1 / 17

XI International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development

XI International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development. Do Firms Move towards Target Capital Structure? Empirical Analysis of Dynamic Trade-Off Theory’s Application for BRIC Companies. Irina Ivashkovskaya Maria Kokoreva www.cfcenter.ru http://en.cfcenter.ru/

tshelia
Download Presentation

XI International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. XI International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development Do Firms Move towards Target Capital Structure? Empirical Analysis of Dynamic Trade-Off Theory’s Application for BRIC Companies Irina Ivashkovskaya Maria Kokoreva www.cfcenter.ru http://en.cfcenter.ru/ www.cfjournal.ru Basic Research Programme   of the Higher School of Economics in 2009

  2. Corporate Finance Center • Established in 2006 (http://en.cfcenter.ru/) • One of the first academic research centers in Corporate Finance in Russia (part of Center for Fundamental Research) • Professors, Lecturers and Master Students of HSE (24 members) • Research projects in the Areas: • Corporate Financial Decisions • Corporate Financial Architecture • Corporate Governance and Performance • Intellectual Capital: Valuation, Performance • “Empirical Corporate Finance in emerging markets” in progress • Network of Excellence “Corporate Financial Architecture and Role of Boards” • Corporate Finance E-Journal (www.cfjournal.ru)

  3. DETERMINANTS: • COUNTRY LEVEL: • Hungary, India, The Czech Republic, Turkey, Taiwan, Thailand,Slovenia, China, Argentina,Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Hong Kong, Israel, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, and Venezuela • MULTICOUNTRY LEVEL: • Booth et al., 2001 (10 countries); Delcoure (2007);Seifert, Gonenc (2008, 23 countries, including Russia); Ivashkovskaya, Solntseva (Kokoreva) (2009, BRIC) • BASIC TEORIES TESTING: • Delcoure N. 2007 (Central and Eastern Europe), Zou, H., Xiao, J.Z., 2006 (China) , Berk A., 2007 (Slovenia), Chakraborty, I., 2010 (India) • DYNAMIC CAPITAL STRUCTURE: • Nivorozhkin E., 2005 (Central and Eastern Europe, former Soviet Union), Karadeniz, E. et. al, 2009 (Turkey), Bhaduri, S.N., 2002 (India) Capital Structure Research on Emerging Markets

  4. WHY BRIC? • BRIC term (Brazil, Russia, India, China) appeared in 2001 (Goldman Sachs) for fast developing economies • Economic reasoning (since 2006 – politics also) • Cheap resources countries (agriculture, minerals, intellectual, labour) • June, 16 2009 – First BRIC summit in Russia • Current Goldman Sachs forecasts (taking crisis into account): • Average annual growth: • BRIC (2009) 4,8% World (2009) -1,1% • BRIC (2010) 8% World (2010) 3,3% • Appear within 8 largest economies in 2027 • Appear within 5 largest economies in 2050

  5. WHY BRIC?

  6. Pecking Order Theory Testing: Results 2009 • RUSSIAN SAMPLE: DO NOT REJECT • Internal financing deficit explains up to 41% of the new debt • Higher significance for capital structure variables based on market value of equity • SUB SAMPLES: PO motives are more important for companies with foreign shareholders • BRAZILIAN SAMPLE: REJECT • The majority of the companies do not have internal deficit for the period of study, the coefficients are not significant • Not significant for all sub samples • CHINESE SAMPLE:REJECT • Explanatory power of regressions is too low (R-squared is from 0,003 to 0,04) • Not significant for all sub samples

  7. Trade-off Theory Testing: Results 2009 • RUSSIAN SAMPLE: DO NOT REJECT • Deviation from the target level is responsible for a significant part of new debt, but never achieve the unit level (less than 63%) • The DL has higher coefficients than the DEF for Pecking Order tests almost in all specifications • SUB SAMPLES: for HIGH debt level firms and firms NOT controlled by the government • BRAZILIAN SAMPLE: DO NOT REJECT • Low significance in all specifications (R-squared from 0,02 to 0,06) • Could not be rejected for sub samples analysis but preference for a specific sub sample can not be revealed CHINESE SAMPLE : DO NOT REJECT • Chinese large-scale companies most likely follow trade-off logic of financing (DL stands for 16-69% of new debt) • Could not be rejected for sub samples analysis but preference for a specific sub sample can not be revealed

  8. Dynamic Trade-Off OPTIMAL CAPITAL STRUCTURE: ■Modeling from determinants (fitted values for target capital structure) ■ Historical average leverage (Shyam-Sunder, Myers, 1999),(Fama, French, 2002) • ADJUSTMENT COSTS: • ■ Optimal and observed capital structures do not coinside (Heshmati, 2001) • ■ Determinants of adjustment costs : • standard determinants plus the distance from the optimal (Bangeree et al, 2004); • Institutional factors: market and institution specific (Wanzenried) • Macroeconomic (CookandTang, 2008) MODELLING: Interaction of financing, investing, dividend decisions

  9. Methodology of the Research • DATA : • 2004-2008 panel data • 54 Russian large companies • 139 Brazilian large companies • 143 Indian large companies • 110 Chinese large companies • RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: • Target ratio modeling • Adjustment model • Final model • Checking for individual effects • RESULTS, INTERPRETATION, APPLICATIONS

  10. Leverage Variables and Capital Structure Determinants • Leverage ratios: • Based on Book value and Market value of equity • Based on interest bearing debt and liabilities • Capital structure determinants: • Profitability • Asset structure • Size • Growth • Tax shields • 2008 Dummy • National Dummy • Industry Dummy • MTB

  11. Results for 2004-2007 FY TDR - Total debt ratio – Total interest bearing debt/(total debt +book value of equity) TDRA – Book value total debt ratio - Total liabilities/total assets MTDR – Total market debt ratio - Total interest bearing debt/(total debt +market value of equity)

  12. Results for 2008 FY TDR - Total debt ratio – Total interest bearing debt/(total debt +book value of equity) TDRA – Book value total debt ratio - Total liabilities/total assets MTDR – Total market debt ratio - Total interest bearing debt/(total debt +market value of equity)

  13. Results • Large BRIC companies follow similar dynamic strategy in capital structure choice • Large BRIC companies move to their target capital structure ratio but face recapitalization costs • The speed of adjustment is high (due to companies size mostly) – 41-51% • Target level of capital structure depends on: • Profitability (negative relationship) • Size calculated as ln(Total Assets) (positive relationship) • Size calculated as ln(Sales) (negative relationship) • Tangibility (positive relationship) • Non debt tax shield (positive relationship) • Model is not applicable for 2008 (external factors matter)

  14. Thank you for your attention!

  15. Descriptive statistics

  16. Descriptive statistics

  17. Dynamic statistics

More Related