Tests of the static trade-off theory that posits that firms move towards the optimum capital structure necessitate a joint hypothesis test - whether firms adjust toward target leverage, and whether the proxy used for target leverage is the true target leverage. Prior studies use the time-series mean leverage for each firm, the industry median leverage, an estimated cross-sectional leverage, and a tobit estimated leverage using the factors suggested by the static trade-off theory as proxies for the target leverage. In this dissertation, I examine whether these proxies are equivalent and test the consistency of the proxies with the theorized behavior of the true target leverage. My results indicate that the four proxies we examine have significantly different distributions and this holds across most industries. Further, the industry median leverage is the proxy which best exhibits behavior consistent with the true target leverage. Firm value is higher for firms closer to the industry median and lower for firms away from the industry median. A robustness check using Kmeans cluster analysis confirms the superiority of the industry median leverage over the other proxies of target leverage. This study complements the previous studies on the pecking order theory and the trade-off theory. The main purpose of this study is to investigate three issues that are not considered in the previous studies. The adequacy of the specification and the assumptions of the models used in testing the trade-off and the pecking order theory. The second issue examined in this study is the validity to putting the pecking order and the trade-off theories in a horse race. The final issue examined in this study is the factors driving firms to issue (repurchase) debt or equity or combination of both and simultaneously the factors affecting the size of issue (repurchase)

No description available.

The real estate industry is one of the oldest sectors in the world, having existed almost as long as humans have roamed around the earth. Despite the social system in place, the ownership of land and buildings has always been a great source of prosperity to their owner. In addition to creating profit, the real estate sector also contributes to the health of the economy and to the well-being of people by providing necessities such as properties to organizations and individuals and by facilitating economic activities. This panel data study fills a knowledge gap by examining the development of large Swedish real estate companies’ capital structures between the years 2009 and 2017. The research tries to comprehend how the structures have changed during the business cycle following the financial crisis. The sample, consisting of 901 large stock companies, also tries to explain why these changes have occurred by analyzing which factors determine the development of the capital structure. Variables Return of Equity (ROE), Return of Assets (ROA), Assets, Number of Employees, Cost of Debt, Debt Coverage ratio (ICR), Interest Rates, and Stock Index are statistically tested in order to identify relationships between leverage and the given variables. The findings concerning the development of leverage ratios indicate that the Swedish firms, regardless of the amount of debt they possess, are deleveraging. Although the growth trend changes are subtle, they give evidence against the common belief that firms are packing up more debt. Relationships between the variables were all significant except for the relationships between Leverage/Interest Rates and Leverage/Stock Index which yielded conflicting results. Positive relationships were identified between Leverage/Assets, Leverage/ROE, Leverage/ICR, and Leverage/Interest Rates. The associations between the variables Leverage/Employees, Leverage/ROA, Leverage/Cost of Debt, and Leverage/Stock Index were negative. Although most results are in line with the previous research, some surprises were also discovered. Considering the fact that the Swedish market is relatively poorly understood, the area of real estate capital structure determinants still requires further research to understand what truly drives firms to change their debt and equity composition.

Diversas teorias tentam explicar o que determina a política de financiamento adotada pelas empresas. Uma das abordagens existentes, a Teoria de Pecking Order, foca a assimetria de informação como um importante determinante da estrutura de capital. No presente trabalho, busca-se analisar o pressuposto central da referida teoria e verificar se a assimetria de informação influencia nas decisões de financiamento de empresas brasileiras de capital aberto no período 1997-2007. Para tanto, são utilizadas variáveis proxies para assimetria de informação, além de variáveis de controle representativas de características das empresas. Utiliza-se a metodologia de análise de dados em painel. Como resultado principal, encontra-se que empresas consideradas com menor grau de assimetria informacional são mais endividadas que as demais na análise do nível de endividamento total, resultado contrário a teoria de pecking order, onde estas empresas teriam a oportunidade de captar recursos por meio da emissão de ações devido à baixa probabilidade de ocorrência dos problemas derivados da assimetria de informação. No entanto, este resultado apóia a relação esperada alternativa, onde empresas com menor assimetria informacional propiciam maior facilidade de avaliação do seu risco por parte dos credores, o que poderia aumentar a oferta de crédito, favorecendo a utilização de dívidas por meio da redução dos custos de seleção adversa e pelo aumento da capacidade de financiamento destas empresas. Nesse sentido, torna-se importante analisar também o papel do risco ao estabelecer uma hierarquia de preferências por fontes alternativas de financiamento utilizadas por empresas brasileiras. / Several theories try to explain what determines the financing policy adopted by the firms. One of the existent approaches, Pecking Order Theory, focuses on the information asymmetry as an important determinant of the capital structure. In the present work, we try to analyze the central presumption of the referred theory and to verify if the information asymmetry influences the financing decisions of Brazilian open capital firms in the period 1997-2007. In order to do so, proxies variables are used for information asymmetry, besides control variables which represent of firms characteristics. Panel data analysis is the methodology used. As main result, it was found that companies considered to have the lowest degree of information asymmetry are higher leveraged than the others analyzing the level of total debt, the result is contrary to the pecking order theory, where these companies would have the opportunity to raise resources by emitting shares due to the low probability of occurring problems derived from information asymmetry. However, this result supports the expected alternative relation, where companies with lower asymmetric information make it easier to their debt holders to evaluate their risk, what could increase the credit offer, favoring the use of debts by reducing the adverse selection costs and increasing the debt capacity of these companies. In doing so, it becomes important to also analyze the role of the risk when establishing a hierarchy of preferences adopted by Brazilian firms regarding alternative financing sources.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:25:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Glauber Marques Correa.pdf: 337100 bytes, checksum: 19695eed2adc47b95d5ca491faeae6db (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-12-22 / Fundo Mackenzie de Pesquisa / The way companies are financed has been an object of study, mainly after the 1958 theorem from Modigliani e Miller was published, in wich the authors stated that,under certain circumstances, a company´s value is unaffected by how it is financed capital structure irrelevance hypothesis. Thereafter, there have been many studies on the subject, enabling the emergence of several theories that intend to explain how companies search for their optimal capital structure.Among those theories, there is the very influential Pecking Order, also called Hierarchy of Sources Structure. It is an important proposal that aims to explain the decisions concerning funding and the capital structures of companies. Assuming the asymmetry of information between managers and investors (since managers know more about the prospects, risks, and values of their respective companies than external investors). Myers and Majluf (1984) claim that the formation of capital structure by companies is based on a hierarchy of sources called Pecking Order Theory, in wich the investment is financed primarily by internally generated funds (mainly reinvested); then for new issues of debt securities; and finally, for new issues of shares.This paper, by using a data template in which companies are grouped according to their size, profitability and growth, aims to verify if in financing the financial debt of Brazilian companies listed on BMF&BOVESPA the expected results of the Pecking Order Theory will be present.The results show that none of the samples showed adherence to the predictions of theory, and the sample of large companies was the one closest to this condition. There was also a low level of a secondary emission of shares, indicating that may be other ways of funding the financial shortfall that not only debt and equity. / A forma de financiamento das empresas tem sido objeto de estudo, com maior enfoque, desde a publicação do artigo de Modigliani e Miller em 1958, no qual afirmavam que, sob determinadas circunstâncias, o valor da empresa não era afetado pela sua estrutura de capital. A partir desse artigo pioneiro, muitos estudos foram efetuados, permitindo o surgimento de diversas teorias que pretendem explicar como as empresas buscam o seu nível adequado de financiamento. Dentre essas teorias, destaca-se a Pecking Order, também denominada Hierarquia das Fontes. Trata-se de uma importante proposta que visa explicar as decisões de financiamento e as estruturas de capital das empresas. Pressupondo-se a assimetria de informação entre gestores e investidores (uma vez que os gestores sabem mais acerca das perspectivas, riscos e valores das suas respectivas empresas do que os investidores externos), Myers e Majluf (1984) afirmam que a formação da estrutura de capital por parte das empresas está baseada em uma hierarquia de fontes denominada como Pecking Order Theory, na qual o investimento é financiado, em primeiro lugar, por fundos gerados internamente (principalmente lucros reinvestidos); em seguida, por novas emissões de títulos de dívida; e finalmente, por novas emissões de ações.Utilizando um Modelo de Dados em Painel, através do agrupamento das empresas segundo seu tamanho, rentabilidade e crescimento, esse artigo propõe-se a verificar se o financiamento do déficit financeiro das empresas brasileiras listadas na BMF&BOVESPA segue as previsões da Pecking Order Theory.Os resultados obtidos demonstram que nenhuma das amostras apresentou aderência às previsões da Teoria, sendo que a amostra de grandes empresas foi a que mais se aproximou dessa condição. Também se verificou um nível baixo de emissão secundária de ações, indicando que pode haver outras formas de financiamento do déficit financeiro que não apenas dívida e emissão de ações.

Past literature attempts to resolve the issue of the motivation behind managers' choice of a given capital structure. Despite several decades of intensive research, there is still no consensus about which theory dominates capital structure decisions. The present study empirically investigates the relative importance of two prominent theories of capital structure- the trade-off and the pecking order theories by exploring the conditions under which each theory can explain the financing choices of firms. These conditions are defined along two dimensions: (i) a firm's degree of information asymmetry, and (ii) its observed leverage relative to target leverage. The results show that, in the short-run, pecking order theory has more explanatory power in explaining the financing choices of firms. The target leverage theory assumes limited importance: Over-leveraged firms, when faced with low adverse information, are more inclined to adapt to the trade-off policies. In the presence of high information asymmetry, however, firms appear to be more concerned about adverse selection costs and make financing decisions that are more consistent with the pecking order theory. An analysis of the market reaction to seasoned equity issuances during announcement periods reveals that firms with high information asymmetry are penalized more than firms with low information asymmetry. This may explain the contradiction when over-leveraged firms continue to issue debt. However, the situation is reversed in the long run. Firms' long term financing goals appear to follow the leverage re-balancing theory. An analysis of financial activities over a five-year period, subsequent to security issuance decisions when they appear to be inconsistent with trade-off theory, reveals that firms follow an active policy of moving closer to the target leverage. In sum, the notion of target capital structure appears to exist. In the short-term, the management's financing decisions are consistent with the modified version of the pecking order theory, leading to tactical deviations from the optimal capital structure. However, long-term analysis indicates that the pecking order effect is largely transitory in nature and firms actively pursue strategic reversals towards an optimal capital structure.

<p>In this paper we study the pecking order and tradeoff theories of capital structure on a sample of 121 Swedish, non-financial, listed firms over the period between 2000 - 2009. We find that the Swedish firms’ financing behavior appears to have features consistent with the predictions of both theories. The evidence shows a preference for a financing behavior consistent with the tradeoff theory for the whole sample and for a sample of small firms, whereas large firms appear to follow a pecking order on their financing decisions. We show that under sufficient conditions both theories might be seen as “reconciled” and not mutually exclusive, and we find evidence for the large firms of our sample consistent with this notion.</p>

<p>Vi undersöker huruvida de två teorierna Pecking order och Trade-off gemensamt kan förklara utformning av kapitalstruktur och hur beslut gällande denna ser ut hos svenska börsnoterade företag. Vi menar att den aktuella kapitalstrukturen är en konsekvens av den historiska utvecklingen inom företag, där tidigare års finansiella över-/underskott leder till dagens kapitalstruktur och att asymmetrisk information och transaktionskostnader gör att intern finansiering är att föredra framför extern. Företag ser dock fördelar med viss skuldsättning, vilket bidrar till att företag sätter upp en målkapitalstruktur i början av aktuell period. Företags benägenhet att justera sin kapitalstruktur mot denna målkapitalstruktur varierar beroende på vilken situation företaget befinner sig i och olika anpassningshastigheter uppstår till följd av att vissa situationer föredras framför andra. Vi undersöker sambandet mellan målkapitalstruktur och finansiella över-/underskott och hur detta påverkar företags förändring i kapitalstruktur. Våra resultat visar att företag är som mest benägna att förändra sin kapitalstruktur när de har ett finansiellt underskott med en kapitalstruktur över sin målkapitalstruktur och minst benägna att förändra sin kapitalstruktur när de har ett finansiellt överskott och en kapitalstruktur under sin målkapitalstruktur. Både Pecking order och Trade-off har inflytande vid förklaring av företags kapitalstruktursförändring, dock har den ena teorin större betydelse än den andra beroende på vilken situation företag befinner sig i.</p>

In this paper we study the pecking order and tradeoff theories of capital structure on a sample of 121 Swedish, non-financial, listed firms over the period between 2000 - 2009. We find that the Swedish firms’ financing behavior appears to have features consistent with the predictions of both theories. The evidence shows a preference for a financing behavior consistent with the tradeoff theory for the whole sample and for a sample of small firms, whereas large firms appear to follow a pecking order on their financing decisions. We show that under sufficient conditions both theories might be seen as “reconciled” and not mutually exclusive, and we find evidence for the large firms of our sample consistent with this notion.

Vi undersöker huruvida de två teorierna Pecking order och Trade-off gemensamt kan förklara utformning av kapitalstruktur och hur beslut gällande denna ser ut hos svenska börsnoterade företag. Vi menar att den aktuella kapitalstrukturen är en konsekvens av den historiska utvecklingen inom företag, där tidigare års finansiella över-/underskott leder till dagens kapitalstruktur och att asymmetrisk information och transaktionskostnader gör att intern finansiering är att föredra framför extern. Företag ser dock fördelar med viss skuldsättning, vilket bidrar till att företag sätter upp en målkapitalstruktur i början av aktuell period. Företags benägenhet att justera sin kapitalstruktur mot denna målkapitalstruktur varierar beroende på vilken situation företaget befinner sig i och olika anpassningshastigheter uppstår till följd av att vissa situationer föredras framför andra. Vi undersöker sambandet mellan målkapitalstruktur och finansiella över-/underskott och hur detta påverkar företags förändring i kapitalstruktur. Våra resultat visar att företag är som mest benägna att förändra sin kapitalstruktur när de har ett finansiellt underskott med en kapitalstruktur över sin målkapitalstruktur och minst benägna att förändra sin kapitalstruktur när de har ett finansiellt överskott och en kapitalstruktur under sin målkapitalstruktur. Både Pecking order och Trade-off har inflytande vid förklaring av företags kapitalstruktursförändring, dock har den ena teorin större betydelse än den andra beroende på vilken situation företag befinner sig i.