By SULEIMAN, Hamisu Kargi PhD/ADMIN/11934/

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Capital Structure Theory
Advertisements

Capital Structure Decisions Chapter 15 and 16
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND THE STOCK PRICE OF LISTED COMPANIES IN MAI USING FELTHEM – OHLSON VALUATION MODEL Supranee Sugaraserani.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Session 9 Topics to be covered: –Debt Policy –Capital Structure –Modigliani-Miller Propositions.
Capital Structure Decisions: Part I
Rest of Chapter 14.  Capital Structure  M&M (Modigliani and Miller) concepts 2.
Financial Leverage and Capital Structure Policy
Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, 2/e
Capital Structure: Part 2 For 9.220, Term 1, 2002/03 02_Lecture20.ppt Student Version.
LOGO Financial Contracting OLIVER HART Presented by: Xulei Ruan.
Dividend Policy and Retained Earnings (Chapter 18) Optimal Dividend Policy Conflicting Theories Other Dividend Policy Issues Residual Dividend Theory Stable.
The Effect of Asymmetric Information on Dividend Policy Yohanes Kristiawan H
Advanced Corporate Finance Lecture 08.1 and 09 Capital Structure and Bond Valuation (Continued) Fall, 2010.
The Cost of Capital (Chapter 15) OVU-ADVANCE Managerial Finance D.B. Hamm, rev. Jan 2006.
Capital Structure Decision
Capital Structure MM Theory 1. Capital Structure “neither a borrower nor a lender be” (Source: Shakespeare`s Hamlet) “The firm`s mix of securities(long.
CHAPTER 09 Cost of Capital
Graham-Harvey (2001): Theory-Practice of Corporate Finance
J. K. Dietrich - FBE 432 – Fall 2002 Module I: Investment Banking: Capital Structure and Valuation Week 3 – September 11, 2002.
Capital Structure (Ch. 12)
Chapter 13.
Chapter 12 Capital Structure  Quick Review of Capital Markets  Benefits of Borrowing  Pecking Order Hypothesis  Modigliani and Miller Optimal Capital.
TOPICS 1. FINANCIAL DECISIONS, INVESTMENT DECISIONS AND DIVIDEND DECISIONS 2. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROCESS 3.PROFIT MAXIMIZATION AND WEALTH MAXIMIZATION.
FINANCE IN A CANADIAN SETTING Sixth Canadian Edition Lusztig, Cleary, Schwab.
DETERMINANTS OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY COMPANIES Björn-Martin Kurzrock Frieder Mokinski Felix Schindler Peter Westerheide.
The Capital Structure Puzzle: Another Look at the Evidence
Chapter 9 The Cost of Capital.
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2000
Capital Structure.
B: Mr. Abdul Khaliq Pervaiz Memon Um-e-salma Ghulam Abbas.
Advanced Corporate Finance FINA 7330 Capital Structure Issues and Financing Fall, 2006.
CORPORATE FINANCE VI ESCP-EAP - European Executive MBA
FINANCIAL AND OPERATING LEVERAGE CHAPTER 14. LEARNING OBJECTIVES  Explain the concept of financial leverage  Discuss the alternative measures of financial.
1 The Basics of Capital Structure Decisions Corporate Finance Dr. A. DeMaskey.
Instructions for using this template. CORRECT THE RETURN LINKS! Remember this is Jeopardy, so where I have written “Answer” this is the prompt the students.
Advanced Project Evaluation
Capital Structure Theories and Evidence
EBIT/EPS Analysis The tax benefit of debt Trade-off theory Practical considerations in the determination of capital structure CAPITAL STRUCTURE Lecture.
1 Capital Structure: leverage dynamics and market timing Advanced Corporate Finance Semester
Limits to the Use of Debt
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Chapter 10 The Cost of Capital.
Capital Structure
Finance Theory II (15.402) – Spring 2003 – Dirk Jenter Capital Structure: Informational and Agency Considerations.
Multinational Cost of Capital & Capital Structure.
Empirical Evidence of Risk Shifting Behavior in Large and Small Distressed Firms Chuang-Chang Chang Yu-Jen Hsiao Yu-Chih Lin Wei-Cheng Chen.
BY: CAROLINE EVA MURSITO th CLASS OF SEMINAR IN FINANCE DIVIDEND POLICY.
MODIGLIANI – MILLER THEOREM ANASTASIIA TISETSKA. AGENDA:  MODIGLIANI–MILLER I – LEVERAGE, ARBITRAGE AND FIRM VALUE  MODIGLIANI–MILLER II – LEVERAGE,
Capital Structure.. Capital Structure Defined The term capital structure is used to represent the proportionate relationship between debt and equity.
STRATEGIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The Trade off of Debt KHURAM RAZA ACMA, MS FINANCE.
Paper F9 Financial Management
Capital Structure Theory (1)
Capital Structure Theory (III)
Choosing Capital Structure In Practice
Saba Soliman al-Mohawis
RECAP LECTURE 6.
Advanced Corporate Finance
CHAPTER 12 CAPITAL STRUCTURE 1.
Capital Structure: Limits to the Use of Debt
Zoya Khan, PhD Scholar, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Capital Structure Byers.
Capital Structure Determination
LEARNING OBJECTIVES • Explain the rationale and conclusion of the ideas of Modigliani and Miller’s dividend irrelevancy hypothesis, as well as the concept.
The composition of long-term finance used by the firm
2018 leary and roberts 2010 汇报人:许日清.
Finance Theories Taxonomy: Theories of capital structure
Prof. P. Basatin Arockia Raj
Behavioral Corporate Finance
Presentation transcript:

By SULEIMAN, Hamisu Kargi PhD/ADMIN/11934/2008-2009 capital structure: a test of the pecking order theory IN LISTED CONGLOMERATE COMPANIES IN NIGERIA By SULEIMAN, Hamisu Kargi PhD/ADMIN/11934/2008-2009

Background Successful firms usually achieve growth through increase in sales which requires the support of increased investments. To achieve expected growth a firm has to raise funds through various sources and the financial manager should decide when, where and how to acquire such funds to meet investment need. Decisions must be made about the use of internal or external funds, the use of debts or equity and the use of short-term or long- term financing and/or their combination.

Capital structure represents the mix of the various debt and equity used in financing firm’s operation. A firm can choose among many alternative capital structures. It can either issue a large amount of debt or it can issue very little debt. However, the optimal capital structure is the set of proportions that maximizes the total value of the firm. Therefore, decisions concerning the proportion of debt and equity are quite challenging for the management of a firm because a wrong decision may lead to financial distress and eventually to bankruptcy.

A number of theories have been advanced in explaining the capital structure of firm. The theory of capital structure was earlier developed by Modigliani and Miller (1958). They argue that in the absence of corporate taxes and other market imperfections, the total value of the firm and its cost of capital are independent of capital structure. Since the seminal Modigliani and Miller (1958) irrelevance propositions, financial economists have developed a number of theories in which the capital structure choice becomes relevant.

The pecking order theory developed by Myers and Majluf (1984) and Myers (1984) does not predict an optimal capital structure. The theory predicts a strict preference of corporate financing, in which investments are financed by internal funds first, then by low- risk debt and hybrid securities such as convertibles, and equities as the last resort.

The trade-off theory, based on research on taxes (Modigliani and Miller, 1963) and bankruptcy and financial distress costs (Warner, 1977) and the insights from the agency literature (Jensen and Meckling, 1976), suggests that firms have a unique optimal capital structure that balances between the tax advantage of debt financing (i.e. debt tax shields), the costs of financial distress and the agency benefits and costs of debt (Bradley et al., 1984, Leary and Roberts, 2005 and Strebulaev, 2007).

Market timing is another theory of capital structure brought up by Baker and Wurgler (2002). As claimed by its proponents in the United States between 1968 and 1999, Baker and Wurgler find out that firms prefer external equity when the cost of equity is low, and prefer debt vice versa.

In Nigeria Adesola (2009) tested the static trade off theory against pecking order theory and establish the presence of pecking order theory. However, the result is inconclusive about which of the two theories exerts the most dominant effect on the capital structure of Nigerian quoted firms during the period of the study. This might be because the study is testing one theory against the other and is cross sectional in nature.

Despite these theoretical appeals to capital structure, academicians and researchers have not yet agreed on specific method that corporate managers can use in order to attain an optimal capital structure. This may be because of the fact that theories of capital structure differ in their relative emphases. For example, the trade-off theory emphasizes taxes and the pecking order theory emphasizes information asymmetry. How successful are these theories in explaining the time-series patterns of financing activities?

The lack of footing for predicting the long run effect of a specific financing mix makes the financial decision more difficult in many ways than both the investment and dividend decisions. Does the pecking order theory explain the capital structure of Nigerian corporations? Which financing option best explain the capital structure decisions in Nigeria?

The purpose of the study is to examine the evidence of the pecking order hypothesis. The study primarily addresses the issue of how robust the pecking order hypothesis is in explaining capital structure of conglomerate firms in Nigeria. It was hypothesised that pecking order theory has no significant impact in explaining the capital structure of conglomerate firms in Nigeria.

Some studies have examined how well the pecking order hypothesis actually fit. Baskin (1989) and Shyam-Sunder and Myers (1999) tested a number of predictions of the pecking order hypothesis and argued that their results were consistent with the theory. Moreover, the findings of Adesola (2009), Sheikh and Wang (2010) and Chang et al (2010) are in support of the theory.

However, Fama and French (2005) examined many individual financing decisions of firms and find that these decisions are often in conflict with many of the important predictions of the pecking order hypothesis. For example, equity is supposed to be the last financing alternative, yet Fama and French observe that most firms issue some sort of equity every year.

Methodology The study utilises data from secondary sources (Fact Books and annual reports) in respect of six firms quoted as conglomerate on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. The firms selected have sufficient data for the study. Data collected include total asset, equity, debt and preceding year retained earnings of the sampled firms which relate to eight years financial periods from 2002 to 2009.

The study adopts Watson and Wilson (2002) model in analysing the data collected. The model was based on Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method in estimating the parameter of the model. Watson and Wilson (2002) use the model to provide the evidence to support the Pecking Order theory.

The model specify that; TA=f(RE, Debt and Equity) The model is thus; (TAit -TAit-1)/TAit-1 = Σβ + β1(Pit -Divit-1)/TAit-1 + β2(Dit -Dit-1)/TAit-1 + β3(EIit)+vit

If the theory holds, the following relationship should be observe for β, which is β1>β2>β3. This relationship might imply that the source of financing has a priority: first from a firm’s retained earnings, then debt issuance, and equity issuance falling at the bottom.

RESULT The result estimated multiple regression model of total asset growth thus; (TAit -TAit-1)/TAit-1 = -0.162 + 0.378(Pit -Divit-1)/TAit-1 + 0.611(Dit -Dit- 1)/TAit-1 + 1.678(EIit)+vit The observed relationship for β in the result shows that β3>β1>β2. The result shows the coefficient of new equity issuance (EQ) [1.678] is larger than the slope coefficients of retained earnings (RE) [0.378] and debt issuance (D) [0.611].

the coefficient of multiple determination R2 (adjusted R2) of 0.312 (0.266) indicates that about 31.2% or exactly 26.6% variations in the observed behaviour of the total asset growth is jointly explained by all the three explanatory (independent). The DW statistic is 1.967, approximately 2.0 indicates that there is no first order autocorellation, either positive or negative. The result of the estimates is therefore reliable for prediction and need no transformation of the original model.

The calculated F- statistic is greater than the table F- statistic (i The calculated F- statistic is greater than the table F- statistic (i.e 6.664 > 4.31), therefore this shows the regression is significant at 1% level. Base on the findings, the null hypothesis which state that pecking order theory has no significant impact in explaining the capital structure of conglomerate firms in Nigeria is rejected.

The analysis though has overall significance indicate that only equity tracks the firm’s financing deficit better than retained earnings and debt. Equity has the most significant coefficient in the model. The findings contradict the pecking order theory developed by Myers and Majluf (1984) in predicting the capital structure of conglomerate firms in Nigeria.

Discussion The findings of the study did not support the pecking order hypothesis as the primary financing theory for conglomerate firms in Nigeria. Firms in this sector finance their deficit mainly with equity issuance, the opposite of what would be expected under the hypothesis. This choice exposes the firms to certain risk such as dilution of ownership. However, due to information asymmetry Nigerian investors prefer immediate return in form of dividend than having earnings retained to finance future expansion

The study support the position of Fama and French (2005) that most firms issue some sort of equity every year The result of the study contradicts the findings of Shyam-Sunder and Myers (1999), Adesola (2009), Sheikh and Wang (2010) and Chang et al (2010).

Conclusion and Recommendation Base on the findings, it can be concluded that the explanatory variables have good description of financing policies of conglomerate firms in Nigeria and has significant impact to the growth of the firms but not in accordance with the pecking order theory. The findings contradict the theory. In accordance with this conclusion, shareholders should be enlightened on the importance of having earnings retained given that it is the cheapest means of financing and without external scrutiny.

However, proper corporate governance is needed to avoid agency problems as a result of information asymmetry. Capital market in Nigeria should be restructured for channelling debt capital at low cost and, to remove information asymmetries between firm managers, investors and the market. This will eliminate imperfections, improve investors’ confidence and integrity of the system.

THANKS FOR YOUR AUDIENCE!