977), A Model of Corporate Financing Decisions, Journal of Finance, 32, 1467 - 1484. Fama E. and K. French (2002) The Equity Premium, Journal of Finance, 57, 637-659. Baxter, N. (1967). Leverage, risk of ruin and the cost of capital, The Journal of Finance, 2, 395-403 DeAngelo, H. & R. W. Mausulis. (1980). Optimal capital structure under corporate and personal taxation, Journal of Financial Economics",

Jensen, Michael.C. & William.H. Meckling. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, .305360.

Grossman, S. & O. Hart, (1982). Corporate financial structure and managerial incentives, in John McCall ed., The Economics of Information and Uncertainty University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Harris, M. & A. Raviv. (1990). Capital Structure and the Informational Role of Debt, Journal of Finance, 45, 321-349. Amihud, Y. & B. Lev. (1981). Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers, Bell Journal of Economics", 12, 605-616 Myers, S., & N. Majluf. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information investors do not have, Journal of Financial Economics", 13, 187-222. Ross, S.A. (1977). "The Determination of financial structure: the incentive signalling approach", Bell Journal of Economics, 23-40. Arko, G. A. B. a. A. C. (2009). Ownership structure, corporate governance and capital structure decisions of firms Empirical evidence from Ghana. Studies in Economics and Finance, 26 Erdinc Karadeniz, S. Y. K., Mehmet Balcilar & Onal, Y. B. (2009). Determinants of capital structure: evidence from Turkish lodging companies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21, 594-609. Joshua Abor, N. B. (2009). How do we explain the capital structure of SMEs in sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Economic Studies, 36, 83-97. Harris, M. & Raviv, A. (1991), The theory of capital structure, Journal of Finance, 46

Myers, S.C. (1984), The capital structure puzzle, Journal of Finance, 39,575-92 Myers, S.C. & Majluf, N.S. (1984), Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have, Journal of Financial Economics, 13,187-221.

Williamson, O. (1988), Corporate finance and corporate governance, The Journal of Finance, 43,567-91. Saylgan, G., Karabacak, H. and Kucukkocaog lu, G. (2006), The Firm-Specific Determinants of Corporate Capital Structure: Evidence from Turkish Panel Data, Ang, J.S. (1992), On the theory of finance for privately held firms, Journal of Small Business Finance, 1, 185-203. Wiwattanakantang, Y. (1999), An empirical study on the determinants of the capital structure of Thai firms, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 7,371-403. Tong, G. and Green, C.J. (2005), Pecking order or trade-off hypothesis? Evidence on the capital structure of Chinese companies, Applied Economics, 37, 2179-89.