We survey 392 CFOs about the cost of capital, capital budgeting, and capital structure. Large firms rely heavily on present value techniques and the capital asset pricing model, while small firms are relatively likely to use the payback criterion. We find that a surprising number of firms use their firm risk rather than project risk in evaluating new investments. Firms are concerned about maintaining financial flexibility and a good credit rating when issuing debt, and earnings per share dilution and recent stock price appreciation when issuing equity. We find some support for the pecking-order and trade-off capital structure hypotheses but little evidence that executives are concerned about asset substitution, asymmetric information, transactions costs, free cash flows, or personal taxes. Key words: capital structure, cost of capital, cost of equity, capital budgeting, discount rates, project valuation, survey. 1 We thank Franklin Allen for his detailed comments on the survey instrument and the overall project. We

This paper investigates whether and how individual managers affect corporate behavior and performance. We construct a manager-firm matched panel data set which enables us to track the top managers across different firms over time. We find that manager fixed effects matter for a wide range of corporate decisions. A significant extent of the heterogeneity in investment, financial and organizational practices of firms can be explained by the presence of manager fixed effects. We identify specific patterns in managerial decision making that appear to indicate general differences in “style” across managers. Moreover, we show that management style is significantly related to manager fixed effects in performance and that managers with higher performance fixed effects receive higher compensation and are more likely to be found in better governed firms. In a final step, we tie back these findings to observable managerial characteristics. We find that executives from earlier birth cohorts appear on average to be more conservative; on the other hand, managers who hold an MBA degree seem to follow on average more aggressive strategies.

Prior work on leverage implicitly assumes capital availability depends solely on firm characteristics. However, market frictions that make capital structure relevant may also be associated with a firm’s source of capital. Examining this intuition, we find firms that have access to the public bond markets, as measured by having a debt rating, have significantly more leverage. Although firms with a rating are fundamen-tally different, these differences do not explain our findings. Even after controlling for firm characteristics that determine observed capital structure, and instrumenting for the possible endogeneity of having a rating, firms with access have 35 % more debt. Under the tradeoff theory of capital structure, firms determine their preferred leverage ratio by calculating the tax advantages, costs of financial distress, mispricing, and incentive effects of debt versus equity. The empirical literature has searched for evidence that firms choose their capital structure, as this theory predicts, by estimating firm leverage as a function of firm characteristics. Firms for whom the tax shields of debt are greater, the costs of financial distress lower, and the mispricing of debt relative to equity more favorable are expected to be more highly levered. When these firms discover that the net benefit of debt is positive, they will move toward their preferred capital structure by issuing additional debt and/or reducing their equity. The implicit assumption has been that a firm’s leverage is completely a function of a firm’s demand for debt. In

This paper provides a competitive equilibrium model of capital structure and industry dynamics. In the model, firms make financing, investment, entry, and exit decisions subject to idiosyncratic technology shocks. The capital structure choice reflects the tradeoff between the tax benefits of debt and the associated bankruptcy and agency costs. The interaction between financing and production decisions influences the stationary distribution of firms and their survival probabilities. The analysis demonstrates that the equilibrium output price has an important feedback effect. This effect has a number of testable implications. For example, high growth industries have relatively lower leverage and turnover rates. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN CAPITAL STRUCTURE and product market decisions has recently received considerable attention in both economics and finance. Beginning

The traditional view is that interest deductibility encourages firms to use debt financing; however, some argue that the personal tax disadvantage to interest offsets the corporate tax advantage. This paper investigates the degree to which personal taxes affect corporate financing decisions. In crosssectional regressions that control for personal taxes, debt usage is positively correlated with tax rates in each year 1980-1994, with significant coefficients in almost every year. A specification that adjusts tax benefits for the personal tax penalty statistically dominates a specification that does not. The positive (negative) effect of corporate (personal) taxes on debt usage is distinctly identified.

Abstract not found

Abstract: The paper studies the effect of social capital on the firms ’ debt capacity and capital structure in China. We measure the social capital of China’s 31 provinces through four indexes: the number of NGOs per capita, the index of trust among peoples, the volunteer blood donation ratio of civics, and the money and material donation of civics. The results show that in those areas with more social capital, the firms are more likely to have higher debt ratio and longer debt maturity, and the firms can get debt financing with less tangible assets. And in those districts, the firms are easier to obtain bank credits and trade credits. The paper has two contributions to the economics literature: first, it confirms the economic value of social capital from a micro view; second, it provides a new perspective to understand the firms ’ capital structure choice.

This paper presents a model in which a firm with a degree of R&D specialization raises external funds to develop a two-period project that involves some non-verifiable returns (R&D-type of project). Taking into account a possible opportunistic behavior by the manager, we find out that the optimal firm's debt equity ratio is negatively related to the firm's degree of R&D specialization, its internal funds, and the output generated by the R&D project. Moreover, the expected R&D output of the firm is related negatively to the firm’s leverage and positively to the firm’s degree of R&D specialization as well as the amount of internal funds. The novelty of this work is to derive these results from strategic default consideration of the managers of firms specialized in R&D investments, as opposed to the standard collateral arguments concerning debt financing. This has a consequence of a lower growth of the firm’s debt-equity ratio once we compare firms specialized on R&D investments with others non specialized in these activities. We confirm our main theoretical findings making use of a Spanish data set of manufacturing firms during the period 1990-94.

Financial leverage and corporate taxation Evidence from German corporate tax return data

Empirical examinations of capital structure have led some to conclude that firms are underlevered. Implicit in this argument and much of the empirical work on leverage is the assumption that the availability of incremental capital depends solely on the risk of the firm’s cash flows and characteristics of the firm. However, the same market frictions that make capital structure relevant suggest that firms may be rationed by lenders, leading some firms to appear to be under-levered relative to unconstrained firms. We examine this theory, arguing that the same characteristics that may be associated with firms being rationed by the debt markets are also associated with financial intermediaries, opposed to bond markets, being the source of a firm’s debt capital. We find that firms have significantly different leverage ratios based on whether they have access to public bond markets as measured by the firm having a debt rating. Although firms with a debt rating are fundamentally different, these differences do not explain our findings. Even after controlling for the firm characteristics previously found to determine observed capital structure and the possible endogeneity of having a bond rating, we find that firms which are able to raise debt from public markets have 35 percent more debt.