https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w6234/w6234.pdf

The determinants and implications of corporate cash holdings

We examine the determinants and implications of holdings of cash and marketable" securities by publicly traded U.S. firms in the 1971-1994 period. Firms with strong growth" opportunities and riskier cash flows hold relatively high ratios of cash to total assets. Firms" that have the greatest access to the capital markets (e.g. large firms and those with credit" ratings) tend to hold lower ratios of cash to total assets. These results are consistent with the" view that firms hold liquid assets to ensure that they will be able to keep investing when cash" flow is too low relative to planned investment and when outside funds are expensive. The" short run impact of excess cash on capital expenditures, acquisition spending and payouts to" shareholders is small. The main reason that firms experience large changes in excess cash is" the occurrence of operating losses. There is no evidence that risk management and cash" holdings are substitutes.

The Determinants and Implications of Corporate Cash Holdings

Confirming predictions shared by the trade-off and pecking order models, more profitable firms and firms with fewer investments have higher dividend payouts. Confirming the pecking order model but contradicting the trade-off model, more profitable firms are less levered. Firms with more investments have less market leverage, which is consistent with the trade-off model and a complex pecking order model. Firms with more investments have lower long-term dividend payouts, but dividends do not vary to accommodate shortterm variation in investment. As the pecking order model predicts, short-term variation in investment and earnings is mostly absorbed by debt. The finance literature offers two competing models of financing decisions. In the trade-off model, firms identify their optimal leverage by weighing the costs and benefits of an additional dollar of debt. The benefits of debt include, for example, the tax deductibility of interest and the reduction of free cash flow problems. The costs of debt include potential bankruptcy costs and agency conflicts between stockholders and bondholders. At the leverage optimum, the benefit of the last dollar of debt just offsets the cost. The tradeoff model makes a similar prediction about dividends. Firms maximize value by selecting the dividend payout that equates the costs and benefits of the last dollar of dividends. Myers (1984) develops an alternative theory known as the pecking order model of financing decisions. The pecking order arises if the costs of issuing new securities overwhelm other costs and benefits of dividends and debt. The financing costs that produce pecking order behavior include the transaction costs associated with new issues and the costs that arise because of management’s superior information about the firm’s prospects and the value of its risky securities. Because of these costs, firms finance new investments first with retained earnings, then with safe debt, then with risky debt, and finally, under duress, with equity. As a result, variation in a firm’s leverage

/pdf/testing-trade-off-and-pecking-order-predictions-about-1e6xrs6926.pdf

Testing Trade-Off and Pecking Order Predictions About Dividends and Debt

This paper examines the relative importance of many factors in the capital structure decisions of publicly traded American firms from 1950 to 2003. The most reliable factors for explaining market leverage are: median industry leverage (+ effect on leverage), market-to-book assets ratio (−), tangibility (+), profits (−), log of assets (+), and expected inflation (+). In addition, we find that dividend-paying firms tend to have lower leverage. When considering book leverage, somewhat similar effects are found. However, for book leverage, the impact of firm size, the market-to-book ratio, and the effect of inflation are not reliable. The empirical evidence seems reasonably consistent with some versions of the trade-off theory of capital structure.

/pdf/capital-structure-decisions-which-factors-are-reliably-55nwu4yjxo.pdf

Capital Structure Decisions: Which Factors Are Reliably Important?

The pecking order theory of corporate leverage is tested against the static tradeoff theory of corporate leverage, using a broad cross-section of US firms over the period 1980-1998. A derivation of the conditional target adjustment framework is provided as a better empirical test of mean reversion. None of the predictions of the pecking order theory hold in the data. As predicted by the static tradeoff theory, robust evidence of mean reversion in leverage is found. This is true both unconditionally and conditionally on financial factors. Leverage is more persistent at lower levels than at higher levels. When debt matures, it is not replaced dollar for dollar by new debt and so leverage declines. Large firms increase their debt in order to support the payment of dividends. By contrast, small firms reduce their debt while they pay dividends.

Testing the Pecking Order Theory of Capital Structure

https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~eofek/PhD/papers/SM_Testing_JFE.pdf

Testing static tradeoff against pecking order models of capital structure

This paper tests traditional capital structure models against the alternative of a pecking order model of corporate financing. The basic pecking order model, which predicts external debt financing driven by the internal financial deficit, has much greater explanatory power than a static trade-off model which predicts that each firm adjusts toward an optimal debt ratio. We show that the power of some usual tests of the trade-off model is virtually nil. We question whether the available empirical evidence supports the notion of an optimal debt ratio.

/pdf/testing-static-trade-off-against-pecking-order-models-of-xc1lk50xlh.pdf

Lakshmi Shyam-Sunder

Papers

Testing static tradeoff against pecking order models of capital structure

Testing static trade-off against pecking order models of capital structure

Testing Static Trade-off Against Pecking Order Models of Capital Structure

Testing Static Trade-off Against Pecking Order Models of Capital Structure