Huynh Anh Kiet - Capital Structure and Firm Performance

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HOCHIMINH CITY --- oOo ---
HUNH ANH KIT
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: CASE STUDY: LISTED COMPANIES IN HOCHIMINH STOCK EXCHANGE
MASTER THESIS
Ho Chi Minh City 2010
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HOCHIMINH CITY --- oOo ---
HUNH ANH KIT
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: CASE STUDY: LISTED COMPANIES IN HOCHIMINH STOCK EXCHANGE
MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MAJOR CODE: 60.34.05
MASTER THESIS
INSTRUCTOR : PROFESSOR NGUYN NG PHONG
Ho Chi Minh City 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my research Instructor, Professor Nguyen Dong Phong for his intensive support, valuable suggestions, guidance and encouragement during the course of my study. My sincere thanks are also due to Dr. Vo Thi Quy and Dr. Tran Ha Minh Quan for their valuable time as the members of the proposal examination committee. Their comments and constructive suggestions were of great help in my completing this study. My sincere thanks is extended to Assistant Professor Nguyen Dinh Tho, Dr. Tran Ha Minh Quan, Dr. Truong Tan Thanh, Dr. Pham Huu Hong Thai, Dr. Bui Thanh Trang for their valuable time as members of examination committee. Their comments and suggestions were of great value for my study. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of my teachers at Faculty of Business Administration and Postgraduate Faculty, University of Econimics Hochiminh City for their teaching and guidance during my MBA course. I would like to specially express my thanks to all of my classmates, my friends from www.caohockinhte.vn for their support and encouragement. I would also like to avail this opportunity to express my appreciation to Professor Nguyen Dong Phong, UEH Board of Directors for creating MBA program in English and Dr. Tran Ha Minh Quan for his support during the course. Finally, I heartily dedicate this study to my beloved parents and my wife, Vu Thi Huyen who have always sacrificed to encourage and support me during my study.
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the relationship between firm capital structure and firm performance. The author explores both the effect of firm performance on firm captial structure as well as the effect of capital structure on firm market performance using cross-sectional data representing of 162 Vietnamese companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange for 2008. According to the results, a firm profitability is found to have a significant and negative impact on all firm capital structure. This finding support pecking order theory of Myers and Majluf (1984). An interesting finding is that firm size has a positive and significant impact on the leverage, which consistent with a previous study of Rajan and Zingales (1995), and indicating that a firm size is an important determinant of corporate capital structure. Firm capital structure is confirmed to have positive and significant impacts on firm market performance which is measured by Tobins Q. The author also finds that firm growth opportunities have a positive and significant impact on the firm value Tobins Q.
Keywords: Capital structure, corporate performance, Vietnam, HOSE.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................i ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................vi ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS ........................................................................................................... 3 1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 4 1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE .......................................................................... 5 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 CAPITAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................. 7 2.3 FIRM PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................ 11 2.4 HYPOTHESIS AND EMPIRICAL MODEL ............................................................................ 12 2.4.1. Model 1: The Leverage Model ......................................................................................... 12 2.4.2. Model 2: The Firm Value Model .....................................................................................15 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................18 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 18 3.2 DATA ......................................................................................................................................... 18 3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1. Research Sample .............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.2. Data Analysis Method ...................................................................................................... 20 3.4 VARIABLES MEASUREMENT FOR MODEL 1 ................................................................... 20 3.4.1. Dependent Variables ........................................................................................................ 20 3.4.2. Independent Variables ...................................................................................................... 21 3.5 VARIABLES MEASUREMENT FOR MODEL 2 ................................................................... 21 3.5.1. Dependent Variables ........................................................................................................21 3.5.2. Independent Variables ...................................................................................................... 22 3.6 FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 23 3.7 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH............................................. 25 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH SAMPLES ................................................................. 25 4.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ................................................................................................... 26 4.4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 29 4.4.1. Model 1: The Leverage Model ......................................................................................... 29 4.4.2. Model 2: The Firm Value Model ..................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ..............38 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 38 5.2 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 38
iii
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 39 5.4 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 40 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 41 APPENDIX A ...............................................................................................................................44 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 51
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Leverage Model ........................................................................................ 14 Figure 2: The Firm Value Model .................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Research Process .............................................................................................. 19 Figure 4: Framework of the study .................................................................................. 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Dependent variables for model 1...................................................................... 20 Table 2: Independent variables for model 1 .................................................................. 21 Table 3: Dependent variables for model 2...................................................................... 22 Table 4: Independent variables for model 2 .................................................................. 22 Table 5: Summary Statistics of the Explanatory Variables ......................................... 26 Table 6: Correlation Matrix of the Explanatory Variables for Model 1 ..................... 28 Table 7: Correlation Matrix of the Explanatory Variables for Model 2 ..................... 28 Table 8: Estimate Results for Model 1............................................................................ 29 Table 9: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using TDTA ..................................................... 32 Table 10: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using TDTE ................................................... 33 Table 11: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using LTDTA ................................................ 34 Table 12: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using STDTA ................................................ 35
vi
ABBREVIATIONS
HOSE GROWTH LTDTA PE PROF ROA ROE ROI SIZE STDTA TA TDTE TDTA TOBIN Hochiminh Stock Exchange Growth opportunities Long-term debt to total assets Price-to-Earnings Ratio Profitability Return on assets Return on equity
Return on investment
Firm Size Short-term debt to total assets Asset tangibility Total debt to total equity Total debt to total assets Tobins Q
vii
Capital Structure and Firm Performance
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
The theory of the capital structure is an important reference theory in firm's financing policy. The capital structure refers to firm includes mixture of debt and equity financing. The topic of optimal capital structure has been the subject of many studies. The modern theory of the capital structure originate from the contribution of Modigliani and Miller in 1958, under the perfect capital market assumption 1 that if there is no bankrupt cost and capital markets are frictionless, if without taxes, the firm value is independent with the structure of the capital. In 1963, under considering the corporate taxes, Modigliani and Miller modified the conclusion to recognize tax shield. Because debt can reduce the tax to pay, so the best capital structure of enterprises should be 100% of the debt. But this seems to be unreasonable in the real world. Jensen and Meckling (1976) introduce the concept of agency costs and investigate the nature of the agency costs generated by the existence of debt and outside equity. When considering corporation tax, bankrupt costs and agency costs at the same time, trade-off theory can be introduced to derive the existence of the optimum capital structure. Leland (1994) extends the results of Merton (1974) and Black and Cox (1976) to include taxes, bankruptcy costs to derive the optimal capital structure. Deangelo and Masulis (1980) argue that the existence of non-debt corporate tax shields such as depreciation deductions is sufficient to overturn the leverages irrelevancy theorem. Hovakimian, Opler, and Titman (2001) test the hypothesis that firms tend to a target ratio when they either raise new capital or retire or repurchase existing capital. They found firms should use relatively more debt to finance assets in place and relatively more equity to finance growth opportunities. It has also been argued that profitable firms are less likely to depend on debt in their capital structure than less profitable ones. It has been argued that firms with a high growth rate have a high debt to equity ratio. Bankruptcy costs (proxied by firm size) are also found to be an important effect on capital structure (Kraus and
Perfect capital markets means that the following assumptions hold: (a) there are no taxes, (b) there are no transaction costs, (c) there is symmetrical information, (d) there are homogenous expectations, and (e) investors can borrow at the same rate as corporations.
1
Page 1
Litzenberger, 1973; Harris and Raviv, 1991). If these three factors are considered as determinants of capital structure, then these factors could be used to determine the firm performance. In practice, firm managers who are able to identify the optimal capital structure are rewarded by minimizing a firms cost of finance thereby maximizing the firm revenue. If a firm capital structure influences a firm performance, then it is reasonable to expect that the firm capital structure would affect the firm health and its likelihood of default. From a creditors point view, it is possible that the debt to equity ratio aids in understanding banks risk management strategies and how banks determine the likelihood of default associated with financially distressed firms. In short, the issue regarding the capital structure and firm performance are important for both academics and practitioners. There is lack of empirical evidence about the effect of firm performance on capital structure in Vietnam. Then, the first objective of this study is to examine the effect which firm performance has on capital structure of listed companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange. Trn Hng Sn and Trn Vit Hong (2008) find a positive and significant impact of firm leverage on firm accounting performance, but have not used market performance measures. Thus, the second objective of this study is to examine the effect which firm capital structure has on corporate market performance. This study contributes to literature in two directions: (1) by using ordinary least square regression model to investigate the relationship between capital structure and firm performance to fill the gap in corporate finance literature in Vietnam; (2) by employing different measures of capital structure such as short-term debt to total assets, long-term debt to total assets, total debt to total assets, and total debt to total equity to investigate the effect of the debt structure on corporate market performance in Vietnam. This study contributes to practical implications by investigating the effect of capital structure on corporate performance using market measures to provides evidence about whether the stock market is efficient or not. It also provides managers a structure approached to plan their firm capital structure strategies and improve the firm value.
Page 2
1.2
RESEARCH PROBLEMS
Problem definition is essential before conducting a study, especially quantitative research. Zikmund (1997, p. 82) recommends that formal quantitative research should not begin until the problem has been clearly defined. In Vietnam, lack of empirical evidence, that investigate the relationship between firm capital structure and firm performance, is an issue for both academics and practitioners. There is lack of empirical evidence that investigate the relationship between firm capital structure and firm performance in Vietnam. In 2008, Trn Hng Sn and Trn Vit Hong tested the relationship between capital structure and firm performance by using data sample of 50 non-financial companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange for the period September 2008. The results show that there is a positive correlation between a firm capital structure and performance, which is measured by average of return on assets and return on equity. The corporate performance has a strong quadratic or cubic correlation with the capital structure when they use the debt ratio under 100%. The performance has a positive correlation with the capital structure when the debt ratio is in the range from 0.9755 to 2.799. However, they have not used market performance measures and have not explored the optimal capital structure to maximize the performance of the firm. They have not tested the correlation between the distribution of debt ratio and corporate performance to each type of companies, as well as each industry. Their research recommended that further research should be implemented. Margaritis and Psillaki (2007) use a sample of 12,240 firms from the 2004 New Zealand Annual Enterprise Survey to investigate the effect of leverage on firm performance as well as the reverse causality relationship. They use quantitative regression analysis to show that the effect of efficiency on leverage is positive at low to mid-leverage levels and negative at high leverage ratios. In Vietnam, there is no empirical evidence related to the effect of firm performance on capital structure. Therefore, the problem to be addressed in this study is to examine the effect of firm performance on firm capital structure combined with others variables such as firm size, growth and asset tangibility on firm capital structure. In addition, the author will explore the effect of firm capital structure on firm market performance, known as firm value of listed firms in Hochiminh Stock Exchange.
Page 3
1.3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
A research objective is the researchers version of a business problem. Objectives explain the purpose of the research in measurable terms and define standards of what the research should accomplish (Zikmund 1997, p. 89). In solving the research problem mentioned previously, this study has the following objectives: Determine the effect of firm profitability, size, growth opportunities and asset tangibility on listed firm capital structure in Hochiminh Stock Exchange. Determine the effect of capital structure on listed firm market performance combined with others variables such as firm size and growth opportunities in Hochiminh Stock Exchange.
Research Questions Research questions involve the research translation of problem into the need for inquiry. The research problems defined above leads to the following research questions: What are the relationship between firm capital structure and firm profitability, size, growth opportunities and asset tangibility of listed firms in Hochiminh Stock Exchange? What are the relationship between firm capital structure, size, growth opportunities and firm market performance of listed firms in Hochiminh Stock Exchange?
Two research variables of the topic: Capital structure Firm performance
Page 4
1.4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE
The object of this research is all listed non-financial companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange (HOSE) at the end 2008. Sample size: 162 (See more in Chapter 3). Quantitative research based on ordinary least square regression model to estimate the relationship between firm profitability, size, growth, asset tangibility and firm capital structure, as well as the relationship between firm leverage and firm market firm performance. This model was used in the previous studies of Tian & Zeitun (2007), Margaritis & Psillaki (2007), Rajan and Zingales (1995). The author use data analysis tools to implement the research such as: descriptive statistics, multiple regression models with Eviews 6 for Windows.
1.5
STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
The structure of the study consist five chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter presents research background of the study, as well as, research problems, research objectives, research methodology and scope. Chapter 2: Literature Review In this chapter, I summary the literature review and present the fundamental ideas on capital structure, as well as firm performance. This chapter also presents a research model of the study. Chapter 3: Research Design Based on the research objectives and scope, research methodology concerned in chapter 1, and literature review and empirical model presented in chapter 2, this chapter particularly presents the research methodology, data, research design and research process. Chapter 4: Empirical Results of the Research Chapter 4 presents the characteristics of research samples and measures concepts of the research. I use descriptive statistics to explore the features of explanatory variables, as well as the relationship between each variable in two models.
Page 5
Furthermore, I use regression analysis to explore the relationship between the capital structure and market performance of listed companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange. Chapter 5: Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations Chapter 5 presents main conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the previous chapters, as well as the limitations of this study.
Page 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 summaries the literature review and present the fundamental ideas on capital structure, as well as firm performance. This chapter also presents a research model of the study.
2.2
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
The modern theory of capital structure began with the celebrated paper of Modigliani and Miller (1958). In this paper they claim that under perfect capital market conditions, a firm value depends on its operating profitability rather than its capital structure. In 1963, Modigliani and Miller argued that, when there are corporate taxes then interest payments are tax deductible, 100% debt financing is optimal. In this framework, firms target an optimal capital structure based on tax advantages and financial distress disadvantages. Firms are thought to strive toward their target and can signal their future prospects by changing their structure. Adding more debt increases firm value through the markets perception of higher tax shields or lower bankruptcy costs. But optimal capital structure at a 100% debt financing are clearly incompatible with observed capital structures, so their findings initiated a considerable research effort to identify costs of debt financing that would offset the corporate tax advantage. Since bankruptcy costs exist, deteriorating returns occur with further use of debt in order to get the benefits of tax deduction. Therefore, there is an appropriate capital structure beyond which increases in bankruptcy costs are higher than the marginal tax-sheltering benefits associated with the additional substitution of debt for equity. Firms are willing to maximize their performance, and minimize their financing cost, by maintaining the appropriate capital structure or the optimal capital structure. Harris and Raviv (1991) argue that capital structure is related to the trade-off between costs of liquidation and the gain from liquidation to both shareholders and managers. So firms may have more debt in their capital structure than is suitable as it gains benefits for both shareholders and managers. Since then, extensions of the Modigliani and Miller theory have been provided by the following researches. Robichek and Myers (1966) argue that the negative effect
Page 7
of bankruptcy costs on debt to prevent firms from having the desire to obtain more debt. Jensen and Meckling (1976) emphasize the importance of the agency costs of equity in corporate finance arising from the separation of ownership and control of firms whereby managers tend to maximize their own utility rather than the value of the firms. The general result of these extensions is that the combination of leverage related costs (such as bankruptcy and agency costs) and a tax advantage of debt produces an optimal capital structure at less than a 100% debt financing, as the tax advantage is traded off against the likelihood of incurring the costs. This leads us to Jensens (1986) free cash flow theory where as stated by Jensen (1986, p. 323) the problem is how to motivate managers to disgorge the cash rather than investing it below the cost of capital or wasting it on organizational inefficiencies. In other words complete contracts cannot be written. A higher level of leverage may be used as a disciplinary device to reduce managerial cash flow waste through the threat of liquidation (Grossman and Hart, 1982) or through pressure to generate cash flows to service debt (Jensen, 1986). Titman (1984) demonstrates an idea of indirect bankruptcy costs. He argues that stakeholders did not represent at the bankruptcy bargaining table, such as customers, could suffer material costs resulting from the bankruptcy. Leland (1994) demonstrates a standard trade-off model. At the optimal capital structure, marginal bankruptcy costs associated with firms debt are equated with marginal tax benefits. The static tradeoff theory is the original retort to the theory of capital structure relevance. However, as stated in the previous literature, underestimating the bankruptcy costs of liquidation or reorganization, or the aligned interest of both managers and shareholders may lead firms to have more debt in their capital structure than they should (see, for example, Harris and Raviv, 1991). Krishnan and Moyer, (1997) find a negative and significant impact of total debt to total equity (TD/TE) on return on equity (ROE). Another study by Gleason, Mathur and Mathur, (2000) find that firm capital structure has a negative and significant impact on firm performance measures return on assets (ROA), growth in sales (Gsales), and pretax income (Ptax). Therefore, high levels of debt in the capital structure would decrease the firm performance. However, not only does a firms level of leverage affect corporate performance and failure but also its debt maturity structure (Barclay and Smith, 1995 and Ozkan, 2002). Schiantarelli and Sembenelli (1999) investigate the effects of firms debt maturity structure on profitability for Italy and the United Kingdom. They find a positive relationship between initial debt maturity and medium term performance.
Page 8
A study by Barclay and Smith (1995) provide evidence that large firms and firms with low growth rates prefer to issue long-term debt. Another study by Stohs and Mauer (1996) suggest that larger and less risky firms usually make greater use of long-term debt. They also find that debt maturity is negatively related to corporate tax, the firms risk and earnings surprises. In other words, the choice of debt structure could have an impact on both corporate performance and failure risk. Furthermore, there are other factors, besides capital structure, that may influence firm performance such as firm size, age, growth, risk, tax rate, factors specific to the sector of economic activity, and factors specific to macroeconomic environment of the country. Dilip Ratha, et al (2003) studies the relationship between corporate performance (as measured by its profit rate or earnings before interest and taxes) and corporate finance (debt/assets ratio) in developing countries. First, they find out that both profits and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization decline as a percentage of assets as firms take on more debt relative to their assets. This is similar to the finding of Harvey, Lins, and Roper (2001) that; while some debt may improve market discipline in firms, the effect may be overcome by increasing financial risks. Second, the marginal (negative) effect of an increase in leverage on earnings is larger for firms that participate in international debt markets than for other firms. However, they have not used market performance measures to study the relationship of corporate finance and corporate performance. Wei Xu, et al (2005) analyzes the relationship between corporation performance and capital structure of 1,130 listed companies in China. The results show that the firms performance has a strong negative correlation with the capital structure. It does not agree with the western empirical result for the higher debt ratio. The corporation performance has a strong quadratic or cubic correlation with the capital structure when they use the debt ratio under 100%. The performance has a positive correlation with the capital structure when the debt ratio is in the range from 24.52% to 51.13%. Allan N. Berger, et al (2006) uses a new approach to test agency theory in US banking industry and the findings are consistent with the agency costs hypothesis higher leverage or a lower equity capital ratio is associated with higher profit efficiency over almost the entire range of the observed data. And the results are statistically significant, economically significant, and robust. Margaritis and Psillaki (2007) use a sample of 12,240 firms from the 2004 New Zealand Annual Enterprise Survey to investigate the relationship between firm
Page 9
efficiency and leverage as well as the reverse causality relationship. They find evidence supporting the theoretical predictions of the Jensen and Meckling (1976) agency cost model. More precisely, they find support for the core prediction of the agency cost hypothesis in that higher leverage is associated with improved efficiency over the entire range of observed data. They use quantitative regression analysis to show that the effect of efficiency on leverage is positive at low to midleverage levels and negative at high leverage ratios. Thus their results suggest that in the upper range of the leverage distribution the income effect resulting from the economic rents generated by high efficiency dominates the substitution effect of debt for equity capital. They also show that the more efficient firms will choose higher debt ratios because higher efficiency acts as a buffer against the expected costs of bankruptcy or financial distress. The effect of tangibles and profitability on leverage is positive. Firm size has a negative effect on leverage at the lower half of the leverage distribution and a positive effect at the upper half of the distribution. The effect of intangibles and other assets is estimated to be negative. Tian & Zeitun (2007) examine the impact which capital structure has had on corporate performance in Jordan in which they controlled the effect of industrial sectors, regional risk, such as the Gulf Crisis 1990-1991 and the outbreak of Intifadah in the West Bank in September 2000. They have used a cross-sectional data representing of 167 Jordanian companies during 1989-2003. The results show that a firm capital structure has a significantly negative impact on the firm performance measures, in both the accounting and market measures. An interesting finding is that the short-term debt to total assets level has a significantly positive effect on the market performance measure (Tobins Q), which could to some extent support Myers (1977) argument that firms with high short-term debt to total assets have a high growth rate and high performance. Firm size is found to have a positive impact on a firm performance, as large firms have low bankruptcy costs. The insignificance of the market performance measure PE indicates that the Jordanian equity market is not efficient, so the best performance measure is the accounting performance measure ROA. In Vietnam, Trn Hng Sn and Trn Vit Hong (2008) test the relationship between firm capital structure and performance by using data sample of 50 nonfinancial companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange for the period September 2008. The results show that there is a positive correlation between a firm capital structure and performance. The corporation performance has a strong quadratic or cubic correlation with the capital structure when they use the debt ratio under 100%. The performance has a positive correlation with the capital structure when the debt ratio is in the range from 0.9755 to 2.799. State owned ratio has negative impact on firm
Page 10
efficiency, but firm growth, size (measured by logarithm of the firms assets) and tangibility had no significant impact on firm performance. However, they have not used market performance measures and did not explore the optimal capital structure to maximize the performance of the firm. They have not test the correlation between the distribution of debt ratio and corporate performance to each type of companies, as well as each industry.
2.3
FIRM PERFORMANCE
The concept of performance is a controversial issue in finance largely due to its multidimensional meanings. Research on firm performance emanates from organization theory and strategic management (Murphy et al., 1996). Performance measures are either financial or organizational. Financial performance such as profit maximization, maximizing profit on assets, and maximizing shareholders' benefits are at the core of the firm effectiveness (Chakravarthy, 1986). Operational performance measures, such as growth in sales and growth in market share, provide a broad definition of performance as they focus on the factors that ultimately lead to financial performance (Hoffer and Sandberg, 1987). The usefulness of a measure of performance may be affected by the objective of a firm that could affect its choice of performance measure and the development of the stock and capital market. For example, if the stock market is not highly developed and active then the market performance measures will not provide a good result. The most commonly used performance measure proxies are return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) or return on investment (ROI). These accounting measures representing the financial ratios from balance sheet and income statements have been used by many researchers (e.g., Demsetz and Lehn, 1985; Gorton and Rosen, 1995; Mehran, 1995; and Ang, Cole and Lin, 2000). However, there are other measures of performance called market performance measures, such as price per share to the earnings per share (PE) (Abdel Shahid, 2003), market value of equity to book value of equity (MBVR), and Tobins Q. Tobins Q mixes market value with accounting value and is used to measure the firm's value in many studies (e.g., Morck, Shleifer, and Vishny, 1988; McConnel and Serveas, 1990; and Zhou, 2001). The performance measure ROA is widely regarded as the most useful measure to test firm performance (Reese and Cool, 1978; Long and Ravenscraft, 1984; Abdel Shahid, 2003, among others). The stock
Page 11
market efficiency and other economic and political factors could affect a firm performance and its reliability (See Abdel Shahid, 2003). Firm performance may also affect the choice of capital structure. As Berger and Bonaccorsi di Patti (2006) point out, regressions of firm performance on leverage may confound the effects of capital structure on performance with the reverse relationship from performance on capital structure. This reverse causality effect is in essence a feature of theories considering how agency costs (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Myers, 1977; and Harris and Raviv, 1990); corporate control issues (Harris and Raviv, 1988); and in particular, asymmetric information (Myers and Majluf, 1984; Myers, 1984) and taxation (DeAngelo and Masulis, 1980; and Bradley et al., 1984) are likely to affect the value of the firm.
2.4
HYPOTHESIS AND EMPIRICAL MODEL 2.4.1. Model 1: The Leverage Model
Profitability (PROF) is used to measure firm performance to test the impact of firm performance on firm capital structure. Profitability is calculated by pre-interest and pre-tax operating surplus plus depreciation divided by total assets. There are conflicting theoretical predictions on the effects of profitability on leverage (Harris and Raviv, 1991; Rajan and Zingales, 1995; Barclay and Smith, 2001; and Booth et al., 2001). Myers and Majluf (1984) predict a negative relationship because they argue that firms will prefer to finance new investments with internal funds rather than debt. According to their pecking order theory, because of signaling and asymmetric information problems, firms financing choices follow a hierarchy in which internal cash flows (retained earnings) are preferred over external funds, and debt is preferred over equity financing. Thus, they argue, we should expect a negative relationship between past profitability and leverage. On the other hand, using arguments based on the trade-off and contracting cost theories we can predict a positive relation between profitability and leverage. For example, the trade-off theory suggests that the optimal capital structure for any particular firm will reflect the balance (at the margin) between the tax shield benefits of debt and the increasing agency and financial distress costs associated with high debt levels (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Myers, 1977; and Harris and Raviv, 1990). Similarly, Jensen (1986) argue that if the market for corporate control is effective and forces firms to pay out cash by levering up, then there will be a positive correlation between profitability and leverage. Thus, the hypothesis 1 is:
Page 12
H1: The firm profitability has a positive correlation with firm capital structure. Growth opportunities (GROWTH) are likely to put a strain on retained earnings and push the firm into borrowing (Michaelas et al., 1999). On the other hand, Myers (1977) argues that firms with growth potential will tend to have lower leverage. He argues that growth opportunities can produce moral hazard effects and can push firms to take more risk. This may explain why firms with ample growth opportunities may be considered as risky and thus face difficulties in raising debt capital on favorable terms. Thus, hypothesis 2 can be stated as follows: H2: Growth opportunities decrease firm leverage. Firm size (SIZE) is measured by the logarithm of the firms sales (Titman and Wessels, 1988; Rajan and Zingales, 1995; and Ozkan, 2001). As larger firms are more diversified and tend to fail less often than smaller ones, I would expect that size will be positively related to leverage. However, Rajan and Zingales (1995) discuss the possibility that size may also be negatively correlated with leverage. They argue that size may act as a proxy for the information outside investors have, and that informational asymmetries are lower for large firms which implies that large firms should be in a better position to issue informational sensitive securities such as equity rather than debt. Thus, hypothesis 3 can be stated as: H3: Firm size is expected to have a positive influence on a firm capital structure. Asset Tangibility (TA) is measured by the ratio of fixed tangible to total assets (Titman and Wessels, 1988; Rajan and Zingales, 1995; Frank and Goyal, 2003; and Hall et al., 2004). The existence of asymmetric information and agency costs may induce lenders to require guarantees materialized in collateral (Myers, 1977; Scott, 1977; and Harris and Raviv, 1990). For example, if a firm retains large investments in land, equipment and other tangible assets, it will normally face smaller funding costs compared to a firm that relies primarily on intangible assets. Moreover, Berger and Udell (1994) show that firms with close relationship with creditors need to provide less collateral. They argue this is because the relationship (and more informed monitoring by creditors) substitutes for physical collateral. If so, I should find tangibility mattering less in the bank oriented countries. Thus, I would expect that tangibility should be positively related to debt. And, hypothesis 4 is: H4: Asset Tangibility is expected to be positively related to corporate leverage. I use the basic ordinary least squares regression model to test the hypotheses that a firm profitability, growth opportunities, size, asset tangibility influence its capital structure for my data. The empirical models to be estimated as follows:
Page 13
Model 1:
y i = 0 + 1 PROF i + 2 Growth i + 3 Size i + 4 TA i + u i
Where i refers to the individual companies, and y is leverage for firm i. The independent variables are represented by Prof, Growth, Size and TA. Four measures of leverage are used in the study: total debt to total assets (TDTA), total debt to total equity (TDTE), long-term debt to total assets (LTDTA), short-term debt to total assets (STDTA). Based on the hypotheses, the author presents the leverage model (Figure 1): Dependent variable: Firm Capital Structure is alternatively measured by total debt to total assets (TDTA), total debt to total equity (TDTE), longterm debt to total assets (LTDTA), short-term debt to total assets (STDTA). Independent variables: Firm Profitability, Firm Growth, Firm Size, Firm Asset Tangibility.
Figure 1: The Leverage Model
Firm Profitability (PROF)
H1
Firm Growth (Growth)
H2
Firm Leverage
H3
Firm Size (Size)
(TDTA, TDTE, STDTA, LTDTA)
H4
Firm Asset Tangibility (TA)
Page 14
2.4.2.
Model 2: The Firm Value Model
A firm performance could be affected by the capital structure choice and by the structure of debt maturity. Debt maturity affects a firm investment options. Also, the tax rate is expected to have an impact on a firm performance. So, investigating the impact of capital structure variables on a firm performance will provide evidence of the effect of capital structure on firm performance. The author uses two measures of corporate market performance, known as firm value: market value of equity plus book value of debt to the book value of assets (Tobins Q), and price per share to the earnings per share (PE). Tobins Q has been used as a major indicator of firm performance. Even Tobins Q, as agreed by many researchers, is a noisy signal. Because of the limitations of Tobins Q, other performance measures, PE is employed as supplementary measures. Using market measures of performance may shed light on the stock market activity and if there is other factors that may affect corporate performance. If capital structure does affect a firm performance and value, then a strong correlation between the firm performance and capital structure would be found. So, I argue that a firm debt ratio affects its performance and value negatively. Furthermore, it has been argued that short-term debt influences a firm performance negatively, because short-term debt exposes firms to the risk of refinancing. It is expected that the debt maturity ratios (short-term debt and long-term debt) will have a significant impact on corporate performance because of the banking credit policy. Thus, the hypothesis is: H5: A firm capital structure does influence its market performance. Myers (1977) argues that firms with high growth opportunities have high agency costs of debt and will be able to borrow less. In contrast, the pecking order theory suggests that high growth firms have a greater need for funds and therefore can be expected to borrow more. Wei Xu (2005) shows that there is a strong positive correlation between growth and return on equity (ROE). So, it is expected that firms with high growth opportunities have a high value, as growth firms are able to generate profit from investment. Growth opportunities are expected to positively affect a firm market performance. Thus, hypothesis 6 can be stated as follows: H6: Growth opportunities increase firm market performance. A firm size is measured by log of sales (SIZE). The firm size is hypothesized to be positively related to the firm performance, as bankruptcy costs decrease with size.
Page 15
Thus, a firm size is expected to have a positive influence on a firm performance, because potential bankruptcy costs make up a smaller proportion of value for larger firms. In addition, there are economies of scale in transactions costs associated with long-term debt that are not available to smaller firms. Gleason, among others, finds that firm size has a positive and significant effect on firm performance (ROA). Tian & Zeitun (2007) find that firm size has a positive and significant impact on firm performance ROA, PROF, and Tobins Q. In contrast, many other researchers such as Mudambi and Nicosia (1998), Lauterbach and Vaninsky (1999), Durand and Coeuderoy (2001), and Tzelepis and Skuras (2004) have found an insignificant effect of firm size on the firm performance. Based on this discussion, hypothesis 7 can be stated as: H7: A firm size is expected to have a positive influence on a firm market performance. I use the basic ordinary least squares regression model to test the hypotheses that a firm capital structures influence its market performance for my data. The empirical models to be estimated as follows:
Model 2:
y i = 0 + 1 Leverage i + 2 Growth i + 3 Size i + u i
Where i refers to the individual companies, y is alternatively Tobins Q, PE, for firm i as a measure of market performance. The independent variables are represented by Leverage, Growth and Size. Four measures of leverage are used in the study: total debt to total assets (TDTA), total debt to total equity (TDTE), longterm debt to total assets (LTDTA), short-term debt to total assets (STDTA). I use more than one proxy for leverage as different hypotheses for leverage were developed to investigate their effect on corporate value. For example, the STDTA and LTDTA are used to investigate the effect of short-term and long-term debt on a firm performance. The proxy of TDTE was used in the study to validate the result. Based on the hypotheses, the author presents the empirical model (Figure 2): Dependent variable: Firm Value is alternatively measured by Tobins Q, PE. Independent variables: Firm Leverage, Firm Growth, Firm Size.
Page 16
Figure 2: The Firm Value Model
Firm Leverage (Leverage)
H5 H6 H7
Firm Value (Tobins Q, PE)
Firm Growth (Growth)
Firm Size (Size)
Page 17
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1
INTRODUCTION
Based on the research objectives and scope, research methodology concerned in chapter 1, and literature review and empirical model presented in chapter 2, this chapter particularly presents the research methodology, data, research design and research process.
3.2
DATA
As mentioned in the chapter 1, the author was interested in examining the relationship between firm profitability, size, growth opportunities, asset tangibility and capital structure, as well as exploring the effect of capital structure on corporate market performance of listed firms in Hochiminh Stock Exchange. This study used the accounting and market data of 171 listed companies in the Hochiminh Stock Exchange (HOSE) for the period 2008. The data set contained detailed information of each firm. The items of interest were: balance sheets, income statements, interest paid, depreciation, and market valuation. By law, the full financial statements were available from firms. This data set was collected from Vietnam Financial Information Company website (www.vinabull.com)
3.3
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study was a quantitative research based on ordinary least square regression model to estimate the relationship between firm profitability, size, growth opportunities, asset tangibility and capital structure, and the effect of capital structure on corporate market performance. The research process was presented as figure 3:
Page 18
Figure 3: Research Process
Literature Review
(Capital Structure, Firm Performance, Hypotheses, Model)
Colleting financial statement of 171 companies in HOSE (n=171)
Test the regression model (Adjust the sample to n=162)
Quantitative research: Sample size: 162 Calculating the data set from the financial statement. Encode and input the data set Descriptive Statistics Regression Analysis
Writing the report
3.3.1. Research Sample As mentioned in the Chapter 1, I was interested in examining the relationship between firm profitability, size, growth opportunities, asset tangibility and capital structure, as well as explore the effect of capital structure on corporate market performance of listed firms in Hochiminh Stock Exchange.
Page 19
The author used a sample of 171 companies listed in Hochiminh Stock Exchange from the 2008 Annual Enterprise Financial Statements. The financial statements, which I needed for the study, contained: balance sheets and income statement. I also collected the market valuation of these companies stock in HOSE on 31 December 2008, in order to measure Tobins Q and price per share to the earnings per share (PE) of corporate market value performance. After collecting the data set, the author excluded 7 financial companies, such as banks, insurance firms, funds and financial firms, in this analysis as their characteristics are different. Two manufacturing corporations, Bach Tuyet Cotton Corporation (BBT) and Tribeco Saigon Beverages Joint Stock Company (TRI), were also excluded from the data set. Bach Tuyet Cotton Corporation had failed to deliver its statement for 2008, while the equity of Tribeco Saigon Beverages Joint Stock Company was negative in its balance sheets due to its bad business in 2008. Consequently, the final data set included 162 listed companies in HOSE.
3.3.2. Data Analysis Method After having the final data set, I used formulas that are defined in the Appendix A to calculate the explanatory variables. Subsequently, I encoded and input data by Eviews 6 for Windows.
3.4
VARIABLES MEASUREMENT FOR MODEL 1 3.4.1. Dependent Variables
I used total debt to total assets (TDTA), total debt to total equity (TDTE), longterm debt to total assets (LTDTA), short-term debt to total assets (STDTA) as proxies for firm leverage. These proxies could be easily collected from the balance sheet. These measures were used by Zeitun and Tian (2007). Table 1: Dependent variables for model 1 Firms Capital Structure Total Debt to Total Assets Total Debt to Total Equity Long-term Debt to Total Assets Short-term Debt to Total Assets Symbol TDTA TDTE LTDTA STDTA
Page 20
3.4.2. Independent Variables Profitability was measured by pre-interest and pre-tax operating surplus plus depreciation divided by total assets. Profitability was used by many researchers (Titman and Wessels, 1988; and Fama and French, 2002; Margaritis and Psillaki, 2007). Growth opportunities were measured by growth of assets and were defined by book value of total assets minus book value of equity plus market value of equity divided by the book value of total assets. Growth opportunities were presented by Myers (1977) and were used by many researchers (e.g., Zeitun and Tian, 2007, Wei Xu, 2005, Margaritis and Psillaki, 2007). Firm size was defined by log of sales. These measures were used by many researchers (e.g., Mudambi and Nicosia, 1998, Lauterbach and Vaninsky, 1999, Durand and Coeuderoy, 2001, Tzelepis and Skuras, 2004). Asset Tangibility was defined by the ratio of fixed tangible assets to total assets. These measures were used by many researchers (e.g., Titman and Wessels, 1988, Rajan and Zingales, 1995, Frank and Goyal, 2003, Hall et al., 2004). Table 2: Independent variables for model 1 Independent Variables Firm performance was defined by Profitability Growth Opportunities Firm Size Asset Tangibility 3.5 VARIABLES MEASUREMENT FOR MODEL 2 3.5.1. Dependent Variables In order to investigate whether the market performance measures were explained by capital structure, I used market value of equity plus book value of debt to the book value of assets (Tobins Q), and price per share to the earnings per share (PE) as proxies for firm value. These measures were used to measure firm value in many studies (e.g., Morck, Shleifer, and Vishny, 1988, McConnel and Serveas, 1990, and Zhou, 2001). Symbol PROF GROWTH SIZE TA
Page 21
Table 3: Dependent variables for model 2 Firms Performance Market value of equity plus book value of debt to the book value of assets Price per share to the earnings per share 3.5.2. Independent Variables I used total debt to total assets (TDTA), total debt to total equity (TDTE), longterm debt to total assets (LTDTA), short-term debt to total assets (STDTA) as proxies for firm leverage. Others independent variables such as firm size (SIZE) and growth opportunities (GROWTH) were the same as independent variables in Model 1. Table 4: Independent variables for model 2 Independent Variables Total Debt to Total Assets Total Debt to Total Equity Long-term Debt to Total Assets Short-term Debt to Total Assets Growth Opportunities Firm Size Symbol TDTA TDTE LTDTA STDTA GROWTH SIZE Symbol TOBIN PE
Page 22
3.6
FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
The framework of the study was presented as figure 4: Figure 4: Framework of the study
INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH PROBLEM
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
LITERATURE REVIEW
HYPOTHESES
EMPIRICAL MODEL
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Page 23
3.7
SUMMARY
The study was done by quantitative research method with sample size 162. The object of the study was all companies listed on Hochiminh Stock Exchange for the period 2008. The performance factors were measured by market value of equity plus book value of debt to the book value of assets (Tobins Q) and price per share to the earnings per share (PE). The leverage factors were measured by total debt to total assets (TDTA), total debt to total equity (TDTE), long-term debt to total assets (LTDTA), short-term debt to total assets (STDTA). The author also used other variables to investigate their effect on corporate performance and corporate capital structure: firm growth opportunities (GROWTH), firm size (SIZE) and asset tangibility (TA).
Page 24
CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
4.1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 4 presents the characteristics of research samples and measures concepts of the research. The author used descriptive statistics to explore the features of explanatory variables, as well the relationship between each variables in two models. Furthermore, the author used regression analysis to explore the relationship between the capital structure and market performance of listed companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange.
4.2
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH SAMPLES
The research samples included 162 listed companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange. In these 162 samples, there were 05 companies in Travel & Leisure Sector; 01 company in Tobacco Sector; 02 companies in Technology Hardware & Equipment Sector; 01 company in Software & Computer Services Sector; 07 companies in Real Estate Sector; 06 companies in Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Sector; 04 companies in Personal Goods; 01 company in Oil Equipment Services & Distribution; 03 companies in Mining Sector; 01 company in Media Sector; 01 Companies in Leisure Goods Sector; 18 companies in Industrial Transportation Sector; 03 companies in Industrial Metals Sector; 02 companies in Industrial Engineering Sector; 09 companies in Household Goods Sector; 11 companies in General Retailers Sector; 09 companies in General Industrials Sector; 05 companies in Gas, Water & Multi-utilities Sector; 02 companies in Forest & Paper Sector; 27 companies in Food Producers Sector, 05 companies in Electronic & Electrical Equipment Sector; 05 companies in Electricity Sector; 06 companies in Chemicals Sector; 26 companies in Construction & Materials Sector; 01 company in Beverages Sector; 01 company in Automobiles & Parts Sector. In these samples, the Food Producers Sector gains the highest ratio: 16.7%; next is Construction & Materials Sector: 16% (See more in Appendix C).
Page 25
4.3
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Table 5: Summary Statistics of the Explanatory Variables

Variable TDTA TDTE LTDTA STDTA TOBIN PE PROF GROWTH SIZE TA Mean 0.432888 1.246424 0.104263 0.328623 1.205579 24.30095 14.08572 1.077432 26.91065 0.229886 Median 0.450650 0.834100 0.031900 0.310200 1.002500 6.662800 11.94895 0.931100 26.88145 0.168400 Max 0.866500 6.489800 0.693000 0.855300 5.381400 1,128.516 103.0916 4.549500 30.43010 0.987000 Min 0.030900 0.031900 0.000000 0.028100 0.213100 -436.7769 -14.98230 0.429800 24.11910 0.001100 Std. Dev. 0.224362 1.364461 0.153879 0.196542 0.783774 112.3259 12.46333 0.609185 1.186553 0.206125 Skewness -0.001167 2.040727 1.914029 0.514847 2.676495 6.403847 2.626848 3.334689 0.178563 1.459111 Kurtosis 1.928074 7.184002 5.994398 2.454419 13.36807 63.90002 18.86718 16.53316 2.945791 5.160072 JarqueBera 7.755954 230.6079 159.4380 9.166013 919.0215 26,141.73 1,885.738 1,536.483 0.880720 88.97803 Probability 0.020693 0.000000 0.000000 0.010224 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.643805 0.000000
Note: TDTA = total debt to total assets; TDTE = total debt to total equity; LTDTA = long-term debt to total assets; STDTA = short-tern debt to total assets; TOBIN = equity market value + liabilities book value / equity book value + liabilities book value; PE = market price of common stock / earnings per share; PROF = ebit + depreciation / total assets; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales); TA= fixed tangible assets / total assets.
Table 5 reported summary statistics for the variables used in the study. The total debt to total assets (TDTA) for the sample as a whole was 43.28%, minimum was 3.09%, maximum was 86.65% and standard deviation of TDTA was 22.43%. This ratio was lower than the average TDTA ratio of East Asia companies (54%) and nearly equalled to the average TDTA ratio of Latin America companies (45%) (Dilip Ratha, et al, 2003 2). The average TDTA ratio of Chinese companies on Shenzhen listed market and Shanghai listed market is 49.83% (Wei Xu, et al, 2005) 3 is slightly higher than Vietnamese companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange. If we compared to the international data in Rajan and Zingales (1995) 4, Vietnamese companies can be regarded as relatively high in term of TDTA (i.e., 43% versus 31% (United States); 35% (Japan); 20% (Germany); 26% (France); 28% (Italy); 21% (United Kingdom); 36% (Canada)). The average total debt to total equity (TDTE) was about 124.64%, minimum was 3.19%, maximum was 648.98% and standard deviation of TDTE was 136.44%. If we compared to the international data in Rajan and Zingales (1995) 5, Vietnamese companies could be regarded as lower than G7 countries in term of TDTE (i.e., 125% versus 194% (United States); 201% (Japan); 257% (Germany); 220% (France); 206% (Italy); 136% (United Kingdom); 151% (Canada)).
2 3
Figure 5.6, p.112 Table 1, row Debt (average), p.51 4 Table III, Panel A, column Debt to total assets (means), p.40 5 Table II, calculated by liabilities - total divide shareholders equity, p.39
Page 26
The average long-term debt to total assets (LTDTA) was 10.42%, minimum was 0.00%, maximum was 69.30% and standard deviation was 15.38%. This ratio was higher than the average LTDTA ratio of Chinese companies (6.62%) (Wei Xu, et al, 2005) 6. The average short-term debt to total assets (STDTA) was about 32.86%, minimum was 2.81%, maximum was 85.53% and standard deviation of STDTA was 19.65%. The average STDTA of Vietnamese companies was lower than the average STDTA ratio of Chinese companies (43.21%) (Wei Xu, et al, 2005) 7. If we compared to the G7 countries data in Rajan and Zingales (1995), ratio of Vietnamese companies LTDTA was relatively low 8 (i.e., 10.42% versus 33% (United States); 25% (Japan and France); 42% (Germany); 24% (Italy); 18% (United Kingdom); 37.2% (Canada)). In term of STDTA (32.86%), the STDTA of Vietnamese companies was similar to United States (33%), slightly higher than Germany (30%), relatively higher than Canada (23%), and lower than the rest of countries (i.e., 42% (Japan); 43% (France and Italy); 40% (United Kingdom)). The descriptive data of leverage indicated that Vietnamese companies in Hochiminh Stock Exchange reply on short-term debt than long-term debt as the main source of fund for their business operations. Since stock markets, bond markets and Mutual Funds markets was undeveloped, commercial banking systems play an important role in providing lending to Vietnamese firms. The average value of Tobins Q was 1.2, minimum was 0.21, maximum was 5.38 and standard deviation was 0.78. This market performance measure was lower than the average Tobins Q of Jordanian companies on Amman Stock Exchange (Tian & Zeitun, 2007) 9. The average value of PE was about 24.3, minimum was -436.77, maximum was 1128.51 and standard deviation was 112.32. Compared to Jordanian companies of Tian & Zeitun (2007) 10, PE of Vietnamese companies was slightly higher (i.e., 24.3 versus 21.25).
6 7
Table 1, row Ldebt (average), p.51 Table 1, calculated by minus average debt to average ldebt, p.51 8 Table II, calculated by average liabilities - total minus average current liabilities total, p.39 9 Table 1, row Tobins Q (mean), p.48 10 Table 1, row PE (mean), p.48
Page 27
Table 6: Correlation Matrix of the Explanatory Variables for Model 1 PROF PROF GROWTH SIZE TA 1 0.461739 -0.071749 0.136078 GROWTH 1 -0.002035 0.102802 SIZE TA
1 -0.114289
Note: PROF = ebit + depreciation / total assets; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales); TA= fixed tangible assets / total assets.
Table 7: Correlation Matrix of the Explanatory Variables for Model 2 TDTA TDTA TDTE LTDTA STDTA GROWTH SIZE 1 0.845076 0.512491 0.740290 -0.063144 0.261731 TDTE 1 0.480281 0.588665 0.044704 0.196178 LTDTA STDTA GROWTH SIZE
1 -0.197898 0.060870 0.036044
1 -0.119728 0.270581
1 -0.002035
Note: TDTA = total debt to total assets; TDTE = total debt to total equity; LTDTA = long-term debt to total assets; STDTA = short-tern debt to total assets; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales); TA= fixed tangible assets / total assets.
The correlation matrix for the variables in the reported in Table 6 in order to examine the correlation between the explanatory variables for model 1. The results show that there was a positive relationship between growth and profitability, growth and asset tangibility, except size, which was negative, while size had a negative relationship with profitability and asset tangibility. This implied that companies with high growth opportunities had higher profitability ratio, but companies with smaller size in sales had higher profitability for the period 2008. It also implied that small firms had high growth opportunity which was consistent with Myers (1977). This result was similar to the result of Tian & Zeitun (2007) research. The correlation matrix for the variables in the reported in Table 7 in order to examine the correlation between the explanatory variables for model 2. The results showed that there was a positive relationship between growth and TDTE, growth and LTDTA, while TDTA and STDTA had a negative relationship with growth. Firm size had a positive relationship with all leverage ratios. This implied that Vietnamese companies with high growth opportunities generally use more longterm debt and use less short-term debt for financing. It is also implied that larger companies in sales tend to have higher leverage ratio than smaller ones.
Page 28
4.4
REGRESSION ANALYSIS 4.4.1. Model 1: The Leverage Model
Table 8: Estimate Results for Model 1 TDTA Constant PROF t-Statistic Prob. GROWTH t-Statistic Prob. SIZE t-Statistic Prob. TA t-Statistic Prob. No. Observations R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob (F-statistic) Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. Durbin-Watson stat -0.873102 -0.005438 -3.640823 0.0004 0.022092 0.726986 0.4683 0.048965 3.512934 0.0006 0.17883 2.212831 0.0284 162 0.162133 0.140786 0.207970 6.790464 27.07020 7.595122 0.000013 0.432888 0.224362 -0.272472 -0.177175 -0.233780 1.964366 TDTE -4.622503 -0.036765 -3.985310 0.0001 0.421161 2.244020 0.0262 0.213809 2.483681 0.0141 0.779893 1.562532 0.1202 162 0.135869 0.113853 1.284441 259.016600 -267.8810 6.171335 0.000123 1.246424 1.364461 3.368901 3.464198 3.407593 1.876261 LTDTA -0.241070 -0.002539 -2.623803 0.0096 0.026783 1.360481 0.1756 0.009991 1.106431 0.2702 0.362726 6.928428 0.0000 162 0.252491 0.233446 0.134726 2.849721 97.40235 13.25770 0.000000 0.104263 0.153879 -1.140770 -1.045474 -1.102078 1.955806 STDTA -0.632159 -0.002899 -2.207294 0.0287 -0.004691 -0.175562 0.8609 0.038979 3.180438 0.0018 -0.183887 -2.587811 0.0106 162 0.155863 0.134356 0.182863 5.249888 47.91251 7.247170 0.000022 0.328623 0.196542 -0.529784 -0.434488 -0.491092 2.203875
Note TDTA = total debt to total assets; TDTE = total debt to total equity; LTDTA = long-term debt to total assets; STDTA = short-tern debt to total assets; PROF = ebit + depreciation / total assets; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales); TA= fixed tangible assets / total assets.
Page 29
The results of the estimation of model 1 with each of the leverage measures and for the full sample of observations for the period 2008 were displayed in Table 8. From Hypothesis 1, the firm profitability has a positive correlation with firm capital structure. Four capital structure variables were used, TDTA, TDTE, LTDTA, and STDTA. From the regression results in Table 8, the coefficient of profitability variable was negatively and significantly related to those variables. This result was contrary to the predictions of trade-off theory but consistent with the pecking order theory. According to this theory, companies prioritized their sources of financing (from internal financing to equity) according to the law of least effort, or of least resistance, preferring to raise equity as a financing means of last resort. Hence, internal funds were used first, and when that was depleted, debt was issued, and when it was not sensible to issue any more debt, equity was issued. Jensen (1986) predicted that if the market of corporate control was effective, the relationship between profitability and leverage was positive. If it was ineffective, however, managers of profitable firms prefer to avoid the disciplinary role of debt, which would lead to a negative correlation between profitability and debt. Finally, the result indicated that corporate control of Vietnamese firms was ineffective, and the profitability was negatively correlated with leverage. If in the short run, dividends and investments were fixed, and if debt financing was the dominant mode of external financing, then changed in profitability would be negatively correlated with changes in leverage. Therefore, based on the result, I rejected the Hypothesis 1: the firm profitability has a positive correlation with firm capital structure. Hypothesis 2 predicts that growth opportunities decrease firm leverage. From the regression results in Table 8, the coefficient of growth opportunities was negatively and insignificantly related to STDTA. However, growth opportunities was positively and significantly correlation with TDTE, while the coefficient of growth opportunities was found to be positively related to TDTA and LTDTA, but statistically insignificant. These findings were inconsistent with the Myers (1977) and predicted that Vietnamese firms with expected growth opportunities would maintain low short-term debt levels, but the growth opportunities also put pressure on retained earnings and pushed Vietnamese firms into borrowing long-term debt. According to the result above, I rejected the Hypothesis 2: growth opportunities decrease firm leverage. From Hypothesis 3, the firm size is expected to have a positive influence on a firm capital structure. From the regression results in Table 8, Size was found to have a positive and significant effect on the leverage measures TDTA, TDTE, STDTA, but was not significantly related to LTDTA leverage measure. An explanation for the positive effect of size on leverage was provided by Rajan and Zingales (1995) that larger firms were better diversified and had a lower probability of being in financial distress or safeguard against the expected costs of bankruptcy. Lower expected bankruptcy costs enabled them to take on more leverage. Size might be a
Page 30
proxy for the (inverse) probability of default. If so, it should not be strongly positively related with leverage in countries, where costs of financial distress were low. The results indicated that the financial distress costs of Vietnamese companies in HOSE were low and Vietnamese companies with higher sizes of sales would use more debt to finance their operating. Therefore, based on the result, I accepted the Hypothesis 3: the firm size is expected to have a positive influence on a firm capital structure. Hypothesis 4 predicted that asset tangibility is expected to be positively related to corporate leverage. From the regression results in Table 8, the coefficient of assets tangibility was negative and significantly related to STDTA. This result showed that if firm tangible assets were large, the ratio of short-term debt to total assets would be lower. However, the asset tangibility had positive and significant impact on TDTA and LTDTA, but was insignificantly related to TDTE. This findings was consistent with Rajan and Zingales (1995), Margaritis and Psillaki (2007). They argued that if a large fraction of a firm's assets are tangible, then assets should serve as collateral, diminishing the risk of the lender suffering the agency costs of debt (like risk shifting). They should also retain more value in liquidation. Therefore, the greater the proportion of tangible assets on the balance sheet (fixed assets divided by total assets), the more willing should lenders be to supply loans, and leverage should be higher. So, the result of regression model showed that Vietnamese companies had high ratio of fixed assets to total assets would use more long-term debt as a main source of financing. Therefore, based on the result, I accepted the Hypothesis 4: asset tangibility is expected to be positively related to corporate leverage. To summarize, the firm profitability was a significant determinant of firm capital structure. This finding supported the argument that firm profitability decrease firm leverage level. Another important finding was that firm size had a positive and significant impact on the leverage measures TDTA, TDTE, STDTA. Furthermore, the firm asset tangibility increased the firm leverage level. The regression results also showed that growth opportunities had significant impact only on Vietnamese firm total debt to total equity.
Page 31
4.4.2. Model 2: The Firm Value Model Table 9: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using TDTA TOBIN Constant TDTA t-Statistic Prob. GROWTH t-Statistic Prob. SIZE t-Statistic Prob. No. Observations R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob (F-statistic) Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. Durbin-Watson stat 1.020104 -2.011764 -281.7428 0.0000 1.005241 396.0540 0.0000 -0.000993 -0.737274 0.4620 162 0.999388 0.999376 0.019578 0.060559 409.3622 85960.14 0.000000 1.205579 0.783774 -5.004471 -4.928234 -4.973518 2.209864 PE 136.8876 26.45088 0.641030 0.5224 4.676144 0.318812 0.7503 -4.796432 -0.615972 0.5388 162 0.004436 -0.014467 113.1355 2022342 -993.8739 0.234694 0.872090 24.30095 112.3259 12.31943 12.39567 12.35038 2.063560
Note: TOBIN = equity market value + liabilities book value / equity book value + liabilities book value; PE = market price of common stock / earnings per share; TDTA = total debt to total assets; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales).
Page 32
Table 10: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using TDTE TOBIN 1.421871 -0.27458 -19.7284 0.0000 1.07937 35.3104 0.0000 -0.038535 -2.410103 0.0171 162 0.911000 0.909311 0.236031 8.802281 6.051375 539.0962 0.000000 1.205579 0.783774 -0.025326 0.050911 0.005628 1.977042 PE 98.07088 -3.183458 -0.476915 0.6341 4.387799 0.299294 0.7651 -2.769519 -0.361165 0.7185 162 0.003282 -0.015643 113.2010 2024687 -993.9677 0.173423 0.914242 24.30095 112.3259 12.32059 12.39683 12.35154 2.062094
Constant TDTE t-Statistic Prob. GROWTH t-Statistic Prob. SIZE t-Statistic Prob. No. Observations R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob (F-statistic) Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. Durbin-Watson stat
Note: TOBIN = equity market value + liabilities book value / equity book value + liabilities book value; PE = market price of common stock / earnings per share; TDTE = total debt to total equity; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales).
Page 33
Table 11: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using LTDTA TOBIN 2.719633 -1.494015 -7.794511 0.0000 1.074631 22.2098 0.0000 -0.093499 -3.768377 0.0002 162 0.777369 0.773142 0.373308 22.01873 -68.21609 183.8985 0.000000 1.205579 0.783774 0.891557 0.967794 0.922510 2.157704 PE 113.9763 4.96757 0.085407 0.9320 3.989722 0.271733 0.7862 -3.511319 -0.466371 0.6416 162 0.001893 -0.017058 113.2799 2027508 -994.0805 0.099903 0.959959 24.30095 112.3259 12.32198 12.39822 12.35293 2.058518
Constant LTDTA t-Statistic Prob. GROWTH t-Statistic Prob. SIZE t-Statistic Prob. No. Observations R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob (F-statistic) Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. Durbin-Watson stat
Note: TOBIN = equity market value + liabilities book value / equity book value + liabilities book value; PE = market price of common stock / earnings per share; LTDTA = long-term debt to total assets; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales).
Page 34
Table 12: Estimate Results for Model 2 Using STDTA TOBIN 1.386044 -1.666116 -12.99965 0.0000 0.987569 24.80830 0.0000 -0.0259 -1.228819 0.2210 162 0.851062 0.848234 0.305336 14.73036 -35.65551 300.9475 0.000000 1.205579 0.783774 0.489574 0.565811 0.520527 1.967021 PE 140.2637 31.71192 0.667846 0.5052 5.285529 0.358382 0.7205 -4.908051 -0.628534 0.5306 162 0.004657 -0.014242 113.1229 2021894 -993.8559 0.246415 0.863794 24.30095 112.3259 12.31921 12.39545 12.35016 2.073206
Constant STDTA t-Statistic Prob. GROWTH t-Statistic Prob. SIZE t-Statistic Prob. No. Observations R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob (F-statistic) Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. Durbin-Watson stat
Note: TOBIN = equity market value + liabilities book value / equity book value + liabilities book value; PE = market price of common stock / earnings per share; STDTA = short-tern debt to total assets; GROWTH = total assets - book value of equity + market value of equity / total assets; SIZE = ln(sales).
The results of the estimation of model 2 with each of the leverage measures and for the full sample of observations for the period 2008 were displayed from Table 9 to Table 12. From regression results in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, the coefficient of TDTE was insignificantly and negatively related to price per share to earnings per share (PE), while coefficient of TDTA, LTDTA, STDTA were insignificantly and positively related to PE. And the R-squared value of the model 2 using TDTA, TDTE, LTDTA, STDTA to test the relationship between capital structure and PE were 0.44%, 0.33%, 0.19%, 0.46%, respectively and the Adjusted R-squared value
Page 35
of the model 2 using TDTA, TDTE, LTDTA, STDTA were -1.45%, -1.56%, -1.70%, -1.42%, respectively. The low R-squared and adjusted R-squared value showed that PE variable was not suitable to measure the relationship between capital structure and firm market performance in Vietnam. Hence, I excluded the regression model using PE from the analysis. The reason for the insignificance of PE could be that the share price did not reflect the actual situation for the firm. There might be other factors affecting a firm market performance other than the variable used in the study. Another reason could be that most investors still depended on the accounting measure of performance rather than the PE measure due to the investor favored payment of dividends or the inactivity of the stock market. Furthermore, including some firms in our sample that had negative PE affects the validity of the PE as a measure of performance. The results of the estimation of the model 2 made the Tobins Q the most powerful measures of performance in Vietnamese firm case, because the R-squared value of model 2 using TDTA, TDTE, LTDTA, STDTA to test the relationship between capital structure and Tobins Q were 99.93%, 91.1%, 77.73%, 85.10%, respectively. Therefore, my discussion would concentrate on this measure of market performance. Hypothesis 5 predicted that a firm capital structure does influence its market performance. From the regression results in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12, as expected the coefficient of TDTA, TDTE, LTDTA, STDTA, were significantly and negatively related to the market performance measure Tobins Q. For example, the LTDTA was significantly and negatively related to Tobins Q. This result showed that higher long-term debt lead to lower Tobins Q. Furthermore, it might provide support for the proposition that due to agency conflicts, companies over-leveraged themselves, thus affecting their performance negatively. My results were consistent with the findings of previous study such as Krishnan and Moyer (1997), Tian & Zeitun (2007). The negative and significant coefficient of LTDTA did not support Brick and Ravids (1985) argument that long-term debt increased a firm value, which could be due to the low ratio of longterm debt in the capital structure of Vietnamese companies. According to the results, I accepted the Hypothesis 5: A firm capital structure does influence its market performance. From Hypothesis 6, growth opportunities increase firm market performance. From the regression results from Table 9 to Table 12, Growth was found to have a positive and significant effect on the market performance measure Tobins Q. The high growth rates were associated with the lower cost of capital and high firm value Tobins Q. This finding was not consistent with Myers (1977), but supports the pecking order theory that high growth firms had a greater need for funds and therefore could be expected to borrow more. According to the result, I accepted the
Page 36
hypotheses that growth opportunities increase firm market performance (Tobins Q). Hypothesis 7 predicted that a firm size is expected to have a positive influence on a firm market performance. From the regression results from Table 9 to Table 12, the coefficient of firm size was significantly and negatively related with Tobins Q for model 2 using TDTE and LTDTA. The significant of firm size indicated that large firm had lower market value compared to smaller firm. This result was inconsistent with previous findings of Gleason, Mathur, and Mathur (2000) and Tian & Zeitun (2007). However, the coefficient of firm size was insignificantly and negatively related with Tobins Q for model 2 using TDTA and STDTA. The insignificant effect of firm size on firm market value was consistent with previous studies of many researchers such as Mudambi and Nicosia (1998), Lauterbach and Vaninsky (1999), Durand and Coeuderoy (2001), and Tzelepis and Skuras (2004). Based on the regression results, I rejected the Hypotheses that a firm size is expected to have a positive influence on a firm market performance. To summarize, the firm capital structure was a significant determinant of firm market performance. A firm leverage had negative and significant effect on firm value Tobins Q. The insignificance of the market performance measure PE indicated that the Vietnamese equity market was not efficient, so the best market performance measure was Tobins Q. Firm growth opportunities had a positive and significant impact on the firm value Tobins Q. Furthermore, firm size had a negative impact on firm value. This finding was not support the argument that bankruptcy costs decreased with size, as well as economies of scale in transactions costs associated with long-term debt that were not available to smaller firms.
Page 37
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
5.1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 4 particularly discussed about the results of the research. Chapter 5 presents main conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the previous chapters, as well as the limitations of this study.
5.2
CONCLUSIONS
This paper examines the impact which firm performance has had on corporate capital structure combined with others variables such as firm size, growth opportunities and asset tangibility, and the impact which firm capital structure has had on corporate firm value. There is no single study formulated in Vietnam that investigates the impact of capital structure on a firm market performance and lack of study formulated in Vietnam that investigate the impact of profitability, growth opportunities, size, asset tangibility on a firm capital structure. This study tries to fill the gap in this field by investigating the effect of firm performance on capital structure, as well as the effect of capital structure on firm market performance by taking listed firm on Hochiminh Stock Exchange as a case study. Furthermore, this paper employ different measures of capital structure such as short-term debt to total assets, longterm debt to total assets, total debt to total assets, and total debt to total equity in order to investigate the effect of the debt structure on corporate market performance. Investigating the effect of capital structure on corporate performance using market measures can be valuable as it provides evidence about whether the stock market is efficient or not. A cross-sectional data of 162 companies is studied in this paper. A firm profitability is found to have a significant and negative impact on all firm capital structure measures TDTA, TDTE, LTDTA, STDTA. These findings could to some extent support pecking order theory of Myers and Majluf (1984). They argue that internal funds are used first, and when that is depleted, debt is issued, and when it is not sensible to issue any more debt, equity is issued. An interesting finding is that firm size has a positive and significant impact on the leverage measures TDTA, TDTE, STDTA. This finding is consistent with a previous study of Rajan and Zingales (1995), and indicating that a firm size is an important determinant of corporate capital structure. Firm asset tangibility is found to have positive and significant impact on TDTA and LTDTA, while have insignificant impact on
Page 38
TDTE. This finding supports the argument of previous researchers such as Rajan and Zingales (1995), Margaritis and Psillaki (2007). They argue that the greater the proportion of tangible assets on the balance sheet, the more willing should lenders be to supply loans, and leverage should be higher. Firm growth opportunities have significant impact only on Vietnamese firm TDTE, which is inconsistent with Myers (1977). For the model testing the relationship between firm capital structure and firm value, the result from this paper shows that firm capital structure is a significant determinant of firm value, Tobins Q, in Vietnam. The insignificance of the market performance measure PE indicates that the Vietnamese equity market is not efficient. Firm growth opportunities have a positive and significant impact on the firm value Tobins Q. This finding supports the pecking order theory of Myers and Majluf (1984) that high growth firms can be expected to have high leverage level. Firm size, which is measured by log of sales, is negatively related to firm value Tobins Q. This result is not support the argument that bankruptcy costs decrease with size, as well as economies of scale in transactions costs associate with longterm debt that are not available to smaller firms.
5.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
From the regression results of model 1, exploring the relationship between firm leverage and four factors; profitability, growth opportunities, size and asset tangibility, a firm total debt to total assets is affected strongly by firm size, measured by log of sales (Beta is 0.049). Hence, if a manager wants to decrease a companys ratio of debt, he should pay attention to sales volume. For example, if a manager is planning to increase the sales volume in the next month budgeting, he should be prepared for an increasing in debt of a company. Focus on the detail, asset tangibility impact strongest on long-term debt to total assets (Beta is 0.363) and short-term debt to total assets (Beta is -0.184). Therefore, if a manager invests more in tangible assets, he should notice on the increasing in long-term debt, but decreasing in short-term debt. In reality, this results seem to be reasonable in Vietnam, for a reason that Vietnam stock markets, bond markets and mutual funds markets is undeveloped, so commercial banking systems play an important role in providing lending to Vietnamese firms. From the regression results, firms profitability plays an important determinant of firm leverage. So, manager also should notice that if in the short run, dividends and investments are fixed, and if debt financing is the dominant mode of external financing, then changes in profitability will be negatively correlated with changes in leverage. From the regression results from the model 2, exploring the relationship between firm value and three factors: firm leverage, growth opportunities and size, firm leverage affect strongly on firms value, which is measured by Tobins Q (Beta is -
Page 39
2.01, -0.27, -1.49, -1.66 respectively for four models using four proxies of firm capital structure: total debt to total assets, total debt to total equity, long-term debt to total assets, short-term debt to total assets). Thus, a manager can increase the firm value by decreasing the ratio of using debt financing.
5.4
LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this study are restrictions in the research scope. There are only 162 companies in HOSE are used as cross-sectional data in the study. The research measures the effect of firm performance on firm capital structure combine with firm size, growth and asset tangibility on firm leverage, but it seems not to be enough variables. From the regression results, the adjusted R-Squared of the leverage model using 4 leverage proxies (TDTA, TDTE, LTDTA, STDTA) are respectively 0.14, 0.11, 0.23, 0.13. These results prove that there are others factors; besides profitability, size, growth opportunities, asset tangibility; have an impact on the firm leverage variables in Vietnam. For example, Abdel Shahid, S. (2003) find that firm ownership structure have a significant impact on firm accounting performance measures, but insignificant relate to firm market performance measures. If this factor has an impact on firm performance, then it may have an impact on firm capital structure. The study also has limitations that the author does not test the correlation between the distribution of debt ratio and corporate performance to each type of companies, as well as each industry. And the author has not explored the optimal capital structure to maximize the market value of a firm. Hence, more research should be implemented to explore these above limitations. This study is only stopped as an academic research. It shows us a relationship between firm capital structure and firm performance, and a generally initial assessment about the effect of firm performance on firm capital structure, as well as the effect of firm capital structure on firm market performance. Based on this research, researchers and corporate managers can be continue to implement more research, in order to evaluate more precisely about the relationship between firm capital structure and firm performance in Vietnam.
Page 40
REFERENCES
Abdel Shahid, S. (2003). Does Ownership Structure Affect Firm Value? Evidence from The Egyptian Stock Market. Working paper, (www.ssrn.com). Barclay, M. J., and Smith, C. W. (1995). The Maturity Structure of Corporate Debt. Journal of Finance 50, 609-32. Berger, A. N. and E. Bonaccorsi di Patti (2006). Capital Structure and Firm Performance: A New Approach to Testing Agency Theory and an Application to the Banking Industry. Journal of Banking and Finance 30, 1065102. Bradley, M., Jarrell, G., & Kim, E.H. (1984). On the existence of an optimal capital structure: Theory and evidence. Journal of Finance 39, 857-878. Chakravarthy, B. S., (1986). Measuring Strategic Performance. Strategic Management Journal 7, 437-58. DeAngelo, H., & Masulis, R. W. (1980). Optimal Capital Structure under Corporate and Personal Taxation. Journal of Financial Economics, 35(1), 453 464. Frank, M. and V. Goyal (2003). Testing the Pecking Order Theory of Capital Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 67, pp. 21748. Gleason, K. C., L. K Mathur, and I. Mathur, (2000). The Interrelationship between Culture, Capital Structure, and Performance: Evidence from European Retailers. Journal of Business Research, 50, 185-191. Hall, G.C., P.J. Hutchinson and N. Michaelas (2004). Determinants of the Capital Structures of European SMEs. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting , Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 71128. Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (1991). The theory of capital structure. Journal of Finance, 46(1), 297-355. Hovakimian, A., Opler, T., & Titman, S. (2001). The debt-equity choice. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36(1), 1-24. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 303-360. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323-329.
Page 41
Kim, H. (1978). A mean variance theory of optimal capital structure and corporate debt capacity. Journal of Finance 33, 45-64. Kraus, A., and R. Litzenberger (1973). A State-Preference Model of Optimal Financial Leverage. Journal of Finance 28, 923-931. Krishnan, V. S., and R. C. Moyer, (1997). Performance, Capital Structure and Home Country: An Analysis of Asian Corporations. Global Finance Journal 8, 129-143. Leland, H. E. (1994). Corporate Debt Value, Bond Covenants, and Optimal Capital Structure. Journal of Finance, 49 (4), 1213-1252. Margaritis, D. and Psillaki, M. (2007). Capital structure and firm efficiency. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 34 (9) & (10), 1447-1469. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48(3), 261-97. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M.H. (1963). Corporate Income Taxes and the Cost of Capital: A Correction. American Economic Review, 53(3), 433-443. Murphy, G. B., J. W. Trailer, and R. C. Hill, (1996). Measuring Performance in Entrepreneurship Research. Journal of Business Research, 36, 15-23. Myers, S. C., (1977). Determinants of Corporate Borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics 25, 2543. Rajan, R.G. and L. Zingales (1995). What Do We Know About Capital Structure? Some Evidence from International Data. Journal of Finance, Vol. L, No. 5, pp. 142160. Ratha, D., Mohapatra, S. and Suttle, P. (2003). Capital structure and performance in Developing countries. Global Development Finance, 109-122. Robichek, A. A., & Myers, S. C. (1966). Problems in the Theory of Optimal Capital Structure. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1(2), 1-35. Scott, J. (1977). Bankruptcy, Secured Debt, and Optimal Capital Structure. Journal of Finance, Vol. 32 (March), pp. 119. Schiantarelli, F., and A. Sembenelli, (1999). The Maturity Structure of Debt: Determinants and Effects on Firms Performance? Evidence from the United Kingdom and Italy. Policy Research Working Paper Series, The World Bank. Stohs, M. H., and D. C. Mauer, (1996). The Determinants of Corporate Debt Maturity Structure. Journal of Business 69, 279-312.
Page 42
Titman, S. (1984). The Effect of Capital Structure on a Firms Liquidation Decision. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 13751. Trn Hng Sn and Trn Vit Hong (2008). C cu vn v hiu qu hot ng ca doanh nghip ca cc cng ty nim yt trn s giao dch chng khon TP.HCM. Economic Development Review, Vol. 218 (Dec 2008). Wei Xu, Xiangzhen Xu, Shoufeng Zhang (2005). An Empirical Study on Relationship between Corporation Performance and Capital Structure. China-USA Business Review 4(4), 49-53. Zeitun, R. and Tian, G.G (2007). Capital structure and corporate performance: evidence from Jordan. The Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal 1(4), 40-61. Zhou, X., (2001). Understanding the Determinants of Managerial Ownership and the Link Between Ownership and Performance: Comment. Journal of Financial Economics 62, 559-571.
Page 43
APPENDIX A
Variable definitions
The Variables are defined as the following formulas:
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (PE) =
Market Price of Common Stock Earnings Per Share
Tobins Q
( Equity Market Value + Liabilities Book Value ) ( Equity Book Value + Liabilities Book Value ) EBIT + Depreciation Total Assets Total Debt Total Assets Total Debt Total Equity Long-term Debt Total Assets Short-term Debt Total Assets
Profitability (PROF)
Total Debt to Total Assets (TDTA)
Total Debt to Total Equity (TDTE)
Long-term Debt to Total Assets (LTDTA)
Short-term Debt to Total Equity (STDTA)
Growth opportunities = (GROWTH) Size (SIZE)
Total Assets Book value of Equity + Market value of Equity Total Assets
= ln (Sales) Fixed Tangible Assets Total Assets
Asset Tangibility (TA)
Page 44
APPENDIX B
Multiple Regression Results
Dependent Variable: TDTA Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:25 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C PROF GROWTH SIZE TA R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient -0.873102 -0.005438 0.022092 0.048965 0.178830 0.162133 0.140786 0.207970 6.790464 27.07020 7.595122 0.000013 Std. Error 0.379030 0.001494 0.030388 0.013938 0.080815 t-Statistic -2.303516 -3.640823 0.726986 3.512934 2.212831 Prob. 0.0226 0.0004 0.4683 0.0006 0.0284 0.432888 0.224362 -0.272472 -0.177175 -0.233780 1.964366
Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. Durbin-Watson stat
Dependent Variable: TDTE Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:26 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C PROF GROWTH SIZE TA R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient -4.622503 -0.036765 0.421161 0.213809 0.779893 0.135869 0.113853 1.284441 259.0166 -267.8810 6.171335 0.000123 Std. Error 2.340928 0.009225 0.187682 0.086085 0.499122 t-Statistic -1.974646 -3.985310 2.244020 2.483681 1.562532 Prob. 0.0501 0.0001 0.0262 0.0141 0.1202 1.246424 1.364461 3.368901 3.464198 3.407593 1.876261
Page 45
Dependent Variable: LTDTA Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:27 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C PROF GROWTH SIZE TA R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient -0.241070 -0.002539 0.026783 0.009991 0.362726 0.252491 0.233446 0.134726 2.849721 97.40235 13.25770 0.000000 Std. Error 0.245542 0.000968 0.019686 0.009030 0.052353 t-Statistic -0.981789 -2.623803 1.360481 1.106431 6.928428 Prob. 0.3277 0.0096 0.1756 0.2702 0.0000 0.104263 0.153879 -1.140770 -1.045474 -1.102078 1.955806
Dependent Variable: STDTA Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:27 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C PROF GROWTH SIZE TA R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient -0.632159 -0.002899 -0.004691 0.038979 -0.183887 0.155863 0.134356 0.182863 5.249888 47.91251 7.247170 0.000022 Std. Error 0.333272 0.001313 0.026720 0.012256 0.071059 t-Statistic -1.896825 -2.207294 -0.175562 3.180438 -2.587811 Prob. 0.0597 0.0287 0.8609 0.0018 0.0106 0.328623 0.196542 -0.529784 -0.434488 -0.491092 2.203875
Page 46
Dependent Variable: PE Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:35 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C TDTA GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 136.8876 26.45088 4.676144 -4.796432 0.004436 -0.014467 113.1355 2022342. -993.8739 0.234694 0.872090 Std. Error 206.2340 41.26309 14.66740 7.786767 t-Statistic 0.663749 0.641030 0.318812 -0.615972 Prob. 0.5078 0.5224 0.7503 0.5388 24.30095 112.3259 12.31943 12.39567 12.35038 2.063560
Dependent Variable: PE Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:36 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C TDTE GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 98.07088 -3.183458 4.387799 -2.769519 0.003282 -0.015643 113.2010 2024687. -993.9677 0.173423 0.914242 Std. Error 205.8325 6.675112 14.66050 7.668298 t-Statistic 0.476460 -0.476915 0.299294 -0.361165 Prob. 0.6344 0.6341 0.7651 0.7185 24.30095 112.3259 12.32059 12.39683 12.35154 2.062094
Page 47
Dependent Variable: PE Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:38 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C LTDTA GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 113.9763 4.967570 3.989722 -3.511319 0.001893 -0.017058 113.2799 2027508. -994.0805 0.099903 0.959959 Std. Error 203.3320 58.16361 14.68251 7.529029 t-Statistic 0.560542 0.085407 0.271733 -0.466371 Prob. 0.5759 0.9320 0.7862 0.6416 24.30095 112.3259 12.32198 12.39822 12.35293 2.058518
Dependent Variable: PE Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:38 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C STDTA GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 140.2637 31.71192 5.285529 -4.908051 0.004657 -0.014242 113.1229 2021894. -993.8559 0.246415 0.863794 Std. Error 206.8730 47.48387 14.74833 7.808725 t-Statistic 0.678019 0.667846 0.358382 -0.628534 Prob. 0.4988 0.5052 0.7205 0.5306 24.30095 112.3259 12.31921 12.39545 12.35016 2.073206
Page 48
Dependent Variable: TOBIN Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:30 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C TDTA GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 1.020104 -2.011764 1.005241 -0.000993 0.999388 0.999376 0.019578 0.060559 409.3622 85960.14 0.000000 Std. Error 0.035688 0.007140 0.002538 0.001347 t-Statistic 28.58391 -281.7428 396.0540 -0.737274 Prob. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4620 1.205579 0.783774 -5.004471 -4.928234 -4.973518 2.209864
Dependent Variable: TOBIN Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:33 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C TDTE GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 1.421871 -0.274580 1.079370 -0.038535 0.911000 0.909311 0.236031 8.802281 6.051375 539.0962 0.000000 Std. Error 0.429173 0.013918 0.030568 0.015989 t-Statistic 3.313047 -19.72840 35.31043 -2.410103 Prob. 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171 1.205579 0.783774 -0.025326 0.050911 0.005628 1.977042
Page 49
Dependent Variable: TOBIN Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:34 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C LTDTA GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 2.719633 -1.494015 1.074631 -0.093499 0.777369 0.773142 0.373308 22.01873 -68.21609 183.8985 0.000000 Std. Error 0.670071 0.191675 0.048385 0.024812 t-Statistic 4.058726 -7.794511 22.20977 -3.768377 Prob. 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 1.205579 0.783774 0.891557 0.967794 0.922510 2.157704
Dependent Variable: TOBIN Method: Least Squares Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:34 Sample: 1 162 Included observations: 162 Variable C STDTA GROWTH SIZE R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood F-statistic Prob(F-statistic) Coefficient 1.386044 -1.666116 0.987569 -0.025900 0.851062 0.848234 0.305336 14.73036 -35.65551 300.9475 0.000000 Std. Error 0.558382 0.128166 0.039808 0.021077 t-Statistic 2.482251 -12.99965 24.80830 -1.228819 Prob. 0.0141 0.0000 0.0000 0.2210 1.205579 0.783774 0.489574 0.565811 0.520527 1.967021
Page 50
APPENDIX C
Research Data Set
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Ticker ABT ACL AGF ALP ALT ANV ASP BAS BBC BHS BMC BMP BPC BT6 CAN CLC COM CYC
Company name BenTre Aquaproduct Import & Export JSC. Cuulong Fish JSC. An Giang Fisheries Import & Export JSC. Alphanam JSC ALTA Company Nam Viet Corporation AN PHA S.G PETROL JSC. BASACO Bien Hoa Confectionery Corp. Bien Hoa Sugar JSC. Binh Dinh Minerals JSC Binh Minh Plastics JSC Bim Son Packaging JSC. Chau Thoi Concrete Corporation No.620 Canfoco Halong Canned Food Corporation Cat Loi JSC Materials - Petroleum JSC Chang Yih Ceramic JSC
Sector Food Producers Food Producers Food Producers Industrial Engineering Household Goods Food Producers Gas, Water & Multiutilities Food Producers Food Producers Food Producers Mining Household Goods General Industrials Construction & Materials Food Producers Tobacco Gas, Water & Multiutilities Construction & Materials
PROF (%) 8,7353 25,6759 6,9761 5,9434 5,7385 13,0363 13,1285 10,2066 7,7031 3,3041 42,9825 28,2367 18,3364 10,7989 14,9065 24,2976 9,0315 11,7921
TOBIN'S Q 1,3479 0,8650 0,6114 1,1639 1,1674 1,0686 0,6420 0,8561 1,1769 1,0705 5,2734 1,7735 1,3007 1,5036 0,8258 0,9551 1,7965 0,6296
PE 7,8541 2,6019 15,5980 17,2308 8,6802 12,6941 6,7131 559,25 10,5017 (7,1512) 12,2302 5,3737 4,1709 17,9650 4,1484 4,0000 15,5361 5,7070
TDTA 0,1115 0,6266 0,5260 0,2564 0,2089 0,3979 0,5454 0,5573 0,1843 0,4466 0,0579 0,1372 0,1685 0,4943 0,4934 0,5742 0,1193 0,6304
TDTE 0,1254 1,6780 1,1458 0,3682 0,2641 0,6609 1,3422 1,2591 0,2260 0,8070 0,0614 0,1590 0,2026 0,9773 0,9771 1,3483 0,1355 1,7056
LTDTA 0,0000 0,1073 0,0349 0,0059 0,0000 0,0287 0,1040 0,0576 0,0175 0,2613 0,0016 0,0013 0,0077 0,1282 0,0888 0,0004 0,0196 0,3191
STDTA 0,1115 0,5193 0,4911 0,2506 0,2089 0,3692 0,4414 0,4997 0,1668 0,1853 0,0563 0,1359 0,1608 0,3660 0,4045 0,5737 0,0997 0,3113
GROWTH 0,5708 1,1182 0,6841 0,7162 0,5853 0,8644 0,7983 0,9708 0,5456 0,9637 4,3892 1,0479 0,6376 1,4921 0,8146 1,1035 1,0351 0,8903
SIZE (Sales) 26,8833 27,2021 28,3736 27,9005 25,9619 28,8358 27,9921 26,2193 27,0244 27,3981 25,5921 27,4466 25,9485 27,4617 26,7611 27,5516 28,7532 26,3333
TA 0,1035 0,1085 0,2903 0,0816 0,3654 0,1835 0,1306 0,1916 0,2301 0,2962 0,1480 0,3297 0,3239 0,0936 0,1730 0,1594 0,0546 0,3218
Page 51
No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Ticker DCC DCL DCT DDM DHA DHG DIC DMC DNP DPC DPM DPR DQC DRC DTT DXV FBT FMC FPT
Company name DESCON Construction Corp. Cuu Long Pharmaceutical Corp. Dongnai Roofsheet & Construction Material JSC Dong Do Marine JSC. Hoa An JSC Hau Giang Pharmaceutial JSC. DIC Investment & Trading JSC Domesco Medical Import & Export JSC. DongNai Plastic Construction JSC. Da Nang Plastic JSC Petrovietnam Fertilizer and Chemical JSC. DONG PHU RUBBER JSC. Dien Quang JSC. DaNang Rubber JSC DoThanh Technology Corporation Da Nang Construction Building Materials And Cement Ben Tre Forestry And Aquaproduct Import Export Sao Ta Foods JSC. FPT Corp.
Sector Construction & Materials Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Construction & Materials Industrial Transportation Construction & Materials Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Construction & Materials Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Construction & Materials Household Goods Chemicals Chemicals Household Goods Automobiles & Parts General Industrials Construction & Materials Food Producers Food Producers Software & Computer Services
PROF (%) 5,1190 14,7503 14,4630 10,1197 17,1894 16,4223 11,0404 15,5193 13,5955 16,2710 103,09 25,1025 4,6601 20,3363 8,6368 7,3180 5,3329 13,5105
TOBIN'S Q 0,7877 1,0536 1,2662 0,2419 1,5612 2,8513 0,5498 1,8944 0,7011 1,4782 3,4436 1,8204 0,6168 0,7721 1,4395 0,4750 0,7724 0,7310
PE
TDTA
TDTE
LTDTA
STDTA
GROWTH
SIZE (Sales) 26,8796 26,9057 26,0065 26,3215 25,7905 28,0487 27,2268 27,5704 25,9850 24,9881 29,5018 27,3147 26,6894 27,9064 25,4444 27,4807 27,4313 27,6482
TA
7,9478 6,6813 3,9001 9,7379 5,0456 18,4649 5,2808 10,9113 4,2489 6,2715 9,4554 5,1956 235,19 4,9907 8,8707 9,1269 27,1831 7,5031
0,4690 0,5051 0,1495 0,8665 0,0711 0,3537 0,6705 0,2237 0,5276 0,1182 0,0868 0,3456 0,5671 0,6485 0,0494 0,7207 0,5386 0,5411
0,8833 1,0185 0,1758 6,4898 0,0766 0,5498 2,2703 0,2881 1,1167 0,1340 0,0956 0,5305 1,3265 1,8446 0,0519 2,5804 1,1675 1,1791
0,0552 0,1959 0,0415 0,6184 0,0057 0,0140 0,0322 0,0027 0,0799 0,0055 0,0024 0,0383 0,1170 0,1551 0,0002 0,4926 0,0299 0,0016
0,4138 0,3091 0,1080 0,2480 0,0654 0,3397 0,6383 0,2210 0,4477 0,1127 0,0845 0,3072 0,4501 0,4933 0,0492 0,2281 0,5087 0,5395
0,7257 1,0629 0,5620 0,9749 0,7034 2,5562 0,9403 1,3417 0,7562 0,7146 2,6111 1,5121 0,7584 1,0691 0,5383 0,9164 0,8497 0,8131
0,0159 0,3894 0,0820 0,6706 0,0424 0,9870 0,2122 0,1605 0,2262 0,2137 0,3241 0,3983 0,0741 0,2546 0,1689 0,1564 0,2263 0,1858
23,1101
1,6830
8,3578
0,5168
1,3009
0,0008
0,5160
1,7439
30,4301
0,1134
Page 52
No. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Ticker GIL GMC GMD HAP HAX HBC HBD HDC HLA HMC HPG HRC HSI HT1 ICF IFS IMP ITA KDC KHA KHP L10 LAF
Company name Binh Thanh Im-export, production & trade JSC Garmex Saigon JSC. General Forwarding & Agency Corporation Hapaco Hai Phong Paper JSC Hangxanh Motors Service JSC. Hoa Binh Construction& Real Easte Corp. Binh Duong PP Pack Marking JSC Ba Ria Vung Tau House Development JSC. Asia Huu Lien Hochiminh City Metal Corporation Hoa Phat Group JSC. HoaBinh Rubber JSC. General Materials Biochemistry Fertilizer JSC. Ha Tien 1 Cement JSC. Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation Interfood Shareholding Co. Imexpharm Pharmaceutical JSC. Tan Tao Investment Industry Corp. Kinh Do JSC Khahomex Khanh Hoi Import Export JSC Khanh Hoa Power JSC LILAMA 10 JSC. Lafooco Long An Food Processing Export JSC
Sector Personal Goods Personal Goods Industrial Transportation Forest & Paper General Retailers Construction & Materials General Industrials Real Estate Industrial Metals General Retailers Industrial Metals Chemicals Chemicals Construction & Materials Food Producers Food Producers Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Real Estate Food Producers General Retailers Electricity Industrial Engineering Food Producers
PROF (%) 11,9409 15,9135 0,8532 (3,8609) 13,6694 3,4664 24,8223 9,3617 8,5718 11,4129 22,4451 24,9673 10,6282 2,7380 7,5911 (14,572) 13,8812 6,6436 2,1341 15,6238 35,7012 13,2668 9,3893
TOBIN'S Q 1,2244 0,9625 0,9829 0,9737 0,9002 0,7040 1,2545 0,5236 0,4991 0,6630 1,9049 1,9171 0,2787 0,4498 0,6349 0,3235 2,3311 1,3392 1,3033 1,0797 0,5239 0,6205 0,6741
PE
TDTA
TDTE
LTDTA
STDTA
GROWTH
SIZE (Sales) 26,8489 26,7746 28,2797 26,4947 27,0597 27,2686 24,7730 26,4304 28,2425 29,0866 29,7713 26,3932 27,1753 28,5700 26,8526 27,5444 27,0672 27,9376 28,0137 26,1568 27,4598 26,5158 27,0639
TA
4,6905 3,8699 (8,5338) (3,2230) 4,1692 30,9616 4,4369 5,0517 (12,0312) 5,8401 7,2413 4,7847 5,8858 20,1700 6,6443 (1,0172) 15,0086 220,83 (20,1506) 3,9139 4,0884 4,7751 14,0570
0,1605 0,3938 0,4191 0,3547 0,4114 0,4927 0,3303 0,7795 0,7423 0,6466 0,2295 0,1693 0,8559 0,8273 0,5900 0,8419 0,1351 0,2391 0,2802 0,3540 0,7051 0,6775 0,5850
0,1912 0,6497 0,7294 0,5797 0,6990 1,0702 0,4933 3,5342 3,0604 1,8294 0,3148 0,2038 5,9393 4,7902 1,4390 6,2416 0,1562 0,3138 0,4027 0,5480 2,3911 2,1009 1,4095
0,0035 0,0023 0,2247 0,1120 0,0034 0,0948 0,0000 0,1905 0,0316 0,0008 0,0067 0,0093 0,0006 0,5308 0,0284 0,0243 0,0032 0,0634 0,0577 0,0123 0,5346 0,0392 0,0016
0,1570 0,3915 0,1944 0,2427 0,4080 0,3978 0,3303 0,5890 0,7107 0,6457 0,2228 0,1600 0,8553 0,2965 0,5616 0,8176 0,1319 0,1757 0,2225 0,3417 0,1706 0,6384 0,5834
0,5454 0,7501 0,8276 0,7174 0,7230 0,7502 0,9152 1,0825 1,0064 0,9561 1,3678 1,2558 0,9905 1,1044 0,8149 1,0462 1,6014 0,8166 0,8804 0,7877 0,9341 0,9755 0,8440
0,0556 0,3012 0,3701 0,3313 0,1679 0,1108 0,2153 0,0324 0,1131 0,0485 0,1556 0,1333 0,0701 0,0626 0,1591 0,3498 0,0757 0,0082 0,1169 0,0356 0,6142 0,0706 0,0852
Page 53
No. 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
Ticker LBM LCG LSS MCP MPC NKD NSC NTL OPC PAC PET PGC PIT PJT PMS PNC PPC PVD
Company name LamDong Buiding Materials JSC. LICOGI 16 Lam Son Sugar JSC. My Chau Printing& Packing Holdings Co. MINH PHU SEADFOOD CORP. North Kinhdo Food JSC National Seed JSC. TU LIEM URBAN DEVELOPMENT OPC Pharmaceutial JSC. Dry Cell and Storage Battery JSC. PetroVietnam General Services Js Corporation Petrolimex Gas JSC. Petrolimex International Trading JSC. Petrolimex Joint Stock Tanker Com. Petroleum Mechanical JSC. Phuong Nam Cultural JSC PhaLai Thermal Power JSC PetroVietnam Drilling and well services JSC. PETROVIETNAM TRANSPORTATION CORP. Rangdong Light source and Vacuum flash JSC. Refrigeration Electrical Engineering Corporation
Sector Construction & Materials Construction & Materials Food Producers General Industrials Food Producers Food Producers Food Producers Real Estate Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Household Goods General Retailers Gas, Water & Multiutilities General Retailers Industrial Transportation Gas, Water & Multiutilities Media Electricity Oil Equipment, Services & Distribution Industrial Transportation Household Goods Real Estate
PROF (%) 27,6272 16,7756 17,7897 18,2576 7,5059 8,9960 14,2132 8,3444 15,7124 22,0431 6,0428 3,9007 12,2134 11,6147 5,5942 4,3622 4,1365
TOBIN'S Q 0,7711 0,9580 1,2280 0,9870 0,7865 0,9096 1,3505 0,8328 1,7997 1,6988 0,7984 1,0180 0,8832 0,8843 1,1625 0,6215 0,8815
PE
TDTA
TDTE
LTDTA
STDTA
GROWTH
SIZE (Sales) 25,6013 26,8204 27,7548 26,0611 28,6969 27,2625 26,1324 26,6403 26,1124 27,8476 29,3175 28,1557 28,1658 27,4087 26,3210 26,3438 28,9873
TA
6,2997 4,1504 6,6855 4,2786 (19,297) 330,68 4,5769 8,8166 7,1545 7,0603 7,8641 183,64 8,1074 11,5417 21,4496 16,3408 (28,5800)
0,5565 0,5428 0,3183 0,3969 0,5641 0,6282 0,2878 0,7314 0,0716 0,3865 0,6364 0,3162 0,4341 0,5021 0,4599 0,5822 0,6817
1,3870 1,1872 0,4838 0,6581 1,3600 1,6910 0,4041 2,7234 0,0772 0,6299 1,7504 0,4732 0,7672 1,0086 0,8515 1,3938 2,1421
0,2627 0,1057 0,0877 0,2240 0,0945 0,0429 0,0031 0,0003 0,0032 0,0029 0,0066 0,1240 0,0000 0,0014 0,0018 0,0450 0,5886
0,2938 0,4371 0,2306 0,1729 0,4696 0,5853 0,2847 0,7311 0,0684 0,3836 0,6298 0,1922 0,4341 0,5008 0,4581 0,5372 0,0932
0,9360 1,0436 0,8830 0,7809 0,9403 1,1663 0,9260 1,2956 0,9429 1,4718 1,0712 0,6657 0,7515 0,8885 1,0823 0,7860 1,2450
0,3098 0,0136 0,2524 0,4313 0,1094 0,3226 0,0594 0,0061 0,2551 0,1153 0,0614 0,1823 0,0280 0,3839 0,0487 0,1209 0,4737
12,8764 6,4536 12,4438 (4,6172)
1,5366 2,5355 0,7178 1,4530
11,2523 173,95 4,6089 (10,9638)
0,6960 0,7300 0,5340 0,1951
2,8163 5,7308 1,1457 0,2437
0,2452 0,3210 0,0493 0,0404
0,4508 0,4090 0,4846 0,1547
1,9550 2,9192 0,7858 0,8456
28,9471 27,7345 27,4544 27,7917
0,2331 0,4315 0,1974 0,0076
79 80 81
PVT RAL REE
Page 54
No. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
Ticker SAF SAM SAV SC5 SCD SDN SFC SFN SGC SGH SGT SJD SJS SMC SSC ST8 TAC TCM TDH TMC TMS TNA TNC
Company name SAFOCO Foodstuff JSC Sacom Cables & Telecom Materials JSC Im-Export & Economic Co-Operation JSC Construction Join Stock Company No.5 Chuong Duong Beverages Co. Dongnai Paint Corporation Saigon Fuel JSC Saigon Fishing Net JSC Sagiang Import Export Corporation Saigon Hotel Corporation Saigon Telecommunication & Technologies Corp. CanDon Hydro Power JSC. Song Da Urban & IZ Investment & Development JSC SMC Investment- Trading JSC Southern Seed JSC Sieu Thanh Joint Stock Corp. Tuong An Oil JSC. THANH CONG TEXTILE GARMENT Thu Duc House JSC. Thu Duc Trading and Import Export JSC. Trans-Forwarding & Warehousing Corp. Thien Nam Trading Im-Export Corp. Thong Nhat Rubber JSC.
Sector Food Producers Electronic & Electrical Equipment Household Goods Construction & Materials Beverages Construction & Materials Gas, Water & Multiutilities General Industrials Food Producers Travel & Leisure Technology Hardware & Equipment Electricity Real Estate General Retailers Food Producers General Retailers Food Producers Personal Goods Real Estate General Retailers Industrial Transportation General Retailers Chemicals
PROF (%) 21,7201
TOBIN'S Q 1,4487
PE 4,2592
TDTA 0,3216
TDTE 0,4742
LTDTA 0,0052
STDTA 0,3164
GROWTH 1,0920
SIZE (Sales) 26,7423
TA 0,2826
(1,8504) 6,5588 4,1233 21,8353 17,4671 20,7005 27,7094 21,5815 38,1243
1,3679 0,7508 0,3365 1,5340 1,1719 1,8263 1,5063 1,6191 5,3814
(11,9774) 9,9433 6,2375 5,3097 6,7847 9,6787 3,5293 4,0097 17,6978
0,0309 0,4953 0,8410 0,2592 0,5132 0,3717 0,0924 0,0857 0,0840
0,0319 0,9801 5,3746 0,3499 1,0541 0,5916 0,1019 0,0938 0,0918
0,0002 0,0215 0,2138 0,0023 0,0646 0,0013 0,0644 0,0091 0,0063
0,0308 0,4738 0,6272 0,2569 0,4486 0,3704 0,0281 0,0766 0,0778
0,4298 0,7406 1,0227 1,0525 1,1982 1,5696 0,6912 0,7906 4,5495
27,8906 27,0561 27,4479 26,3380 24,8385 27,8171 25,5451 25,4186 24,1191
0,0497 0,1048 0,0407 0,0503 0,0996 0,1672 0,2881 0,2180 0,4721
6,2735 17,5475 11,2123 16,4834 22,5885 29,8995 22,9291 7,5007 20,0574 16,7974 23,2176 19,8729 6,0029
1,8921 0,7012 2,0708 0,6464 1,8717 1,3772 1,1022 0,4359 1,1948 0,8659 1,9808 0,7383 1,4265
22,1498 12,0656 18,0555 3,1271 5,8766 3,8407 37,8383 72,5796 3,4627 4,2096 9,2287 3,7201 18,8083
0,4446 0,6738 0,2782 0,6523 0,1790 0,3246 0,5498 0,7112 0,2873 0,5834 0,1357 0,5240 0,1669
0,8045 2,0660 0,3854 1,8899 0,2181 0,5595 1,2213 2,6904 0,4113 1,4005 0,1571 1,1008 0,2003
0,1074 0,4519 0,0819 0,0383 0,0279 0,0004 0,1142 0,2308 0,1471 0,0020 0,0287 0,0141 0,0012
0,3372 0,2219 0,1963 0,6140 0,1511 0,3242 0,4356 0,4804 0,1402 0,5814 0,1070 0,5099 0,1657
1,7817 1,0488 1,6272 0,9545 1,2298 1,0857 1,2019 0,8965 0,7808 1,0327 1,2523 0,7862 0,7602
27,7119 26,2058 26,4731 29,0697 26,0813 27,4379 28,7273 27,6582 27,1339 27,9234 25,8875 27,2859 25,9261
0,0394 0,9381 0,0116 0,0626 0,1250 0,0841 0,1969 0,2935 0,0407 0,0934 0,4032 0,0100 0,3390
Page 55
No. 105 106 107 108 109 110 111
Ticker TPC TRA TRC TSC TTC TTF TTP
Company name TAN DAI HUNG PLASTIC JSC. TRAPHACO Tay Ninh Rubber JSC. Techno Agricultural Supplying JSC. Thanh Thanh JSC Truong Thanh Furniture Corporation Tan Tien Plastic Packaging JSC.
Sector General Industrials Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology Chemicals General Retailers Construction & Materials Household Goods General Industrials Electronic & Electrical Equipment Construction & Materials Industrial Transportation Industrial Transportation Food Producers Electronic & Electrical Equipment Real Estate Forest & Paper Industrial Transportation Industrial Metals General Industrials Industrial Transportation
PROF (%) (14,9823) 19,3840 32,8792 20,0334 15,5834 7,1791 22,7404
TOBIN'S Q 1,2504 1,4906 1,8670 0,5075 0,6142 0,5046 1,3928
PE
TDTA
TDTE
LTDTA
STDTA
GROWTH
SIZE (Sales) 26,8437 27,3894 27,0316 28,6370 26,3739 27,2646 27,6813
TA
(2,4111) 6,0430 3,6777 4,0012 5,9526 10,1157 3,8216
0,2015 0,2836 0,2364 0,8004 0,6290 0,6053 0,1368
0,2523 0,3960 0,3096 4,0247 1,6953 1,5818 0,1584
0,0076 0,0102 0,0441 0,0001 0,0278 0,0134 0,0004
0,1939 0,2735 0,1924 0,8003 0,6012 0,5919 0,1364
0,6533 1,0579 1,3399 1,1094 0,8721 0,7332 0,6663
0,1710 0,0980 0,3881 0,0347 0,3687 0,0529 0,2130
112
TYA
Taya Electric Wire and Cable JSC
(12,6401) 7,8150 6,8069 18,2242 13,2318
0,7481 0,4518 1,2327 1,6786 0,8071
(2,7374) 4,5304 12,0704 5,9480 7,1212
0,6994 0,7233 0,1921 0,1247 0,6583
2,3271 2,6144 0,2378 0,1425 2,0411
0,0315 0,0428 0,0431 0,0005 0,1753
0,6680 0,6806 0,1490 0,1242 0,4830
1,1470 0,8985 0,6169 0,9281 1,1466
27,8018 27,2473 26,8277 25,6844 28,5240
0,3472 0,1200 0,1583 0,0890 0,3713
113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
UIC VFC VGP VHC VHG VIC VID VIP VIS VKP VNA
Idico Urban and House Development JSC. VINAFCO JSC The Vegetexco Port JSC. Vinh Hoan Corp. Viet-Han Corporation VINCOM JSC. Viendong Paper JSC. Vietnam Petroleum Transport JSC. Vietnam - Italy Steel JSC. VIKY PLASTIC Co. VINASHIP
2,2556 7,3046 10,8140 13,9978 22,9475 3,9356 23,3389
1,2358 1,8716 0,9381 0,9547 0,6745 0,6946 0,8576
(9,3290) 76,4775 7,9055 7,9084 2,7437 61,6734 3,6373
0,0979 0,7306 0,4593 0,4547 0,6493 0,4813 0,5677
0,1085 2,9368 0,8493 0,8340 2,4634 0,9279 1,3131
0,0000 0,5475 0,1023 0,4060 0,3145 0,1033 0,2665
0,0979 0,1830 0,3570 0,0488 0,3347 0,3780 0,3012
0,4316 2,3353 0,8566 0,8642 1,0886 0,6572 0,9930
26,3901 26,2005 27,0431 27,8543 28,1713 26,6951 27,5251
0,2439 0,0045 0,0755 0,5927 0,1453 0,1175 0,7092
Page 56
No. 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134
Ticker VNE VNM VNS VPK VPL VSC VSG VSH VTA VTB VTC
Company name Vietnam Electricity Construction JSC Vietnam Dairy Products JSC Vietnam Sun Corp Vegetable Oil Packing JSC. Vinpearl Tourism and Trading JSC. Vietnam container shipping JSC Viconship Saigon Vinh Son Song Hinh Hydro Power JSC VITALY JSC Viettronics Tanbinh JSC VTC Telecommunications JSC
Sector Construction & Materials Food Producers Travel & Leisure General Industrials Travel & Leisure Industrial Transportation Industrial Transportation Electricity Construction & Materials Leisure Goods Technology Hardware & Equipment Industrial Transportation Construction & Materials Construction & Materials Construction & Materials Industrial Transportation Electronic & Electrical Equipment Household Goods Construction & Materials
PROF (%) 5,1092 25,6423 17,5754 10,5396 8,4797 32,0148 11,9570 21,4101 8,3646 11,2223
TOBIN'S Q 0,2854 3,2638 0,8804 0,8048 2,5180 1,6522 0,4678 2,4131 0,3667 1,3742
PE
TDTA
TDTE
LTDTA
STDTA
GROWTH
SIZE (Sales) 26,6348 29,7569 27,4425 25,9722 26,8787 26,4687 25,6252 26,9047 25,8395 26,1128
TA
-436,78 11,6371 5,2951 16,2386 158,32 4,1728 18,8290 10,3785 (8,2729) 6,5496
0,8111 0,1935 0,4326 0,5351 0,6235 0,3411 0,7199 0,1373 0,7686 0,2360
5,1927 0,2424 0,7624 1,1509 1,8478 0,5176 2,5707 0,1591 3,3214 0,3089
0,4784 0,0305 0,3609 0,1686 0,4850 0,0411 0,5918 0,0906 0,2335 0,0289
0,3327 0,1630 0,0717 0,3664 0,1385 0,2999 0,1281 0,0466 0,5351 0,2071
0,9637 2,6400 0,7456 0,8749 2,7446 1,3344 0,9077 1,6876 0,9039 0,8462
0,2554 0,2563 0,5594 0,5086 0,3796 0,3301 0,8663 0,5726 0,4901 0,0136
10,2042 8,2139 8,0921 12,9519 8,8398 40,2218
0,8695 0,4345 0,5753 0,9651 0,2131 1,6094
11,3716 19,5395 5,3805 8,1338 4,0345 3,8183
0,4057 0,7716 0,8339 0,5705 0,8377 0,3243
0,8342 3,3782 5,0189 1,4645 6,1404 0,4799
0,0741 0,6930 0,0116 0,4559 0,1692 0,1311
0,3316 0,0786 0,8223 0,1146 0,6686 0,1932
0,8030 0,9777 1,2430 1,1474 0,9347 1,2580
25,2535 27,3475 24,8868 26,1572 28,6162 25,3102
0,1849 0,9356 0,0107 0,0011 0,0306 0,6676
135 136 137 138 139
VTO BTC CII CNT DXP
Viet Nam Tanker JSC. Binh Trieu Construction & Engineering JSC HCMC Infrastructure Investment JSC - CII Construction and Materials Trading JSC DoanXa Port JSC
140 141 142
FPC GTA HAS
Full Power JSC Thuan An Wood Processing JSC. Hanoi P&T Construction & Installation JSC
(4,4671) 9,9116 6,8682
1,1734 1,3474 0,8343
(8,1362) 13,6726 4,9967
0,3397 0,1917 0,4047
0,5106 0,2371 0,6798
0,0003 0,0001 0,0034
0,3394 0,1915 0,4013
0,8487 0,7308 0,6437
26,8785 25,8206 25,4520
0,0682 0,4254 0,0253
Page 57
No. 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162
Ticker HTV KMR KSH LGC MCV MHC NAV NHC PTC RHC RIC SBT SFI SHC SJ1 SZL TCR TCT TS4 UNI
Company name Hatien Transport JSC Mirae Ha Nam Mineral JSC. LuGia Mechanical Electric JSC Cavico Vietnam Mining & Construction JSC Hanoi Maritime Holding JSC NamViet JSC. Nhi Hiep Brick-Tile JSC Post and Telecommunications Investment and Construction JSC. Ry Ninh II Hydroelectric JSC Royal International Corporation Sucrerie De Bourbon Tay Ninh Sea & Air Freight International SaiGon Maritime JS Co.Ltd Seafood JSC No.1 Sonadezi Long Thanh TAICERA Enterprise LTD Co. Tay Ninh Cable Car Tour Company Seapriexco 4 Sea Food JS Company No. 4 Vien Lien JSC
Sector Industrial Transportation Personal Goods Mining Electronic & Electrical Equipment Mining Industrial Transportation Construction & Materials Construction & Materials Industrial Transportation Electricity Travel & Leisure Food Producers Industrial Transportation Industrial Transportation Food Producers Construction & Materials Construction & Materials Travel & Leisure Food Producers General Retailers
PROF (%) 5,4960 9,5966 10,5764
TOBIN'S Q 1,4078 0,8383 1,8561
PE
TDTA
TDTE
LTDTA
STDTA
GROWTH
SIZE (Sales) 25,1797 25,8633 24,5508
TA
20,3706 2,6511 16,7878
0,0402 0,3077 0,2733
0,0419 0,4445 0,3760
0,0010 0,0086 0,1123
0,0392 0,2991 0,1609
0,4881 0,4538 1,4026
0,1366 0,4962 0,5178
6,4476 10,7095 9,5633 19,3028 59,1321 4,9159 24,5910 3,4319 8,8963 14,8776 23,2751 22,6913 24,8508 12,2901 45,8400 6,2775 1,4786
0,9165 0,6109 0,6733 1,1837 2,1210 0,6638 1,1096 1,6425 1,5016 0,8238 0,6906 1,3014 1,1092 0,7615 4,7264 0,9621 1,2863
12,5289 7,0595 1.128,5 4,7600 3,0910 15,2308 5,7191 116,24 14,7977 2,8400 4,3314 3,0642 6,0338 7,5221 11,1613 7,6343 39,0987
0,5913 0,5996 0,5614 0,3537 0,2141 0,4953 0,4382 0,1821 0,1814 0,5123 0,6257 0,1659 0,6884 0,4787 0,0508 0,3564 0,2173
1,4471 1,4977 1,2800 0,5474 0,2724 0,9812 0,7801 0,2226 0,2216 1,1089 1,6715 0,1988 2,2092 0,9184 0,0536 0,5538 0,2777
0,3534 0,0803 0,2058 0,0000 0,0023 0,0037 0,3098 0,0178 0,0179 0,0006 0,2855 0,0025 0,0153 0,1517 0,0090 0,1948 0,0000
0,2379 0,5193 0,3556 0,3537 0,2118 0,4915 0,1285 0,1642 0,1635 0,5116 0,3402 0,1633 0,6731 0,3271 0,0418 0,1616 0,2173
1,0992 0,8102 0,7961 0,8912 1,5492 0,6543 0,9861 1,0067 0,8645 0,8786 0,9420 0,6331 1,4860 0,7189 3,8281 0,6749 0,7210
25,2191 25,7168 26,1609 25,8989 24,7393 26,8136 24,3155 25,8491 27,0571 25,5213 25,8873 25,8250 26,1493 27,7148 24,3286 25,9351 24,9737
0,0075 0,2245 0,4930 0,1435 0,0671 0,1397 0,7909 0,3277 0,4316 0,2999 0,7783 0,0411 0,2200 0,4028 0,0501 0,1298 0,0369
Page 58

Huynh Anh Kiet - Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huynh Anh Kiet - Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HOCHIMINH CITY --- oOo ---

HUNH ANH KIT

Ho Chi Minh City 2010

HUNH ANH KIT

Ho Chi Minh City 2010

Keywords: Capital structure, corporate performance, Vietnam, HOSE.

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Two research variables of the topic: Capital structure Firm performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE

STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

HYPOTHESIS AND EMPIRICAL MODEL 2.4.1. Model 1: The Leverage Model

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

y i = 0 + 1 PROF i + 2 Growth i + 3 Size i + 4 TA i + u i

Figure 1: The Leverage Model

Firm Profitability (PROF)

Firm Growth (Growth)

Firm Size (Size)

(TDTA, TDTE, STDTA, LTDTA)

Firm Asset Tangibility (TA)

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Model 2: The Firm Value Model

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

y i = 0 + 1 Leverage i + 2 Growth i + 3 Size i + u i

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Figure 2: The Firm Value Model

Firm Leverage (Leverage)

Firm Value (Tobins Q, PE)

Firm Growth (Growth)

Firm Size (Size)

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Figure 3: Research Process

Colleting financial statement of 171 companies in HOSE (n=171)

Test the regression model (Adjust the sample to n=162)

Writing the report

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

VARIABLES MEASUREMENT FOR MODEL 1 3.4.1. Dependent Variables

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

CHAPTER 4: EMPIRICAL RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH SAMPLES

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Table 5: Summary Statistics of the Explanatory Variables

Capital Structure and Firm Performance

Capital Structure and Firm Performance