Search results

The purpose of this paper is to test whether Indian firms follow the pecking order theory under situations of deficiency as well as surplus.

The study examines Indian firms included in the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) 500 index, covering a time span of ten years (2003-2012). An extended model of pecking order theory is tested for deficit and surplus firms separately. The authors use ordinary least square regressions to test the results.

The findings indicate that the pecking order theory is an excellent descriptor for deficit firms, but a poor one for surplus firms. Deficit firms frequently issue debt to fill up deficiency requirements but keep their debt ratios in limit. In marked contrast, surplus firms have low debt to equity ratios and only occasionally redeem debt. They tend to retain funds for future expansion and other operational needs.

The study is limited to firms included in the BSE 500 index, but could be extended to others. Future research work could also focus on debt sub-components.

The present study is useful for firms that are considering capital structure decisions and supports finding that deficit and surplus firms behave differently.

This is the first study separately testing the pecking order between deficit and surplus firms in an emerging market.

The purpose of this paper is to show that different methodologies may lead to different implications about the validity of the pecking order theory.

Using data from Greek firms as a starting‐point, the paper first investigates whether they follow the financing pattern implied by the pecking order theory and then illustrates that conclusions concerning the pecking order should be carefully shaped by researchers, as the methodology used can be misleading. Two different information sources are used; the first is data derived from the financial statements of the Greek firms listed in the Athens Exchange, while the second comprises the answers to a detailed questionnaire.

It is shown that a negative relationship between leverage and profitability does not necessarily mean that the pecking order financing hierarchy holds. Analysis should not rely solely on the mean‐oriented regression quantitative analysis to test the pecking order theory, as it refers to a distinct hierarchy.

Further research should focus on investigating the reasons that underlie actual firm financing.

The fact that the pecking order is actually a hierarchy makes research in this field more complex. Analysts should consider this special feature of the pecking order approach when analyzing the existence of the pecking order financing pattern. The methodology followed is of crucial importance in the analysis of the existence of the pecking order financing pattern.

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to test the pecking order pattern of financing using simultaneously quantitative and qualitative data, and to compare results and conclusions drawn from these two different types of methodology.

Building on pecking order theory, this study seeks to understand the various financial factors that influence top management's decision regarding the company’s capital structure. The authors attempt to understand and analyse whether the capital structure of mid‐ and small‐cap firms is affected by cash surplus scaled to total assets. Along with other determinants of capital structure such as liquidity, profitability, tangibility, market capitalisation and age, this is considered one of the major factors. Cash surplus is calculated using data from the cash flow statement. It is defined as the difference in cash from operating activities and that from investing activities and is scaled to total assets. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to regress cash surplus scaled to total assets and other determinants over leverage to examine the impact on mid‐ and small‐cap firms. The pecking order theory was found to hold for firms earning cash surplus.

Data were collected from the CMIE Prowess database of all firms listed on the NIFTY Small cap 250 index and NIFTY Midcap 150 index. The data of non-financial firms belonging to the midcap and small-cap sector, listed on the National Stock Exchange of India from 2012 to 2019 were considered. After cleaning the data, an unbalanced panel of 171 companies totalling 1,362 observations for the NIFTY Small-cap 250 index and another panel of 96 companies with 761 observations for the NIFTY Midcap 150 index was created. Panel data regression analysis was used to determine the effect of cash surplus scaled to total assets on the firms' capital structure.

This study demonstrates how small- and midcap firms' behave differently in taking capital structure decisions. Pecking order theory was found to hold for firms earning cash surplus as a proportion of total assets (Surplusta).

The study was conducted through data available on secondary sources and database. The study can be better conducted by conducting a primary survey too. Further study may be conducted with a blend of secondary and questionnaire method. The results can be compared to check the similarity in findings.

Managers can benefit from the findings when making decisions on long- and short-term loans. This study can help managers in terms of the financial variables that have a role to play in the financial leverage of the company. The decision of the managers of midcap or small-cap firms would be different. Factors influencing short- and long-term borrowings are different. Academics can discuss whether there is any difference in the influence of capital structure variables of small- and midcap companies and the reasons for such differences. Judicious decisions on capital structure will create wealth for the shareholders as the right decision about leverage would result in a proper cost of capital. The findings also add to the existing literature on the Pecking order theory.

Academics can discuss whether there is any difference in the influence of capital structure variables of small- and midcap companies and the reasons for such differences.

The study extends the existing literature by demonstrating that the capital structure of mid and small-cap firms is affected by cash surplus scaled to total assets. The pecking order theory was found to hold for firms earning cash surplus. This study can inform the practitioners about the financial variables that have a role to play in the company's financial leverage. As the results and significance of the variables of the midcap or small-cap firms are different, the decisions of the managers of these firms would be separate for the capital structure of their firms. The study also infers that the factors influencing short and long-term borrowings are different. The study determines whether managers' decision-making in such companies is different in terms of raising short- and long-term loans. The study attempts to guide managers in considering the different variables that would influence their capital structure decisions, particularly the decision to include debt in the capital. Financial variables need not be of equal importance for managers belonging to small- and midcap companies.

This paper aims to examine the link between financing patterns, information asymmetry and legal traditions in 37 countries during the 1990‐2004 period.

The analysis is based on three theories: the trade‐off theory, pecking order hypothesis and market timing hypothesis. The authors test the predictions of these theories/hypotheses using regression analysis. The econometric method used is panel data with firm and country fixed effects. The authors develop a modified pecking order model which controls for short‐ and long‐term debt level changes and simultaneously test the predictions of all theories.

Consistent with studies for US firms, the results show that firms across all countries adjust toward the target leverage, but with significantly different rate. The long‐term debt contribution in the rate of adjustment is 64 percent in common law countries and 51 percent in civil law countries. The ability of the model to explain changes in leverage ratios is higher in common law countries. The authors find support for market timing hypothesis but no support for pecking order of financing. These results support their conjecture that stronger investor protection, higher transparency and well‐developed financial markets in common law countries reduce the cost of recapitalization.

The limitation of this study comes from lack of data availability to measure contract enforcement, transparency, and corporate governance variables. Future research can incorporate these variables to explain the differences in capital structure decisions across countries with different legal systems.

The findings show that firms' capital structure decisions are not only a function of their own characteristics but also the result of legal and financial market development in which they operate.

This is the first study that sheds light about rate of adjustment to optimal capital structure and pecking order of financing in 37 countries with different legal traditions and financial market developments. The authors are not aware of any other study that uses a modified pecking order model in an international context.

Developed by Stewart Myers (1984), the pecking order theory has turned out to be a spotlight in the recent trend of shifting from the traditional static trade‐off optimal model to other theories as an effort to look for an explanation of corporate capital structure behaviour. This article proposes a rational justification to the pecking order hypothesis through the establishment of its relationship to the paradox Modigliana‐Miller proposition I. In the process of reasoning to support our justification, we have resorted to various existing theoretical hypothesis including tax‐shelter theory, bankruptcy costs theory, agency theory, signalling theory, and managerial risk aversion theory. Some implications of this rational justification to the pecking order hypothesis are also briefly discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to test static tradeoff against pecking order models of capital structure in Japanese firms.

The static tradeoff and pecking order models are tested on a sample of 1,325 non‐financial Japanese firms between 2002 and 2006.

Empirical results prove that both models can explain some part of the capital structure. The static tradeoff model shows that firm leverage is affected by several determinants, and the pecking order model displays similar movements between net debt retired and financial surplus. However, both models have shortcomings. The static tradeoff model fails to explain the negative correlation between profitability and firm leverage, and the pecking order model fails to explain the low deficit coefficient.

The paper, because of the inconsistent results in prior studies, tests static tradeoff against pecking order models, with the data of Japanese firms.

This paper focuses on Ṣukūk issuance determinants in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Given the dual characteristic of debt and equity of Ṣukūk as well as their unique benefits of social responsibility, the author questions whether the theories of capital structure, the trade-off and the pecking order are able to well explain the Ṣukūk issuance.

First, the author verifies these theories using capital structure determinants and regresses the Ṣukūk change on these determinants. Second, the author tests the trade-off theory with the target debt model and third, verifies the pecking order theory using the fund flow deficit model.

The empirical results show that capital structure determinants fail to explain both theories. The author confirms that the Ṣukūk change is significatively linked to the deviation from a Ṣukūk target. So, issuing firms balance the marginal costs of Ṣukūk and their benefits of religiosity and social responsibility toward a target debt. The author finds no evidence of the pecking order theory.

This study contributes to corporate finance theory and corporate social responsibility. It verifies if capital structure theories proved in conventional financing can well explain Islamic bonds issuance given their social responsibility benefits.

Managers and investors would pay attention to the social factors explaining Ṣukūk issuance in their finance and investment decisions. They would be enhanced to use this financing tool knowing its social unique benefits. This also should encourage governments to enhance this socially responsible financing. Rating agencies would be motivated to evaluate Ṣukūk and firms would improve the quality and relevance of disclosure to get the best rating.

The author highlights the social factors explaining Ṣukūk issuance and enhances corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The author extends the few literature testing capital structure theories for Islamic bonds and highlights the specific social responsible features of Ṣukūk that would bridge their issuance to capital structure theories. So the author enhances the concept of Islamic CSR. Tying capital structure theories to CSR would also help developing Islamic finance theory as a unique social responsible framework.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors affecting capital structure decisions of Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) lodging companies.

A model based on the trade‐off and pecking order theories is specified and implications of both theories are empirically tested. The model is estimated using a dynamic panel data approach for five ISE companies for the period of 1994‐2006.

The findings suggest that effective tax rates, tangibility of assets, and return on assets are related negatively to the debt ratio, while free cash flow, non‐debt tax shields, growth opportunities, net commercial credit position, and firm size do not appear to be related to the debt ratio. Although the findings partially support the pecking order theory, neither the trade‐off nor the pecking order theory exactly seem to explain the capital structure of Turkish lodging companies.

The data used in this paper are limited to five companies traded in the ISE, since the data on other companies are not available. A more detailed analysis would use data for other companies in the industry.

The findings of the study clearly demonstrate the importance of capital structure decisions for financial sources.

Although the capital structure theory is extensively examined in the finance literature, there are fewer studies covering the tourism industry, particularly Turkey. The paper establishes the determinants of the capital structure of Turkish lodging companies. The research findings should help managers to make optimal capital structure decisions.

The purpose of this paper is to test an implication of the pecking order theory to explain capital structure decisions among Chinese listed companies during the 2005-2007 NTS Reform transition period.

The authors utilize direct proxies for information asymmetry based on microstructure models including Probability of the arrival of informed trades (PIN), Adverse selection component of the bid-ask spread (λ), Illiquidity ratio (ILLIQ) and liquidity ratio, and Information asymmetry index (InfoAsy) to examine their relation with firms’ debt financing.

Consistent with the prediction of Pecking Order Theory, the authors find that companies for which stock investors are challenged with more severe informational disadvantages are associated with higher degree of leverage use.

The study provides a more direct test on the positive relation between information asymmetry and financial leverage of Chinese firms. In contrast to previous findings by Chen (2004), the results suggest that capital structure choices among Chinese firms progressively conform to conventional finance theories (e.g. Pecking Order Theory) with the decline of non-tradable shares.

This study seeks to investigate whether firms’ capital structure decisions are congruent with the assumptions underpinning the traditional trade-off theory and the pecking order theory in Ghana. Using a sample of listed firms, the dynamic system generalized method of moments (GMM) technique is applied on a balanced panel data spanning 2008–2016. The findings reveal that the financing decisions of Ghanaian firms adhere to the pecking order theory, given the established relationship between leverage and profitability, firm age, as well as firm size. The study also shows that tax does not matter for corporate leverage, departing from the tax proposition of the traditional trade-off theory. However, the negative effect of growth opportunities and risk on debt corroborates the trade-off theory. Consequently, it is postulated that the trade-off theory and the pecking order theory are not discordant in predicting firms’ capital structure decisions in Ghana.