Aggregate Governance Quality and Capital Structure. Abstract
|
|
- Joshua Roberts
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Aggregate Governance Quality and Capital Structure Abstract Grounded in agency theory, this study explores how capital structure is influenced by aggregate corporate governance quality. We employ broad-based measures that encompass multiple governance factors, including boards, audit quality, charter/bylaws, director quality, executive compensation, ownership, and state of incorporation. The governance measures we utilize are the most comprehensive metrics ever constructed in the literature (encompassing 51 governance standards). Consistent with agency theory, we document a significant association between leverage and governance quality. The evidence reveals that firms with poor governance are significantly more leveraged. It appears that leverage substitutes for corporate governance in alleviating agency conflicts. We also argue that leverage helps firms raise capital by alleviating agency costs in firms with poor governance quality. Finally, we utilize empirical methods that control for potential endogeneity and find the results to be robust. JEL Classification: G32, G34 Keywords: capital structure, corporate governance, agency costs, leverage 1
2 Aggregate Governance Quality and Capital Structure I. Introduction The literature in capital structure began with the seminal work by Modigliani and Miller (1958) on the irrelevance of capital structure. Since then, capital structure continues to be a topic of interest in financial economics and has produced a large volume of research. Harris and Raviv (1991) offer a thorough review of the capital structure literature. Several theories have been advanced to explain capital structure decisions. One theory that has garnered strong empirical support is agency theory. Agency theory posits that capital structure is determined by agency costs, i.e. costs due to conflicts of interest. The literature in this area has been built on the early work by Fama and Miller (1972) and Jensen and Meckling (1976). Motivated by agency theory, this study is related to the agency costs as an explanation for capital structure decisions. Specifically, this paper explores the association between capital structure and corporate governance quality. Corporate governance exists to mitigate agency problems. Hence, firms with better governance quality should suffer less severe agency conflicts. Leverage has been argued to alleviate agency costs in several ways. First, one way to reduce agency conflicts is to cause managers to increase their ownership in the firm (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). By increasing the use of debt financing, effectively, displacing equity capital, firms shrink the equity base, thereby increasing the percentage of equity owned by management. Second, the use of debt increases the probability of bankruptcy and job loss. This additional risk may further motivate managers to decrease their consumption of perks and increase their efficiency (Grossman and Hart, 1982). Finally, the obligation of interest payments resulting from the use of debt helps resolve the free cash flow problem (Jensen, 1986). Because leverage is 2
3 related to agency costs and agency costs, in turn, are related to governance quality, we hypothesize that capital structure is influenced by corporate governance quality. To gauge corporate governance quality, we employ governance standards provided by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). The ISS governance standards include 51 factors encompassing eight corporate governance categories: audit, board of directors, charter/bylaws, director education, executive and director compensation, ownership, progressive practices, and state of incorporation. The ISS governance standards are the most all-inclusive data on corporate governance ever collected. Based on these governance standards, we construct two comprehensive measures of governance quality. First, similar to Brown and Caylor (2006), we create the governance score. Brown and Caylor (2006) code 51 governance factors as either 1 or 0 depending on whether the firm s governance standards are minimally acceptable. The sum of each firm s 51 binary variables represents the governance score (Gov-Score). Brown and Caylor (2006) find that firms with better governance quality as measured by the governance score are more profitable and more valuable (higher Tobin s q). Their results imply that firms with better governance quality suffer lower agency costs and, hence, exhibit better performance and higher value. Second, we utilize the ISS-score, developed by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). The ISS-score is distinct from Brown and Caylor s (2006) because it includes some interaction effects among various governance standards. Prior studies have examined the impact of specific governance mechanisms on capital structure decisions (Berger et al., 1997; Garvey and Hanka, 1999, Harford, Li, and Zhao, 2007; 3
4 Jiraporn and Gleason, 2007, Litov, 2005). 1 Insightful though these studies may be, they do not account for the quality of corporate governance in totality. This paper is the first to employ a broad set of governance mechanisms that captures aggregate quality of corporate governance. Our sample is also one of the largest and most recent among corporate governance studies (over 7,000 observations from 2001 to 2004). The empirical evidence in this study shows an inverse relationship between capital structure and governance quality. In other words, firms where corporate governance is weaker are found to be significantly more leveraged. We argue that, due to the role of debt in mitigating agency costs, higher leverage substitutes for weaker governance mechanisms. Moreover, the negative association documented in this study is consistent with the substitution hypothesis. La Porta et al. (2000) posit that firms with weak governance, in an attempt to raise capital on attractive terms, need to establish a reputation for not expropriating wealth from shareholders. One way to do so, we argue, is to carry more debt for fixed interest payments reduce what is left for expropriation; the weaker the firm s governance, the stronger the need for the reputation mechanism, and, thus, the more debt the firm should carry. Finally, it can be argued that leverage and corporate governance are endogenously determined. Using the two-stage least squares approach, which is less vulnerable to endogeneity, we find that the inverse association remains robust. The results of this study enrich the literature in several ways. First, the literature in capital structure benefits because we show that governance quality is a significant determinant of capital 1 Capital structure decisions are shown to be related to certain governance mechanisms such as executive compensation (Berger et al., 1997), corporate governance provisions (Jiraporn and Gleason, 2007; Litov, 2005), board structure (Harford, Li, and Zhao, 2007), and anti-takeover statues (Garvey and Hanka, 1999). 4
5 structure. 2 Second, we provide empirical support for agency theory by showing that a relationship exists between leverage and governance quality, consistent with the prediction of agency theory. Third, we contribute to the literature in corporate governance as we utilize governance measures that encompass various aspects of corporate governance and show that corporate governance a material impact on capital structure decisions. The remainder of this study is organized as follows. Section II discusses the motivation, and develops two competing hypotheses. Section III shows the sample selection procedure and discusses the relevant data. Section IV discusses the methods and displays the empirical results. Finally, Section V offers the concluding remarks. II. Motivation and Hypothesis Development. a. Motivation The finance literature is replete with studies that attempt to explain the determinants of capital structure. Several hypotheses have been advanced in the past couple of decades, for instance, the signaling hypothesis (Ross, 1977 and Leland and Pyle, 1977), the pecking order hypothesis (Myers, 1984), and agency theory (Jensen, 1986). Agency theory argues that capital structure is determined by agency costs, which arise from conflicts of interests. Motivated by agency theory, this study is related to the agency costs as an explanation of capital structure; using the newly developed governance score (Brown and Caylor, 2006), we examine how capital structure is influenced by corporate governance quality. Capital structure decisions are shown to be affected by certain governance mechanisms such executive compensation (Berger et al., 2 Two recent studies by Jiraporn and Gleason (2007), and Litov (2005) also examine the impact of corporate governance on capital structure. However, they employ only the Governance Index developed by Gompers et al. (2003) to represent corporate governance. The scope of our study is much more exhaustive as our study encompasses so many facets of corporate governance, including boards, executive compensation, audit committees, director education, executive ownership, and state of incorporation. The governance metrics we use are the most comprehensive in the literature so far. 5
6 1997), corporate governance provisions (Jiraporn and Gleason, 2007; Litov, 2005), board structure (Harford, Li, and Zhao, 2007), and anti-takeover statues (Garvey and Hanka, 1999). Nevertheless, our study is the first to investigate the impact of aggregate governance quality on capital structure, using the broadest metrics available in the literature. b. Capital Structure and Corporate Governance Quality Agency theory suggests that there are several ways in which debt can help mitigate agency conflicts between shareholders and managers. Holding constant the manager s absolute investment in the firm, increases in the fraction of the firm financed by debt increase the manager s share of the equity, thereby bringing the manager s and the shareholders interests into better alignment. Moreover, as argued by Jensen (1986), since debt commits the firm to pay out cash, it reduces the amount of free cash available to managers to engage in excessive perquisite consumption. Corporate governance is put in place specifically to ensure that managers act in the interest of shareholders. Therefore, corporate governance is designed to minimize agency conflicts. Because corporate governance is influenced by agency costs, and agency costs, in turn, impact capital structure decisions, we argue that a relationship should exist between leverage and corporate governance quality. It is not entirely clear, however, what the association should be between leverage and governance quality, we advance two competing hypotheses that may explain the influence of governance quality on capital structure. b.1) The Outcome Hypothesis This view argues that capital structure is determined as an outcome of corporate governance quality. Firms with low governance quality suffer more severe agency problems. 6
7 Managers of these firms are better able to exploit shareholders, placing their private benefits ahead of those of the shareholders. As argued by agency theory and shown by empirical evidence, debt plays a role in controlling agency costs, making it more difficult for opportunistic managers to misbehave. In firms with poor governance, managers experience less monitoring and are more likely to behave opportunistically. These managers are more likely to carry debt at a sub-optimal level because they do not want to impose additional constraints on themselves in the form of fixed interest payments or be deprived of free cash flow that they have control over. Therefore, this view predicts that poor governance quality is associated with low leverage. In other words, there is a positive relationship between governance quality and leverage. b.2) The Substitution Hypothesis This perspective contends that leverage acts as a substitute for corporate governance. Debt helps alleviate agency costs. Likewise, corporate governance is installed to mitigate agency conflicts. Thus, debt and governance play the same role and may substitute for each other. In firms with weak governance, the need for debt to act as a tool for controlling agency costs may be greater than in firms with strong governance. Hence, firms with poor governance quality should be more leveraged. There is also another rationale for the substitution hypothesis. This argument relies critically on the need for firms to raise money in the external capital markets, at least occasionally. To be able to raise external funds on attractive terms, a firm must establish a reputation for moderation in expropriating shareholders. One way to establish such a reputation is by carrying debt and making interest payments, which reduces what is left for expropriation 3. 3 A similar argument is made by La Porta et al. (2000) and Jiraporn and Ning (2006) on dividend policy and shareholder protection. 7
8 A reputation for good treatment of shareholders is worth the most for firms with weak corporate governance. As a result, the need for debt to establish a reputation is the greatest for such firms. By contrast, for firms where governance quality is high, the need for a reputation mechanism is weaker, and, thus, so is the need for leverage. This view, therefore, posits that, all else equal, leverage should be higher in firms with weaker governance quality. In other words, an inverse relationship should be observed. III. Sample Selection and Data a. Sample Selection The original sample includes firms reported by Institutional Shareholder Service (ISS) from 2001 to ISS collects data on governance standards for a large number of firms (2,400+ firms in 2001 and 5,000+ firms in 2004). Then, the sample is narrowed down by eliminating firms whose financial and accounting data do not exist on COMPUSTAT. Financial and utility firms are excluded because they are regulated and because their leverage cannot be interpreted in the same manner as for industrial firms. 4 The final sample consists of 7,557 firmyear observations. b. Corporate Governance Metrics To gauge corporate governance quality, we employ year-end data on governance standards provided by Institutional Shareholder Service (ISS). The scope of the governance data is very broad, encompassing fifty one governance standards in eight categories as defined by ISS. The eight categories include audit issues, board structure and composition, other charter and bylaw provisions, director education, executive and director compensation, director and officer 4 SIC codes and respectively. 8
9 ownership, progressive practices, and laws of the state of incorporation related to takeover defenses. 5 It is critical to note that the governance standards reported by ISS capture various dimensions of corporate governance. For instance, the Audit category includes four governance standards associated with auditor independence (composition of the audit committee, ratification at the annual meeting, consulting fees paid to auditors, and the company s policies on auditor rotation). The Charter category consists of seven governance standards related to provisions for delaying or impeding takeovers. The Board category is composed of seventeen governance standards related to the composition and other characteristics of the board. Finally, two categories, Director Education and State, consist of a single governance factor. We employ two metrics to gauge the aggregate quality of corporate governance. First, following Brown and Caylor (2006), we construct an index for each firm by assigning one point for each governance standard that is satisfied. We label this index Gov-score. We ascertain whether a specific governance standard is met using the minimum standard provided in the ISS Corporate Governance: Best Practices User Guide and Glossary (2003). Second, we employ the metric computed by ISS to measure governance quality. We refer to this metric as ISS-score. Although constructed based on the same governance standards, ISS-score is different from Gov-score because ISS-score allows interaction terms that occur in combination with others. For instance, ISS assigns more weight to a firm whose board consists of a majority of independent directors and whose key board panels (audit, nominating, and composition) are all composed of independent directors, than it assigns to each of those standards individually. 6 5 The fifty one governance standards and their eight categories are shown in the Appendix, which is similar to Table 1 in Brown and Caylor (2006). 6 ISS-score, converted to a relative index, is now publicly available on financial websites under the registered trademark Corporate Governance Quotient. To compute a Corporate Governance Quotient (CGQ) for each firm, 9
10 It is noteworthy that Gov-score and ISS-score are better than the Governance Index, developed by Gompers et al. (2003) for several reasons. 7 First, the ISS data are available for a much larger number of firms in more recent years. Second, the ISS data are available annually, rather than biannually. Third, the ISS data are much broader, and still encompass about half of the standards incorporated into the Gompers index. Finally, the ISS data include five of the six standards that are identified as most relevant for firm value (Bebchuk, Cohen, and Ferrell, 2005). C. Descriptive Statistics Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics for salient firm characteristics. The average debt ratio for the sample is 22.08%. On average, the sample firms have $5,113 millions in assets. The EBIT ratio averages 8.78%. Tobin s q, which proxies for growth opportunities, averages The fixed assets ratio averages 4.75%. The ratio of non-debt tax shields to total assets averages 4.29%. 8 The average Gov-score is 22.95, ranging from 8 to 44. The ISS-score averages 56.21, ranging from 17 to We also show summary statistics for each governance category. Board, Audit, Charter, State, Ownership, Compensation, Progressive, and Director Education denote governance score for each of the following categories: board, audit, charter/bylaws, state of incorporation, ownership, executive and director compensation, progressive practices, and director education. ISS analysts employ publicly available documents and website disclosure to gather data on sixty three different issues in the following four broad rating categories: board of directors, audit, anti-takeover, and compensation/ownership. On the basis of this information and a scoring system developed by an external advisory panel and ISS, they compute a CGQ for each company. While each variable is assessed on an individual basis, some variables are also evaluated in combination under the supposition that corporate governance is improved by the presence of selected combinations of favorable governance provisions. 7 This index has been widely employed in a large number of recent studies. For instance, the Governance Index has been related to capital structure (Jiraporn and Gleason, 2006), to the cost of debt financing (Klock, Mansi, and Maxwell, 2005), to the cost of bank loans (Chava, Dierker, and Livdan, 2005), to the cost of equity (Huang, 2005), to corporate diversification (Jiraporn, Kim, Davidson, and Singh, 2006), to debt maturity structure (Jiraporn and Kitsabunnarat, 2007), and to CEO compensation (Fahlenbrach, 2004, Jiraporn, Kim, and Davidson, 2005). 8 We define non-debt tax shields as the sum of depreciation and amortization. 10
11 IV. Empirical Results a. Univariate Analysis Table 2 Panel A shows the means and medians of Gov-score, ISS-score, and the debt ratio by year. The average ISS score appears to remain consistent over the years whereas Govscore exhibit an upward trend, increasing from an average of in 2001 to in This trend may signify a heightened awareness on corporate governance quality in more recent years. In Table 2 Panel B, we segregate the sample into four quartiles based on the debt ratio. b. Correlation Analysis c. Regression Analysis To ascertain the impact of aggregate governance quality on leverage, we perform a regression analysis, where leverage is the dependent variable. The independent variables of interest are Gov-score and ISS-score. We include control variables based on past empirical 11
12 research on capital structure. Numerous studies have argued that leverage may be positively affected by firm size. Following Titman and Wessels (1988) and Johnson (1997), we use the natural logarithm of sales to proxy for firm size. The composition of the firm s assets has been found to affect capital structure decisions (Titman and Wessels, 1988 and Mehran, 1992). Hence, we include the fixed assets ratio in the regression analysis. As in Johnson (1997), the fixed asset ratio is property, plant, and equipment to total assets. Myers (1977) identifies growth opportunities as a significant determinant of capital structure. Similarly, Rozeff (1982) finds empirical support for growth opportunities as a relevant variable. We control for growth opportunities by using Tobin s q. The computation of Tobin s q is based on Chung and Pruitt (1994). Profitability may be relevant to capital structure decisions. Myers (1984) suggests that managers have a pecking order in which retained earnings represent the first choice, followed by debt financing, then equity. Thus, the pecking order hypothesis would imply a negative relationship between profitability and leverage. We employ the EBIT ratio to control for profitability. DeAngelo and Masulis (1982) contend that non-debt tax deductions substitute for the tax shield benefits of debt. As a result, firm with greater non-debt tax shield would be expected to have lower levels of debt. We define non-debt tax shields as the ratio of the sum of depreciation and amortization to total assets. Finally, we include year dummies to capture leverage variation over time. The regression results are reported in Table 4. Model 1 includes the logarithm of Govscore and the control variables. 9 The coefficient for Gov-score is negative and highly significant, implying that firms with better governance adopt lower leverage. The evidence seems to be 9 Following Chung, Elder, and Kim (2007), we use the log form to reduce the potential impact of outliers. Using the raw scores produces similar results. 12
13 consistent with the substitution hypothesis. As leverage can function as a device for controlling agency costs, firms with better governance (hence, less agency costs) do not need leverage as much as those with poor governance. This is why there is an inverse relation between governance quality and leverage. Model 2 is similar to Model 1 except that we replace Gov-score with ISS-score. The coefficient of ISS score is negative and significant. Thus, regardless of how governance quality is measured, there is an inverse relation between leverage and governance quality, consistent with the prediction of the substitution hypothesis. D. Possible Endogeneity It can be argued that leverage and corporate governance quality may be endogenously determined. If this is the case, ordinary least squares estimates may be biased. Cognizant of possible endogeneity, we employ an alternative estimation method that explicitly takes into account potential endogeneity. We use a two-stage least squares (2SLS) analysis. 10 The 2SLS results are shown in Table 5. Note that the coefficient of Gov-score is negative and significant in Model 1. Similarly, ISS-score shows a negative and significant coefficient in Model 2. The 2SLS results support the substitution hypothesis and are thus in agreement with the OLS results reported earlier 11 Endogeneity thus does not appear to unduly affect the results. E. Relations between Leverage and Governance Categories/Standards The empirical evidence so far demonstrates a significant association between leverage and composite governance scores (Gov-score and ISS-score). To gain further insights, we 10 We use three instrumental variables. First, we use a dummy variable that is equal to one if the firm is listed on the NYSE, zero otherwise. We posit that, due to strict requirements from NYSE, governance quality of firms listed on NYSE should be higher than those not listed there. Second, we use a dummy variable that is set to one if the observation is after 2002 (after Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted), zero otherwise. We assume that governance quality should improve afer 2002 due to the numerous mandated changes imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley. Finally, we use the effective spread, which measures a stock s liquidity. There is evidence that governance quality is associated with liquidity (Chung, Elder, and Kim, 2007). 11 We also run an alternative analysis where we add firm size and profitability as instrumental variables. The results remain similar and thus appear to be robust. 13
14 investigate which governance standards drive the association between leverage and aggregate governance quality. Although theory does not provide clear guidance o this issue, we can make certain conjectures on which categories of Gov-score and ISS-score should have more influence on leverage. For instance, as detailed in the Appendix, two categories of Gov-score, State and Director education, consist of just a single governance standard. For most firms, these governance standards are not met. For State, the single governance standard is whether the firm is incorporated in a state without any anti-takeover provisions. In 2004, fewer than 4% of firms satisfied this standard. Likewise, in 2004, fewer than 2% of firms satisfied the single governance standard under Director education. These governance categories are therefore unlikely to explain much variation in leverage. To ascertain which governance categories drive the results, we run a regression analysis, where leverage is regressed on the eight governance standards shown in the Appendix (the eight standards are Board, Audit, Charter, State, Ownership, Compensation, Progressive, and Director education) and the control variables. The regression results are shown in Table 6. We find that five governance categories are negatively associated with leverage; Board, Ownership, Audit, State, and Compensation. 12 It is worth noting that the coefficient of Charter is not significant. This is somewhat unexpected because Charter is the category that is most closely related to the Governance Index developed by Gompers et al. (2003). Each of the seven standards in Charter also appear in the Governance Index. The results are surprising, given that both Litov (2005) and Jiraporn and Gleason (2007) report a significant association between leverage and the Governance Index. 12 We do not include all the governance categories in a single regression due to multi-collinearity. Nevertheless, when all of them are included, their coefficients generally retain the signs and significance levels except for Compensation. 14
15 V. Concluding Remarks We relate capital structure to aggregate corporate governance quality. Agency theory argues that capital structure decisions are influenced by agency costs. Corporate governance is designed to alleviate agency problems. We argue that capital structure and corporate governance are related through their association with agency costs. Two hypotheses are advanced to explain the relationship; the outcome hypothesis and the substitution hypothesis. Employing broad-based comprehensive governance indices, we empirically test the link between leverage and governance quality. The empirical evidence demonstrates an inverse relation, which is consistent with the prediction of the substitution hypothesis. There are two 15
16 reasons why there is a substitution effect. First, both leverage and corporate governance function as mechanisms for controlling agency costs. One mechanism may substitute for the other, thus a negative association between the two. Second, leverage may help firms raise capital with more ease. To be able to raise external funds on reasonable terms, firms need to establish a reputation for not exploiting shareholders. Leverage offers a monitoring role that reduces management s ability to take advantage of shareholders. A reputation for favorable treatment of shareholders is worth the most in firms with poor governance quality. Therefore, leverage is more necessary in such firms. This is why firms with low governance quality are more leveraged. 16
17 References - Agrawal, A. and C. Knoeber, 1996, Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 31, Bhagat, S. and R. Jefferis, 2002, The Econometrics of Corporate Governance Studies, MIT Press. - Boon, A., L. Field, J. Karpoff, and C. Raheja, 2004, The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis, Working paper, Pennsylvania State University. ( - Brown, L. and M. Caylor, 2006, Corporate governance and firm valuation, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 25, Chung Kee, and Stephen Pruitt, 1994, A simple approximation of Tobin s q, Financial Management 23, DeAngelo, H. and R. Masulis, 1980, Leverage and dividend irrelevancy under corporate and personal taxation, Journal of Finance 35, Denis, D. and A. Sarin, 1999, Ownership and board structure in publicly traded corporations, Journal of Financial Economics 52, Fama, Eugene F. and M. Miller, 1972, The Theory of Finance (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York). - Gompers, P., J. Ishii, and A. Metrick Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, Grossman, S. and 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. and A. Raviv, 1991, The theory of capital structure, Journal of Finance 46, Jensen, Michael C., 1986, Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers, American Economics Review 76, Jensen, Michael C. and W. Meckling, 1976, Theory of the Firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3,
18 - Jiraporn, P., and K. Gleason, 2007, Capital structure, shareholder rights, and corporate governance, Journal of Financial Research, forthcoming. - Johnson, S. A., 1997, The effect of bank debt on optimal capital structure, Financial Management 28, La Porta, Rafael, Florencio, Lopez- De Salinas, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny, 2000, Agency problems and dividend policy around the world, Journal of Finance 55, Leland, Hayne and David Pyle, 1977, Information asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediation, Journal of Finance 32, Litov, L.P., 2005, Corporate governance and financing policy: New evidence, Working paper, Washington University, St. Louis. - Mehran, H., 1992, Executive incentive plans, corporate control, and capital structure, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27, Modigliani, F. and M. Miller, 1958, The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment, American Economic Review 48, Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishney, 1988, Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Financial Economics 20: Myers, S., 1977, Determinants of corporate borrowing, Journal of Financial Economics 5, Myers, S., 1984, The capital structure puzzle, Journal of Finance 39, Ross, Stephen, 1977, The determination of financial structure: The incentive signaling approach, Bell Journal of Economics 8, Rozeff, M., 1982, Growth, beta and agency costs as determinants of dividend payout ratios, Journal of Financial Research 5, Schooley, D. and D. Barney, 1994, Using dividend policy and managerial ownership to reduce agency costs, Journal of Financial Research 17, Titman, S. and R. Wessels, 1988, The determinants of capital structure choice, Journal of Finance 43,
19 19
20 Table 1. Descriptive statistics We create an index for each firm by awarding one point for each governance standard that is met, and denote this index Gov-score. We determine whether a particular governance standard is met using the minimum standard provided in ISS Corporate Governance: Best Practices User Guide and Glossary (2003). ISS-score is the governance index provided by Institutional Shareholder Service (ISS). Board, Audit, Charter, State, Ownership, Compensation, Progressive, and Director Education denote governance score for each of the following categories: board, audit, charter/bylaws, state of incorporation, ownership, executive and director compensation, progressive practices, and director education. Percentile Variable Mean Standard deviation Min Max Debt ratio Total assets EBIT ratio Tobin s q Fixed asset ratio Non-debt tax shields MTRBE MTRAF Gov-score ISS-score Board Ownership Charter Audit State Compensation Progressive Director education
21 Table 2: Univariate Analysis Panel A. ISS Score, Gov-score, and Debt Ratio by year Year Sample Mean (Median) ALL 9221 Panel B. ISS Score, Gov-score, and Debt Ratio by quartile ISS Score Gov-Score Debt Ratio (54.40) (58.85) (50.50) (62.10) (56.40) Quartile Sample Mean (Median) 1 st quartile (40.60) 2 nd quartile (51.80) 3 rd quartile (61.00) 4 th quartile (71.40) ALL (56.40) *, **, *** statistically significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level respectively. Mean (Median) (16.00) (17.00) (23.00) (28.00) (22.00) Mean (Median) (0.2175) (0.2195) (0.1801) (0.1729) (0.1895) ISS Score Gov-Score Debt Ratio Mean (Median) (19.00) (22.00) (25.00) (31.00) (22.00) Mean (Median) (0.1582) (0.1728) (0.1944) (0.2229) (0.1895) 21
22 Table 3. Correlation matrix Debt Govscore ISS LNTA EBITR Q FIXAR NDTSR Board Owner Charter Audit State Comp Progress Diredu Debt Gov-score ISS score LNTA Ebitr Q FIXAR NDTSR Board Ownership Charter Audit State Compensation Progressive Dir. education
23 Table 4. Regression results for governance indices This table shows the results of the following regression model: Debr ratio i,t = β 0 + β 1 Log(Gov- score i,t or ISS-score i,t ) + β 2 Log(Total-assets) i,t + β 3 EBIT i,t + β 4 Tobin s q i,t + β 5 Fixed asset ratio i,t + β 6 Non-debt tax shield i,t + Year dummies + ε i,t ; Intercept *** (4.16) Model 1 Model *** (5.66) Log(Gov-score) *** (-3.39) Log(ISS-score) *** (-4.97) Log(Total-assets) *** (13.57) EBIT ratio *** (3.54) Tobin s q *** (-3.39) Fixed asset ratio *** (2.88) Non-debt tax shield ** (2.03) Year (0.07) Year *** (4.07) Year *** (3.00) *** (14.45) *** (3.65) *** (-3.34) *** (2.96) ** (1.98) (-0.43) ** (2.09) * (1.74) Adjusted R % 11.82% F-statistics *** *** # of observations 7,531 7,557 *, **, *** statistically significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level respectively. 23
24 Table 5. Robustness Regression results for governance indices This table shows the results of the following regression model: Debr ratio i,t = β 0 + β 1 Log(Gov- score i,t or ISS-score i,t ) + β 2 Log(Total-assets) i,t + β 3 EBIT i,t + β 4 Tobin s q i,t + β 5 Fixed asset ratio i,t + β 6 Non-debt tax shield i,t + Year dummies + ε i,t ; Model 1 Model 2 Instrumental Method Instrumental Method Intercept *** *** (13.41) (24.19) Predicted Log(Gov-score) Predicted Log(ISS-score) *** (-13.29) Log(Total-assets) *** (17.17) EBIT ratio *** (2.81) Tobin s q *** (-2.75) Fixed asset ratio *** (2.73) Non-debt tax shield * (1.75) Year (-0.13) Year *** (13.38) Year *** (13.11) *** (-24.22) *** (27.90) *** (3.92) (-1.14) *** (3.00) (0.10) (1.52) *** (17.46) *** (16.74) Adjusted R % 34.23% F-statistics 59.32*** *** # of observations 7,557 7,557 *, **, *** statistically significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level respectively. 24
25 Table 6. Regression results for governance quality indices Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Intercept *** (4.21) *** (3.11) ** (2.18) *** (2.80) *** (2.83) * (1.95) (1.10) Board *** (-4.23) Ownership *** (-3.33) Charter (0.71) Audit * (-1.67) State *** (-2.85) Compensation (0.71) Progressive *** (-3.65) Director education Log(Total-assets) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (14.33) (13.68) (14.06) (14.19) (14.00) (13.26) (13.38) EBIT ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (3.53) (3.56) (3.58) (3.54) (3.60) (3.56) (3.55) Tobin s q *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (-3.35) (-3.35) (-3.39) (-3.40) (-3.42) (-3.40) (-3.38) Fixed asset ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Non-debt tax shield Year 2002 Year 2003 Year 2004 (2.92) ** (2.02) (-1.03) *** (4.77) *** (3.54) (2.86) ** (2.08) (-0.50) *** (3.41) (1.18) (3.02) ** (2.06) (-1.36) *** (2.59) (0.03) (2.96) ** (2.06) (-1.29) *** (2.93) (1.51) (3.05) ** (2.04) (-0.95) *** (2.94) (0.36) (2.98) ** (2.07) (-1.45) (1.37) (-0.36) (2.99) ** (2.11) (-1.00) *** (3.83) *** (2.65) *** (2.71) (0.75) *** (14.10) *** (3.58) *** (-3.40) *** (2.99) ** (2.06) (-1.29) *** (2.62) (0.01) R % 11.57% 11.28% 11.32% 11.47% 11.28% 11.51% 11.27% # observations 7,531 7,531 7,531 7,531 7,531 7,531 7,531 7,531 25
26 Appendix: Governance Standards Included in the Construction of the Governance Score Governance Standards A. Audit 1. Audit committee consists solely of independent outside directors 2. Auditors were ratified at the most recent annual meeting. 3. Consulting fees paid to auditors are less than audit fees paid to auditors 4. Company has a formal policy on auditor rotation B. Board of Directors 1. Managers respond to shareholder proposals within 12 months of shareholder meeting 2. CEO serves on no more than two additional boards of other public companies. 3. All directors attend at least 75% of board meetings or had a valid excuse for non-attendance. 4. Size of board of directors is at least 6 but not more than 15 members. 5. No former CEO serves on board. 6. CEO is not listed as having a related party transaction in proxy statement. 7. Board is controlled by more than 50% independent outside directors. 8. Compensation committee is comprised solely of independent outside directors. 9. The CEO and chairman duties are separated or a lead director is specified. 10. Shareholders vote on directors selected to fill vacancies. 11. Board members are elected annually. 12. Shareholder approval is required to change board size. 13. Nominating committee is comprised solely of independent directors. 14. Shareholders have cumulative voting rights to elect directors. 15. Board guidelines are in each proxy statement. 16. Policy exists requiring outside directors to serve on no more than five additional boards. C. Charter/Bylaws 1. A simple majority vote is required to approve a merger (not a supermajority). 2. Company either has no poison pill or a pill that was shareholder approved. 3. Shareholders are allowed to call special meetings. 4. A majority vote is required to amend charter/bylaws (not a supermajority). 5. Shareholders may act by written consent and the consent is non-unanimous. 6. Company is not authorized to issue blank check preferred stock. 7. Board cannot amend bylaws without shareholder approval or can only do so under limited circumstances. D. Director Education
27 1. At least one member of the board has participated in an ISS-accredited director education program. E. Executive and Director Compensation 1. No interlocks exist among directors on the compensation committee. 2. Non-employees do not participate in company pension plans. 3. Option re-pricing did not occur within last three years. 4. Stock incentive plans were adopted with shareholder approval. 5. Directors receive all or a portion of their fees in stock. 6. Company does not provide any loans to executives for exercising options. 7. The last time shareholders voted on a pay plan, ISS did not deem its cost to be excessive. 8. The average options granted in the past three years as a percentage of basic shares outstanding did not exceed 3% (option burn rate). 9. Option re-pricing is prohibited. 10. Company expenses stock options. F. Ownership 1. All directors with more than one year of service own stock. 2. Officers and directors stock ownership is at least 1% but not over 30% of total shares outstanding. 3. Executives are subject to stock ownership guidelines. 4. Directors are subject to stock ownership guidelines. G. Progressive Practices 1. Mandatory retirement age for directors exists. 2. Performance of the board is reviewed regularly. 3. A board-approved CEO succession plan is in place. 4. Board has outside advisors. 5. Directors are required to submit their resignation upon a change in job status. 6. Outside directors meet without the CEO and disclose the number of times they met. 7. Directors term limits exist. H. State of Incorporation 1. Incorporation in a state without any anti-takeover provisions. 27
Deviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective
Deviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Abstract The tradeoff theory of corporate cash holdings predicts that
More informationFirm R&D Strategies Impact of Corporate Governance
Firm R&D Strategies Impact of Corporate Governance Manohar Singh The Pennsylvania State University- Abington Reporting a positive relationship between institutional ownership on one hand and capital expenditures
More informationOwnership Structure and Capital Structure Decision
Modern Applied Science; Vol. 9, No. 4; 2015 ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-1852 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Ownership Structure and Capital Structure Decision Seok Weon Lee 1 1 Division
More informationM&A Activity in Europe
M&A Activity in Europe Cash Reserves, Acquisitions and Shareholder Wealth in Europe Master Thesis in Business Administration at the Department of Banking and Finance Faculty Advisor: PROF. DR. PER ÖSTBERG
More informationManagerial compensation and the threat of takeover
Journal of Financial Economics 47 (1998) 219 239 Managerial compensation and the threat of takeover Anup Agrawal*, Charles R. Knoeber College of Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
More informationSources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As
Sources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Jian Liu ** University of Exeter This draft: August 2016 Abstract We examine
More informationDr. Syed Tahir Hijazi 1[1]
The Determinants of Capital Structure in Stock Exchange Listed Non Financial Firms in Pakistan By Dr. Syed Tahir Hijazi 1[1] and Attaullah Shah 2[2] 1[1] Professor & Dean Faculty of Business Administration
More informationHedge Fund Ownership, Board Composition and Dividend Policy in the Telecommunications Industry
Hedge Fund Ownership, Board Composition and Dividend Policy in the Telecommunications Industry Eric Haye 1 1 Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mawah, New Jersey, USA Correspondence:
More informationCHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. Modigliani and Miller (1958) in their original work prove that under a restrictive set
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Background on capital structure Modigliani and Miller (1958) in their original work prove that under a restrictive set of assumptions, capital structure is irrelevant. This
More informationCorporate Governance, Product Market Competition, and Payout Policy *
Seoul Journal of Business Volume 20, Number 1 (June 2014) Corporate Governance, Product Market Competition, and Payout Policy * HEE SUB BYUN **1) Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation Seoul, Korea JI HYE
More informationStock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information?
Stock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information? Yongsik Kim * Abstract This paper provides empirical evidence that analysts generate firm-specific
More informationManagerial Incentives and Corporate Leverage: Evidence from United Kingdom
Managerial Incentives and Corporate Leverage: Evidence from United Kingdom Chrisostomos Florackis* and Aydin Ozkan ** *University of Liverpool, The Management School, Liverpool, L69 7ZH, Tel. +44 (0)1517953807,
More informationDIVIDENDS AND EXPROPRIATION IN HONG KONG
ASIAN ACADEMY of MANAGEMENT JOURNAL of ACCOUNTING and FINANCE AAMJAF, Vol. 4, No. 1, 71 85, 2008 DIVIDENDS AND EXPROPRIATION IN HONG KONG Janice C. Y. How, Peter Verhoeven* and Cici L. Wu School of Economics
More informationAgency Conflict in Family Firms. Kaveh Moradi Dezfouli* Rahul Ravi**
Agency Conflict in Family Firms Kaveh Moradi Dezfouli* Rahul Ravi** *Assistant Professor, Girard School of Business, Merrimack College **Associate Professor, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University
More informationThe Effect of Corporate Governance on Quality of Information Disclosure:Evidence from Treasury Stock Announcement in Taiwan
The Effect of Corporate Governance on Quality of Information Disclosure:Evidence from Treasury Stock Announcement in Taiwan Yue-Fang Wen, Associate professor of National Ilan University, Taiwan ABSTRACT
More informationAntitakeover amendments and managerial entrenchment: New evidence from investment policy and CEO compensation
University of Massachusetts Boston From the SelectedWorks of Atreya Chakraborty January 1, 2010 Antitakeover amendments and managerial entrenchment: New evidence from investment policy and CEO compensation
More informationTobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LXVI, NO. 1 MARCH 1991 Tobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers HENRI SERVAES* ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the relation between takeover gains and the q ratios of targets and
More informationTHE CAPITAL STRUCTURE S DETERMINANT IN FIRM LOCATED IN INDONESIA
THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE S DETERMINANT IN FIRM LOCATED IN INDONESIA Linna Ismawati Sulaeman Rahman Nidar Nury Effendi Aldrin Herwany ABSTRACT This research aims to identify the capital structure s determinant
More informationCapital allocation in Indian business groups
Capital allocation in Indian business groups Remco van der Molen Department of Finance University of Groningen The Netherlands This version: June 2004 Abstract The within-group reallocation of capital
More informationFirm Diversification and the Value of Corporate Cash Holdings
Firm Diversification and the Value of Corporate Cash Holdings Zhenxu Tong University of Exeter* Paper Number: 08/03 First Draft: June 2007 This Draft: February 2008 Abstract This paper studies how firm
More informationAsian Economic and Financial Review THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT INCREASES AND STOCK RETURNS
Asian Economic and Financial Review ISSN(e): 2222-6737/ISSN(p): 2305-2147 journal homepage: http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5002 THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT INCREASES AND STOCK RETURNS Jung Fang Liu 1 --- Nicholas
More informationCorporate Governance, Product Market Competition and Payout Policy
Corporate Governance, Product Market Competition and Payout Policy Lee H. Pan Division of Business and Management Keuka College, Keuka Park, New York lhpan@keuka.edu Chien-Ting Lin School of Accounting,
More informationKeywords: Equity firms, capital structure, debt free firms, debt and stocks.
Working Paper 2009-WP-04 May 2009 Performance of Debt Free Firms Tarek Zaher Abstract: This paper compares the performance of portfolios of debt free firms to comparable portfolios of leveraged firms.
More informationA STUDY ON THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEVERAGE OF INDIAN COMPANIES
A STUDY ON THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEVERAGE OF INDIAN COMPANIES Abstract: Rakesh Krishnan*, Neethu Mohandas** The amount of leverage in the firm s capital structure the mix of long term debt and equity
More informationEssays on labor power and agency problem :values of cash holdings and capital expenditures, and accounting earnings informativeness
Hong Kong Baptist University HKBU Institutional Repository Open Access Theses and Dissertations Electronic Theses and Dissertations 8-14-2015 Essays on labor power and agency problem :values of cash holdings
More informationGompers versus Bebchuck Governance Measure and Firm Value
Journal of Finance and Economics, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 6, 184-190 Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/jfe/4/6/3 Science and Education Publishing DOI:10.12691/jfe-4-6-3 Gompers versus Bebchuck Governance
More informationJournal Of Financial And Strategic Decisions Volume 8 Number 2 Summer 1995 THE 1986 TAX REFORM ACT AND STRATEGIC LEVERAGE DECISIONS
Journal Of Financial And Strategic Decisions Volume 8 Number 2 Summer 1995 THE 1986 TAX REFORM ACT AND STRATEGIC LEVERAGE DECISIONS Chenchuramaiah T. Bathala * and Steven J. Carlson ** Abstract The 1986
More informationLong Term Performance of Divesting Firms and the Effect of Managerial Ownership. Robert C. Hanson
Long Term Performance of Divesting Firms and the Effect of Managerial Ownership Robert C. Hanson Department of Finance and CIS College of Business Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, MI 48197 Moon H.
More informationTHE IMPACT OF EXTERNAL FINANCING ON FIRM VALUE AND A CORPORATE GOVERNANCE INDEX: SME EVIDENCE. Al-Najjar*, Basil and Al-Najjar Dana**
THE IMPACT OF EXTERNAL FINANCING ON FIRM VALUE AND A CORPORATE GOVERNANCE INDEX: SME EVIDENCE Al-Najjar*, Basil and Al-Najjar Dana** *Birkbeck University of London, UK; **Applied Science University, Jordan
More informationCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. Despite widespread research on dividend policy, we still know little about how
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Significance of the Study Despite widespread research on dividend policy, we still know little about how companies set their dividend policies. Researches about
More informationDoes Insider Ownership Matter for Financial Decisions and Firm Performance: Evidence from Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan
Does Insider Ownership Matter for Financial Decisions and Firm Performance: Evidence from Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan Haris Arshad & Attiya Yasmin Javid INTRODUCTION In an emerging economy like Pakistan,
More informationCorporate Ownership & Control / Volume 7, Issue 2, Winter 2009 MANAGERIAL OWNERSHIP, CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM VALUE
SECTION 2 OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE РАЗДЕЛ 2 СТРУКТУРА СОБСТВЕННОСТИ MANAGERIAL OWNERSHIP, CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM VALUE Wenjuan Ruan, Gary Tian*, Shiguang Ma Abstract This paper extends prior research to
More informationRelationship Between Capital Structure and Firm Performance, Evidence From Growth Enterprise Market in China
Management Science and Engineering Vol. 9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 45-49 DOI: 10.3968/6322 ISSN 1913-0341 [Print] ISSN 1913-035X [Online] www.cscanada.net www.cscanada.org Relationship Between Capital Structure
More informationCorporate Governance Ratings and Financial Restatements: Pre and Post Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi William J.
Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 2, Issue 1 Corporate Governance Ratings and Financial Restatements: Pre and Post Sarbanes-Oxley Act Mohammad J. Abdolmohammadi William J. Read * The
More informationThe Determinants of Capital Structure: Analysis of Non Financial Firms Listed in Karachi Stock Exchange in Pakistan
Analysis of Non Financial Firms Listed in Karachi Stock Exchange in Pakistan Introduction The capital structure of a company is a particular combination of debt, equity and other sources of finance that
More informationCorporate governance and firm valuation q
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 25 (2006) 409 434 www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccpubpol Corporate governance and firm valuation q Lawrence D. Brown a, *, Marcus L. Caylor b a J. Mack Robinson College
More informationThe Role of Credit Ratings in the. Dynamic Tradeoff Model. Viktoriya Staneva*
The Role of Credit Ratings in the Dynamic Tradeoff Model Viktoriya Staneva* This study examines what costs and benefits of debt are most important to the determination of the optimal capital structure.
More informationAn Initial Investigation of Firm Size and Debt Use by Small Restaurant Firms
Journal of Hospitality Financial Management The Professional Refereed Journal of the Association of Hospitality Financial Management Educators Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 5 2004 An Initial Investigation
More informationStock Price Behavior of Pure Capital Structure Issuance and Cancellation Announcements
Stock Price Behavior of Pure Capital Structure Issuance and Cancellation Announcements Robert M. Hull Abstract I examine planned senior-for-junior and junior-for-senior transactions that are subsequently
More informationDISCRETIONARY DELETIONS FROM THE S&P 500 INDEX: EVIDENCE ON FORECASTED AND REALIZED EARNINGS Stoyu I. Ivanov, San Jose State University
DISCRETIONARY DELETIONS FROM THE S&P 500 INDEX: EVIDENCE ON FORECASTED AND REALIZED EARNINGS Stoyu I. Ivanov, San Jose State University ABSTRACT The literature in the area of index changes finds evidence
More informationEAST ASIAN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A TEST OF THE RELATION BETWEEN CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE
EAST ASIAN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A TEST OF THE RELATION BETWEEN CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE Ari Warokka College of Business Universiti Utara Malaysia COB Main Building, Room 369, UUM, 06010
More informationDelaware Incorporation and the Board of Directors
Delaware Incorporation and the Board of Directors Pornsit Jiraporn Pennsylvania State University and Thammasat University Wallace N. Davidson III Southern Illinois University Pandej Chintrakarn Mahidol
More informationCORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN AN EMERGING MARKET - AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF PAKISTAN
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN AN EMERGING MARKET - AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF PAKISTAN Mohammed Nishat*, Rozina Shaheen** Abstract This preliminary study aims to develop a corporate governance
More informationThe Impact of Ownership Structure and Capital Structure on Financial Performance of Vietnamese Firms
International Business Research; Vol. 7, No. 2; 2014 ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Impact of Ownership Structure and Capital Structure on Financial
More informationThe Free Cash Flow Effects of Capital Expenditure Announcements. Catherine Shenoy and Nikos Vafeas* Abstract
The Free Cash Flow Effects of Capital Expenditure Announcements Catherine Shenoy and Nikos Vafeas* Abstract In this paper we study the market reaction to capital expenditure announcements in the backdrop
More informationJ. Finan. Intermediation
J. Finan. Intermediation 18 (2009) 405 431 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect J. Finan. Intermediation www.elsevier.com/locate/jfi Corporate governance norms and practices Vidhi Chhaochharia a,
More informationAn Empirical Investigation of the Lease-Debt Relation in the Restaurant and Retail Industry
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track 2011 ICHRIE Conference Jul 28th, 4:45 PM - 4:45 PM An Empirical Investigation of the Lease-Debt
More informationCAPITAL STRUCTURE AND THE 2003 TAX CUTS Richard H. Fosberg
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND THE 2003 TAX CUTS Richard H. Fosberg William Paterson University, Deptartment of Economics, USA. KEYWORDS Capital structure, tax rates, cost of capital. ABSTRACT The main purpose
More informationCAN AGENCY COSTS OF DEBT BE REDUCED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PROTECTIVE COVENANTS? THE CASE OF RESTRICTION ON THE SALE AND LEASE-BACK ARRANGEMENT
CAN AGENCY COSTS OF DEBT BE REDUCED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PROTECTIVE COVENANTS? THE CASE OF RESTRICTION ON THE SALE AND LEASE-BACK ARRANGEMENT Jung, Minje University of Central Oklahoma mjung@ucok.edu Ellis,
More informationThe Determinants of Capital Structure of Stock Exchange-listed Non-financial Firms in Pakistan
The Pakistan Development Review 43 : 4 Part II (Winter 2004) pp. 605 618 The Determinants of Capital Structure of Stock Exchange-listed Non-financial Firms in Pakistan ATTAULLAH SHAH and TAHIR HIJAZI *
More informationThis version: October 2006
Do Controlling Shareholders Expropriation Incentives Derive a Link between Corporate Governance and Firm Value? Evidence from the Aftermath of Korean Financial Crisis Kee-Hong Bae a, Jae-Seung Baek b,
More informationMEDDELANDEN FRÅN SVENSKA HANDELSHÖGSKOLAN SWEDISH SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WORKING PAPERS.
MEDDELANDEN FRÅN SVENSKA HANDELSHÖGSKOLAN SWEDISH SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WORKING PAPERS 470 Daniel Pasternack FACTORS DRIVING STOCK OPTION GRANTS - EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM FINLAND
More informationIMPACT OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ON PROFITABILITY: EVIDENCES FROM INDIAN PETROCHEMICAL SECTOR
DOI: 10.18843/ijcms/v8i2/06 DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.18843/ijcms/v8i2/06 IMPACT OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ON PROFITABILITY: EVIDENCES FROM INDIAN PETROCHEMICAL SECTOR Dr. Ashvin R., Dave M.B.A., Ph.
More informationCorporate Governance and Financial Peer Effects
Corporate Governance and Financial Peer Effects Douglas (DJ) Fairhurst * Yoonsoo Nam August 21, 2017 Abstract Growing evidence suggests that managers select financial policies partially by mimicking the
More informationAppendix: The Disciplinary Motive for Takeovers A Review of the Empirical Evidence
Appendix: The Disciplinary Motive for Takeovers A Review of the Empirical Evidence Anup Agrawal Culverhouse College of Business University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0224 Jeffrey F. Jaffe Department
More informationCORPORATE CASH HOLDING AND FIRM VALUE
CORPORATE CASH HOLDING AND FIRM VALUE Cristina Martínez-Sola Dep. Business Administration, Accounting and Sociology University of Jaén Jaén (SPAIN) E-mail: mmsola@ujaen.es Pedro J. García-Teruel Dep. Management
More informationCorporate governance and capital structure in developing countries: a case study of Bangladesh
Corporate governance and capital structure in developing countries: a case study of Bangladesh Faizul Haque, Thankom Gopinath Arun, Colin Kirkpatrick To cite this version: Faizul Haque, Thankom Gopinath
More informationOn Diversification Discount the Effect of Leverage
On Diversification Discount the Effect of Leverage Jin-Chuan Duan * and Yun Li (First draft: April 12, 2006) (This version: May 16, 2006) Abstract This paper identifies a key cause for the documented diversification
More informationHow Do Firms Finance Large Cash Flow Requirements? Zhangkai Huang Department of Finance Guanghua School of Management Peking University
How Do Firms Finance Large Cash Flow Requirements? Zhangkai Huang Department of Finance Guanghua School of Management Peking University Colin Mayer Saïd Business School University of Oxford Oren Sussman
More informationA Study on the Tax Net Operating Loss Carry-forward and Firm Value Belonging to Large Business Groups
A Study on the Tax Net Operating Loss Carry-forward and Firm Value Belonging to Large Business Groups Yeyoung Moon* Associate Professor, Department of Tax and Accounting, Baewha Women's University, Korea.
More informationTHEORY AND EVIDENCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE
THEORY AND EVIDENCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE Timothy J. Brailsford a Barry R. Oliver a Sandra L. H. Pua a a Department of Commerce, Australian National University,
More informationFamily Control and Leverage: Australian Evidence
Family Control and Leverage: Australian Evidence Harijono Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia Abstract: This paper investigates whether leverage of family controlled firms differs from that of
More informationDeterminants of the corporate governance of Korean firms
Determinants of the corporate governance of Korean firms Eunjung Lee*, Kyung Suh Park** Abstract This paper investigates the determinants of the corporate governance of the firms listed on the Korea Exchange.
More informationManagerial Incentives and Corporate Cash Holdings
Managerial Incentives and Corporate Cash Holdings Tracy Xu University of Denver Bo Han University of Washington We examine the impact of managerial incentive on firms cash holdings policy. We find that
More informationDiversification Strategy and Its Influence on the Capital Structure Decisions of Manufacturing Firms in India
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 2, No. 5, September 2012 Diversification Strategy and Its Influence on the Capital Structure Decisions of Manufacturing Firms in India Ranjitha
More informationSUMMARY OF THEORIES IN CAPITAL STRUCTURE DECISIONS
SUMMARY OF THEORIES IN CAPITAL STRUCTURE DECISIONS Herczeg Adrienn University of Debrecen Centre of Agricultural Sciences Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development herczega@agr.unideb.hu
More informationInternational Journal of Asian Social Science OVERINVESTMENT, UNDERINVESTMENT, EFFICIENT INVESTMENT DECREASE, AND EFFICIENT INVESTMENT INCREASE
International Journal of Asian Social Science ISSN(e): 2224-4441/ISSN(p): 2226-5139 journal homepage: http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5007 OVERINVESTMENT, UNDERINVESTMENT, EFFICIENT INVESTMENT DECREASE,
More informationComplete Dividend Signal
Complete Dividend Signal Ravi Lonkani 1 ravi@ba.cmu.ac.th Sirikiat Ratchusanti 2 sirikiat@ba.cmu.ac.th Key words: dividend signal, dividend surprise, event study 1, 2 Department of Banking and Finance
More informationThe Impact of Macroeconomic Uncertainty on Firms Changes in Financial Leverage
The Impact of Macroeconomic Uncertainty on Firms Changes in Financial Leverage Christopher F Baum Boston College and DIW Berlin Atreya Chakraborty University of Massachusetts Boston Boyan Liu Beihang University
More informationThe Effect of Financial Constraints, Investment Policy and Product Market Competition on the Value of Cash Holdings
The Effect of Financial Constraints, Investment Policy and Product Market Competition on the Value of Cash Holdings Abstract This paper empirically investigates the value shareholders place on excess cash
More informationHow Markets React to Different Types of Mergers
How Markets React to Different Types of Mergers By Pranit Chowhan Bachelor of Business Administration, University of Mumbai, 2014 And Vishal Bane Bachelor of Commerce, University of Mumbai, 2006 PROJECT
More informationDynamic Capital Structure Choice
Dynamic Capital Structure Choice Xin Chang * Department of Finance Faculty of Economics and Commerce University of Melbourne Sudipto Dasgupta Department of Finance Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
More informationCORPORATE CASH HOLDINGS AND FIRM VALUE EVIDENCE FROM CHINESE INDUSTRIAL MARKET
CORPORATE CASH HOLDINGS AND FIRM VALUE EVIDENCE FROM CHINESE INDUSTRIAL MARKET by Lixian Cao Bachelor of Business Administration in International Accounting Nankai University, 2013 and Chen Chen Bachelor
More informationWhy Do Companies Choose to Go IPOs? New Results Using Data from Taiwan;
University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO Department of Economics and Finance Working Papers, 1991-2006 Department of Economics and Finance 1-1-2006 Why Do Companies Choose to Go IPOs? New Results Using
More informationMANAGERIAL POWER IN THE DESIGN OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION: EVIDENCE FROM JAPAN
MANAGERIAL POWER IN THE DESIGN OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION: EVIDENCE FROM JAPAN Stephen P. Ferris, Kenneth A. Kim, Pattanaporn Kitsabunnarat and Takeshi Nishikawa ABSTRACT Using a sample of 466 grants of
More informationIs earnings management opportunistic or beneficial? An agency theory perspective
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com International Review of Financial Analysis 17 (2008) 622 634 Is earnings management opportunistic or beneficial? An agency theory perspective Pornsit Jiraporn
More informationOwnership structure and corporate performance: empirical evidence of China s listed property companies
Ownership structure and corporate performance: empirical evidence of China s listed property companies Qiulin Ke Nottingham Trent University, School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment, Burton
More informationJournal of Applied Business Research Volume 20, Number 4
Management Compensation And Project Life Charles I. Harter, (E-mail: charles.harter@ndsu.nodak.edu), North Dakota State University T. Harikumar, New Mexico State University Abstract The goal of this paper
More informationBank Characteristics and Payout Policy
Asian Social Science; Vol. 10, No. 1; 2014 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Bank Characteristics and Payout Policy Seok Weon Lee 1 1 Division of International
More informationIS THERE A RELATION BETWEEN MONEY LAUNDERING AND CORPORATE TAX AVOIDANCE? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES
IS THERE A RELATION BETWEEN MONEY LAUNDERING AND CORPORATE TAX AVOIDANCE? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE UNITED STATES Grant Richardson School of Accounting and Finance, The Business School The University
More informationR&D and Stock Returns: Is There a Spill-Over Effect?
R&D and Stock Returns: Is There a Spill-Over Effect? Yi Jiang Department of Finance, California State University, Fullerton SGMH 5160, Fullerton, CA 92831 (657)278-4363 yjiang@fullerton.edu Yiming Qian
More informationStock price synchronicity and dividend policy: Evidence from an emerging market
Stock price synchronicity and dividend policy: Evidence from an emerging market Mona A. ElBannan Faculty of Management Technology, German University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt E-mail: mona.elbannan@guc.edu.eg
More informationDeterminants of Capital Structure A Study of Oil and Gas Sector of Pakistan
Determinants of Capital Structure A Study of Oil and Gas Sector of Pakistan Mahvish Sabir Foundation University Islamabad Qaisar Ali Malik Assistant Professor, Foundation University Islamabad Abstract
More informationDIVIDEND POLICY AND THE LIFE CYCLE HYPOTHESIS: EVIDENCE FROM TAIWAN
The International Journal of Business and Finance Research Volume 5 Number 1 2011 DIVIDEND POLICY AND THE LIFE CYCLE HYPOTHESIS: EVIDENCE FROM TAIWAN Ming-Hui Wang, Taiwan University of Science and Technology
More informationThe influence of leverage on firm performance: A corporate governance perspective
The influence of leverage on firm performance: A corporate governance perspective Elody Hutten s1009028 Bachelorthesis International Business Administration 1st supervisor: Henry van Beusichem 2 nd supervisor:
More informationCorporate boards and the leverage and debt maturity choices
Int. J. Corporate Governance, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008 3 Corporate boards and the leverage and debt maturity choices Jarrad Harford Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box 353200, Seattle,
More informationBANK CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND REAL ESTATE LENDING DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
BANK CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND REAL ESTATE LENDING DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS Emilia Peni a,*, Stanley D. Smith b,**, Sami Vähämaa a,*** a University of Vaasa, Department of Accounting and Finance b University
More informationDividend Policy and Investment Decisions of Korean Banks
Review of European Studies; Vol. 7, No. 3; 2015 ISSN 1918-7173 E-ISSN 1918-7181 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Dividend Policy and Investment Decisions of Korean Banks Seok Weon
More informationCorporate Governance and the Value of Dividends
Corporate Governance and the Value of Dividends Stockholm School of Economics Bachelor Thesis in Finance Spring 2015 Daniel Delin* & Nils Sarberg** Abstract In this paper we investigate how corporate governance
More informationManagement Ownership and Dividend Policy: The Role of Managerial Overconfidence
1 Management Ownership and Dividend Policy: The Role of Managerial Overconfidence Cheng-Shou Lu * Associate Professor, Department of Wealth and Taxation Management National Kaohsiung University of Applied
More informationEarnings Management and Corporate Governance in Thailand
DOI: 10.7763/IPEDR. 2013. V61. 9 Earnings Management and Corporate Governance in Thailand Nopphon Tangjitprom + National Institute of Development Administration & Assumption University Bangkok, Thailand.
More informationHow Does Earnings Management Affect Innovation Strategies of Firms?
How Does Earnings Management Affect Innovation Strategies of Firms? Abstract This paper examines how earnings quality affects innovation strategies and their economic consequences. Previous literatures
More informationThriving on a Short Leash: Debt Maturity Structure and Acquirer Returns
Thriving on a Short Leash: Debt Maturity Structure and Acquirer Returns Abstract This research empirically investigates the relation between debt maturity structure and acquirer returns. We find that short-term
More informationAN ANALYSIS OF THE DEGREE OF DIVERSIFICATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE Zheng-Feng Guo, Vanderbilt University Lingyan Cao, University of Maryland
The International Journal of Business and Finance Research Volume 6 Number 2 2012 AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEGREE OF DIVERSIFICATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE Zheng-Feng Guo, Vanderbilt University Lingyan Cao, University
More informationIs There a Relationship between EBITDA and Investment Intensity? An Empirical Study of European Companies
2012 International Conference on Economics, Business Innovation IPEDR vol.38 (2012) (2012) IACSIT Press, Singapore Is There a Relationship between EBITDA and Investment Intensity? An Empirical Study of
More informationCorporate Governance and Diversification*
Corporate Governance and Diversification* Kimberly C. Gleason Dept of Finance Florida Atlantic University kgleason@fau.edu Inho Kim Dept of Finance University of Cincinnati Inho73@gmail.com Yong H. Kim
More informationCapital structure and its impact on firm performance: A study on Sri Lankan listed manufacturing companies
Merit Research Journal of Business and Management Vol. 1(2) pp. 037-044, December, 2013 Available online http://www.meritresearchjournals.org/bm/index.htm Copyright 2013 Merit Research Journals Full Length
More informationDeterminants of Capital Structure: A Case of Life Insurance Sector of Pakistan
European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 24 (2010) EuroJournals, Inc. 2010 http://www.eurojournals.com Determinants of Capital Structure: A Case of Life Insurance
More informationHow do business groups evolve? Evidence from new project announcements.
How do business groups evolve? Evidence from new project announcements. Meghana Ayyagari, Radhakrishnan Gopalan, and Vijay Yerramilli June, 2009 Abstract Using a unique data set of investment projects
More informationCorporate Profitability and Capital Structure: The Case of the Machinery Industry Firms of the Tokyo Stock Exchange
Corporate Profitability and Capital Structure: The Case of the Machinery Industry Firms of the Tokyo Stock Exchange Chikashi Tsuji 1 1 Faculty of Economics, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan Correspondence:
More information