Search results

Do financial services needs depend on the firm size? To highlight the impact of different categories of financial services on firm performance, we establish a correspondence between financial services and firms' performance classified according to their size, controlling with the determinants of firm performance and the obstacles that hinder the development of each category of firm.

We have mobilized microeconomic data on 78,629 firms stratified by size and covering 135 countries, extracted from the Enterprise Surveys database. A two-stage least squares (2SLS) regression analysis with instrumental variable modeling is used.

Our empirical results show that a firm's financing behavior differs according to its size. For micro and small firms, the availability of internal financing has a positive impact on their performance. For medium-size firms, the use of debt stimulates firm performance. For large firms, the positive effect of debt diminishes as the level of debt increases, which leads this category of firms to increase their capital. We complemented our study by exploring the issue of whether barriers to firm performance differ by size. Our results bring a support to the idea that medium-size firms suffer more than micro, small, and large firms. The size of this category of firms does not allow them to operate in the informal sector as micro and small firms do, and does not allow them to influence political authorities to operate in their favor as large firms do.

Previous studies have focused on investigating the effects of access to finance and/or financing constraints on firm's performance, neglecting the issue of identifying which financial services have the most impact on firm performance depending on firms' size. This study fills the gap in the literature in two main ways. First, we identify the financial services that have the most impact on firm performance using firm-level data covering 78,629 firms by size (micro, small, medium, and large). Second, we investigate the different barriers to firm performance by size.

After studying and analysing this case, students would be able to evaluate and understand the importance and need of an infrastructure sector in a country, its inherent risks and scope of infrastructure investment and financing in India – National Infrastructure Pipeline and the important role of Non-Banking Finance Company’s (NBFC) vis-à-vis banks in infrastructure financing in India; critically analyse and recommend alternative decisions in a business problem situation using multi-criteria decision analysis, which is a tool used for business portfolio analysis; understand and evaluate the corporate portfolio management (CPM) tools used for an optimum portfolio mix to turn around companies; identify and suggest an optimum portfolio mix to turn around a finance company using CPM assessment applied to Pidun matrix; and recommend operational and strategic levers for successful turnaround implementation by using the integrated canvas on turnaround.

On 10 May 2020, in New Delhi, India, J. Ray took charge as a full-time director of an Indian Non-Banking Finance Company – Infrastructure Finance Company (NBFC-IFC). The NBFC-IFC of the Indian Government extended long-term financial assistance to infrastructure projects in India. During the financial year (FY) 2017–2018 till FY 2019–2020, the company suffered substantial losses to the tune of US$13.7bn, with profitability experiencing a notable decline – return on assets at a negligible 0.11% and return on equity of only 0.68%.

The NBFC-IFC had a declining yield on advances at 7.05%, net interest margins (NIMs) of 2.08% against a high cost of borrowing at 7.66%, a declining loan book (by 4.35%) of US$336.27bn and a fast-deteriorating asset quality with highest ever non-performing assets (NPAs) at 19.70% of its loan book. Such financial parameters, compared with that of the industry average of banks and finance companies, meant that the NBFC-IFC Ray had taken over was fast bleeding and was on the brink of being declared a sick company. In comparison, private and other government players had profitable and much healthier financials, and Ray felt that there was a need for improvement. To make things worse, Ray got to know that the Indian Government was in the final stages of setting up a new development finance institution focused on long-term infrastructure financing in India. Ray realized the question was not only of the NBFC-IFC remaining relevant but also of its existence in the fast-evolving sector. Ray wondered what could his his integrated canvas be for a turnaround strategy that could include effective management of an optimal portfolio mix.

With a healthy capital-to-risk (weighted) assets ratio of 30.85% and a satisfactorily improved net worth of US$103.1bn, in the given Reserve Bank of India regulatory provisions for the NBFC-IFC including restrictive exposure norms and NBFC-IFC’s operational mandate prescribed by the Indian Government, Ray had to shift the product and sectorial investment of the NBFC-IFC to reduce the NPAs, increase loan book size and improve the yield of advances and its NIM to effectively turn around the company’s profitability. Ray realized that he needed his team to evaluate and select a product and sector strategy for this change.

The present case of financing investment in infrastructure is interesting for implementation in developing economies because a lack of infrastructure is a common problem and there is a necessity of achieving a more developed infrastructure system to support accelerated economic growth in these countries. This case can be used in elective courses on corporate finance strategy and corporate portfolio management for infrastructure finance companies. This case can be taught in elective courses in post-graduate and MBA programs. This case can also be included in management development programs (MDP), executive MBA programs and executive-level courses that have subjects such as corporate finance strategy, corporate portfolio management and strategy management that focus on turnaround strategies including portfolio management for banks and finance companies.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.