To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, research on capital structure determinants: a review and future directions.

International Journal of Managerial Finance

ISSN : 1743-9132

Article publication date: 3 April 2017

The purpose of this paper is to study the status of studies on capital structure determinants in the past 40 years. This paper highlights the major gaps in the literature on determinants of capital structure and also aims to raise specific questions for future research.

Design/methodology/approach

The prominence of research is assessed by studying the year of publication and region, level of economic development, firm size, data collection methods, data analysis techniques and theoretical models of capital structure from the selected papers. The review is based on 167 papers published from 1972 to 2013 in various peer-reviewed journals. The relationship of determinants of capital structure is analyzed with the help of meta-analysis.

Major findings show an increase of interest in research on determinants of capital structure of the firms located in emerging markets. However, it is observed that these regions are still under-examined which provides more scope for research both empirical and survey-based studies. Majority of research studies are conducted on large-sized firms by using secondary data and regression-based models for the analysis, whereas studies on small-sized firms are very meager. As majority of the research papers are written only at the organizational level, the impact of leverage on various industries is yet to be examined. The review highlights the major determinants of capital structure and their relationship with leverage. It also reveals the dominance of pecking order theory in explaining capital structure of firms theoretically as well as statistically.

Originality/value

The paper covers a considerable period of time (1972-2013). Among very few review papers on capital structure research, to the best of authors’ knowledge; this is the first review to identify what is missing in the literature on the determinants of capital structure while offering recommendations for future studies. It also synthesize the findings of empirical studies on determinants of capital structure statistically.

  • Literature review
  • Meta-analysis
  • Capital structure
  • Pecking order

Kumar, S. , Colombage, S. and Rao, P. (2017), "Research on capital structure determinants: a review and future directions", International Journal of Managerial Finance , Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 106-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-09-2014-0135

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Capital structure of SMEs: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis

  • Published: 13 November 2019
  • Volume 70 , pages 535–565, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

  • Satish Kumar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5200-1476 1 ,
  • Riya Sureka 1 &
  • Sisira Colombage 2  

4622 Accesses

76 Citations

Explore all metrics

Capital structure is the outcome of market conditions, financial decisions taken by the firm, and credit rationing of fund providers. Research on the capital structure of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) has gained momentum in recent years. The present study aims to identify key contributors, key areas, current dynamics, and suggests future research directions in the field of the capital structure of SMEs. This paper adopts a systematic literature review methodology along with bibliometric, network, and content analysis on a sample of 262 studies taken from the Web of Science database to examine the research activities that have taken place on this topic. Most influential papers are identified based on citations and PageRank, along with the most influential authors. The co-citation network is developed to see the intellectual structure of this research area. Applying bibliometric tools, four research clusters have been identified and content analysis performed on the papers identified in the clusters. It is found that the major research focus in this area is around theory testing—mainly, pecking order theory, trade-off theory, and agency theory. Determinants of capital structure, trade credit, corporate governance, and bankruptcy are also the prominent research topics in this field. Also, this study has identified the research gaps and has proposed five actionable research directions for the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

determinants of capital structure literature review

Acedo FJ, Barroso C, Casanueva C, Gala JL (2006) Co-authorship in management and organizational studies. J Manag Stud 43:957–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Ang JS (1992) On the theory of finance for privately held firms. J Entrep Finance 1:185–203

Google Scholar  

Azouzi MA, Jarboui A (2012) CEO emotional bias and capital structure choice, bayesian network method. Bus Excell Manag 2:47–70

Beck T, Demirgüç-Kunt A, Maksimovic V (2008) Financing patterns around the world: are small firms different? J Financ Econ 89:467–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.10.005

Berger AN, Udell GF (1998) The economics of small business finance: the roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. J Bank Finance 22:613–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(98)00038-7

Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp 10:P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008

Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput Netw ISDN Syst 30:107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X

Brounen D, De Jong A, Koedijk K (2004) Corporate finance in Europe: confronting theory with practice. Financ Manag 44:71–101

Castriotta M, Loi M, Marku E, Naitana L (2019) What’s in a name? Exploring the conceptual structure of emerging organizations. Scientometrics 118:407–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2977-2

Chang RP, Rhee SG (1990) The impact of personal taxes on corporate dividend policy and capital structure decisions. Financ Manag 19:21–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3665631

Cisneros L, Ibanescu M, Keen C, Lobato-Calleros O, Niebla-Zatarain J (2018) Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: mapping and analyzing authors’ networks. Scientometrics 117:919–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2889-1

Cloyd CB, Limberg ST, Robinson JR (1997) The impact of federal taxes on the use of debt by closely held corporations. Natl Tax J 50:261–277

Czarniewski S (2016) Small and medium-sized enterprises in the context of innovation and entrepreneurship in the economy. Pol J Manag Stud 3:30–39. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2016.13.1.03

Daskalakis N, Eriotis N, Thanou E, Vasiliou D (2014) Capital structure and size: new evidence across the broad spectrum of SMEs. Manag Finance 40:1207–1222. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-11-2013-0325

Demirgüç-Kunt A, Maksimovic V (1999) Institutions, financial markets, and firms’ choice of debt maturity. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-1686

Diamond DW (1984) Financial intermediation and delegated monitoring. Rev Econ Stud 51:393–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297430

Ding Y, Cronin B (2011) Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Inf Process Manag 47:80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2010.01.002

Ding Y, Chowdhury GG, Foo S (2001) Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-work analysis. Inf Process Manage 37:817–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00051-0

Ding Y, Yan E, Frazho A, Caverlee J (2009) PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. J Am Soc Inf Sci 60:2229–2243. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21171

Fahimnia B, Sarkis J, Davarzani H (2015) Green supply chain management: a review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Prod Econ 162:101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003

Fairchild RJ (2005) The effect of Managerial Overconfidence, asymmetric information, and moral hazard on capital structure decisions. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.711845

Fernández Z, Nieto MJ (2006) Impact of ownership on the international involvement of SMEs. J Int Bus Stud 37:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400196

Ferris JS (1981) A transactions theory of trade credit use. Q J Econ 96:243–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882390

Gallo MÁ, Tàpies J, Cappuyns K (2004) Comparison of family and nonfamily business: financial logic and personal preferences. Family Bus Rev 17:303–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2004.00020.x

Garfield E (2009) From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. J Informetr 3:173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.009

Gmur M (2003) Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: a methodological evaluation. Scientometrics 57:27–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023619503005

Graham JR, Harvey CR (2001) The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field. J Financ Econ 60:187–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(01)00044-7

Hasan I, Jackowicz K, Kowalewski O, Kozłowski Ł (2017) Do local banking market structures matter for SME financing and performance? New evidence from an emerging economy. J Bank Finance 79:142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.03.009

Heshmati A (2001) On the growth of micro and small firms: evidence from Sweden. Small Bus Econ 17:213–228. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011886128912

Hjørland B (2013) Citation analysis: a social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization. Inf Process Manag 49:1313–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2013.07.001

Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3:305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

Kelly A, Morris H, Harvey C (2009) Modelling the outcome of the UK business and management studies RAE 2008 with reference to the ABS journal quality guide. Association of Business Schools

Kraus A, Litzenberger RH (1973) A state preference model of optimal financial leverage. J Finance 28:911–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01415.x

Leydesdorff L (2015) Bibliometrics/citation networks. In: Barnett GA (ed) Encyclopedia of social networks. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks

Li C, Wu K, Wu J (2017) A bibliometric analysis of research on haze during 2000–2016. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:24733–24742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0440-1

López-Gracia J, Sogorb-Mira F (2008) Testing trade-off and pecking order theories financing SMEs. Small Bus Econ 31:117–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9088-4

Mac an Bhaird C, Lucey B (2014) Culture’s influences: an investigation of inter-country differences in capital structure. Borsa Istanb Rev 14:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2013.10.004

Martinez LB, Scherger V, Guercio MB (2019). SMEs capital structure: trade-off or pecking order theory: a systematic review. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 26:105–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-12-2017-0387

Mc Namara A, Murro P, O’ Donohoe S (2017) Countries lending infrastructure and capital structur determination: the case of European SMEs. J Corp Finance 43:122–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.12.008

Michaelas N, Chittenden F, Poutziouris P (1999) Financial policy and capital structure choice in UK SMEs: empirical evidence from company panel data. Small Bus Econ 12:113–130. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008010724051

Michiels A, Molly V (2017) Financing decisions in family businesses: a review and suggestions for developing the field. Family Bus Rev 30:369–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517736958

Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I (2006) Family governance and firm performance: agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Bus Rev 19:73–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00063.x

Mingers J, Willmott H (2013) Taylorizing business school research: on the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists. Hum Relat 66:1051–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712467048

Modigliani F, Miller MH (1958) The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. Am Econ Rev 48:261–297

Moritz A, Block JH, Heinz A (2016) Financing patterns of European SMEs—an empirical taxonomy. Venture Cap 18:115–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2016.1145900

MSME (2018) Annual report 2017–2018. Government of India. https://msme.gov.in/relatedlinks/annual-report-ministry-micro-small-and-medium-enterprises . Accessed 17 May 2018

Myers SC (1977) Determinants of corporate borrowing. J Financ Econ 5:147–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(77)90015-0

Myers SC (1984) The capital structure puzzle. J Finance 39:574–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1984.tb03646.x

Myers SC, Majluf NS (1984) Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. J Financ Econ 13:187–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0

Oliver BR (2005) The impact of management confidence on capital structure. Available at SSRN 791924. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.791924

Pacheco L, Tavares F (2015) Capital structure determinants of Portuguese footwear sector SMEs: empirical evidence using a panel data. Tékhne 13:145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tekhne.2016.04.002

Persson O, Danell R, Schneider JW (2009) How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. Celebr Sch Commun Stud Festschrift Olle Persson 60th Birthd 5:9–24

Petersen MA, Rajan RG (1994) The benefits of lending relationships: evidence from small business data. J Finance 49:3–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1994.tb04418.x

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J Doc 25:348–349

Rajan RG, Zingales L (1995) What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. J Finance 50:1421–1460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb05184.x

Ramos Rodríguez AR, Ruíz Navarro J (2004) Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strateg Manag J 25:981–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.397

Rice T, Strahan PE (2010) Does credit competition affect small-firm finance? J Finance 65:861–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01555.x

Romano CA, Tanewski GA, Smyrnios KX (2001) Capital structure decision making: a model for family business. J Bus Ventur 16:285–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00053-1

Ross SA (1977) The determination of financial structure: the incentive-signalling approach. Bell J Econ 8:23–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003485

Scherr FC, Hulburt HM (2001) The debt maturity structure of small firms. Financ Manag 30:85–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/3666392

Serrasqueiro Z, Nunes PM (2012) Is age a determinant of SMEs’ financing decisions? Empirical evidence using panel data models. Entrep Theory Pract 36:627–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00433.x

Serrasqueiro Z, Nunes PM (2014) Financing behaviour of Portuguese SMEs in hotel industry. Int J Hosp Manag 43:98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.09.001

Shen Y, Shen M, Xu Z, Bai Y (2009) Bank size and small-and medium-sized enterprise (SME) lending: evidence from China. World Dev 37:800–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.014

Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1997) A survey of corporate governance. J Finance 52:737–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x

Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci 24:265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406

Small HG (2009) Critical thresholds for co-citation clusters and emergence of the giant component. J Informetr 3:332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.05.001

Small H, Greenlee E (1980) Citation context analysis of a co-citation cluster: recombinant-DNA. Scientometrics 2:277–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016349

Sogorb-Mira F (2005) How SME uniqueness affects capital structure: evidence from a 1994–1998 Spanish data panel. Small Bus Econ 25:447–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-004-6486-8

Stiglitz JE, Weiss A (1981) Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. Am Econ Rev 71:393–410

Stohs MH, Mauer DC (1996) The determinants of corporate debt maturity structure. J Bus 69:279–312

Storey DJ (1994) The role of legal status in influencing bank financing and new firm growth. Appl Econ 26:129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849400000068

Strozzi F, Colicchia C, Creazza A et al (2017) Literature review on the “Smart Factory” concept using bibliometric tools. Int J Prod Res 55:6572–6591. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1326643

Svensson G (2010) SSCI and its impact factors: a “prisoner’s dilemma”? Eur J Mark 44:23–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011008583

Thorburn KS (2000) Bankruptcy auctions: costs, debt recovery, and firm survival. J Financ Econ 58:337–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00075-1

Titman S, Wessels R (1988) The determinants of capital structure choice. J Finance 43:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb02585.x

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tunger D, Eulerich M (2018) Bibliometric analysis of corporate governance research in German-speaking countries: applying bibliometrics to business research using a custom-made database. Scientometrics 117:2041–2059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2919-z

Tüselmann H, Sinkovics RR, Pishchulov G (2016) Revisiting the standing of international business journals in the competitive landscape. J World Bus 51:487–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.01.006

Ueda M (2004) Banks versus venture capital: project evaluation, screening, and expropriation. J Finance 59:601–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00643.x

Uzzi B (1999) Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. Am Sociol Rev 64:481–505. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657252

Van der Wijst N, Thurik R (1993) Determinants of small firm debt ratios: an analysis of retail panel data. Small Bus Econ 5:55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01539318

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2009) How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well known similarity measures. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 60:1635–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21075

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Vermoesen V, Deloof M, Laveren E (2013) Long-term debt maturity and financing constraints of SMEs during the global financial crisis. Small Bus Econ 41:433–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-012-9435-y

Villalonga B, Amit R (2006) How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? J Financ Econ 80:385–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.12.005

Vos E, Yeh AJY, Carter S, Tagg S (2007) The happy story of small business financing. J Bank Finance 31:2648–2672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.09.011

Voulgaris F, Asteriou D, Agiomirgianakis G (2004) Size and determinants of capital structure in the Greek manufacturing sector. Int Rev Appl Econ 18:247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269217042000186714

Wald JK (1999) How firm characteristics affect capital structure: an international comparison. J Financ Res 22:161–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfir.1999.22.issue-2

Warner JB (1977) Bankruptcy costs: some evidence. J Finance 32:337–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2326766

Watson R, Wilson N (2002) Small and medium size enterprise financing: a note on some of the empirical implications of a pecking order. J Bus Finance Account 29:557–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00443

Westhead P, Storey DJ (1997) Financial constraints on the growth of high technology small firms in the United Kingdom. Appl Financ Econ 7:197–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/096031097333763

Whited TM (1992) Debt, liquidity constraints, and corporate investment: evidence from panel data. J Finance 47:1425–1460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04664.x

Wiklund J, Shepherd D (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. J Bus Ventur 20:71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001

Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies. Free Press, New York, p 2630

Williamson OE (1988) Corporate finance and corporate governance. J Finance 43:567–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb04592.x

Wilner BS (2000) The exploitation of relationships in financial distress: the case of trade credit. J Finance 55:153–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00203

Winborg J, Landström H (2001) Financial bootstrapping in small businesses: examining small business managers’ resource acquisition behaviors. J Bus Ventur 16:235–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00055-5

Windmeijer F (2005) A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J Econom 126:25–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.005

Wintoki MB, Linck JS, Netter JM (2012) Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. J Financ Econ 105:581–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005

Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge

Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press, Cambridge

Wright M, Robbie K (1998) Venture capital and private equity: a review and synthesis. J Bus Finance Account 25:521–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00201

Wright M, Stigliani I (2013) Entrepreneurship and growth. Int Small Bus J 31:3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612467359

Wu Z, Chua JH, Chrisman JJ (2007) Effects of family ownership and management on small business equity financing. J Bus Ventur 22:875–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.07.002

Xiang D, Worthington AC, Higgs H (2015) Discouraged finance seekers: an analysis of Australian small and medium-sized enterprises. Int Small Bus J 33:689–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242613516138

Xu X, Chen X, Jia F, Brown S, Gong Y, Xu Y (2018) Supply chain finance: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Prod Econ 204:160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.003

Yang CH, Huang CH (2005) R&D, size and firm growth in Taiwan‘s electronics industry. Small Bus Econ 25:477–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-004-6487-7

Yermack D (1996) Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. J Financ Econ 40:185–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00844-5

Yosha O (1995) Information disclosure costs and the choice of financing source. J Financ Intermed 4:3–20. https://doi.org/10.1006/jfin.1995.1001

Zahra SA (2003) International expansion of US manufacturing family businesses: the effect of ownership and involvement. J Bus Ventur 18:495–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00057-0

Zahra SA (2005) Entrepreneurial risk taking in family firms. Family Bus Rev 18:2340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2005.00028.x

Zahra SA, Ireland RD, Hitt MA (2000) International expansion by new venture firms: international diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Acad Manag J 43:925–950. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556420

Zingales L (2000) In search of new foundations. J Finance 55:1623–1653. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00262

Zott C, Huy QN (2007) How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources. Adm Sci Q 52:70–105. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.70

Zupic I, Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods 18:429–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Zwiebel J (1996) Dynamic capital structure under managerial entrenchment. Am Econ Rev 86:1197–1215

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management Studies, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302017, India

Satish Kumar & Riya Sureka

Federation Business School, Federation University Australia, Berwick Campus 100, Clyde Road, Berwick, VIC, 3806, Australia

Sisira Colombage

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satish Kumar .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kumar, S., Sureka, R. & Colombage, S. Capital structure of SMEs: a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Manag Rev Q 70 , 535–565 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00175-4

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2019

Accepted : 06 November 2019

Published : 13 November 2019

Issue Date : November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00175-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Capital structure
  • Systematic literature review
  • Bibliometric analysis
  • Network analysis
  • Content analysis
  • Co-citation

JEL Classfications

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Monash University Logo

  • Help & FAQ

Research on capital structure determinants: a review and future directions

Research output : Contribution to journal › Review Article › Research › peer-review

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to study the status of studies on capital structure determinants in the past 40 years. This paper highlights the major gaps in the literature on determinants of capital structure and also aims to raise specific questions for future research. Design/methodology/approach: The prominence of research is assessed by studying the year of publication and region, level of economic development, firm size, data collection methods, data analysis techniques and theoretical models of capital structure from the selected papers. The review is based on 167 papers published from 1972 to 2013 in various peer-reviewed journals. The relationship of determinants of capital structure is analyzed with the help of meta-analysis. Findings: Major findings show an increase of interest in research on determinants of capital structure of the firms located in emerging markets. However, it is observed that these regions are still under-examined which provides more scope for research both empirical and survey-based studies. Majority of research studies are conducted on large-sized firms by using secondary data and regression-based models for the analysis, whereas studies on small-sized firms are very meager. As majority of the research papers are written only at the organizational level, the impact of leverage on various industries is yet to be examined. The review highlights the major determinants of capital structure and their relationship with leverage. It also reveals the dominance of pecking order theory in explaining capital structure of firms theoretically as well as statistically. Originality/value: The paper covers a considerable period of time (1972-2013). Among very few review papers on capital structure research, to the best of authors’ knowledge; this is the first review to identify what is missing in the literature on the determinants of capital structure while offering recommendations for future studies. It also synthesize the findings of empirical studies on determinants of capital structure statistically.

  • Capital structure
  • Literature review
  • Meta-analysis
  • Pecking order

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

  • 10.1108/IJMF-09-2014-0135

Other files and links

  • Link to publication in Scopus

T1 - Research on capital structure determinants

T2 - a review and future directions

AU - Kumar, Satish

AU - Colombage, Sisira

AU - Rao-Melancini, Purnima

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to study the status of studies on capital structure determinants in the past 40 years. This paper highlights the major gaps in the literature on determinants of capital structure and also aims to raise specific questions for future research. Design/methodology/approach: The prominence of research is assessed by studying the year of publication and region, level of economic development, firm size, data collection methods, data analysis techniques and theoretical models of capital structure from the selected papers. The review is based on 167 papers published from 1972 to 2013 in various peer-reviewed journals. The relationship of determinants of capital structure is analyzed with the help of meta-analysis. Findings: Major findings show an increase of interest in research on determinants of capital structure of the firms located in emerging markets. However, it is observed that these regions are still under-examined which provides more scope for research both empirical and survey-based studies. Majority of research studies are conducted on large-sized firms by using secondary data and regression-based models for the analysis, whereas studies on small-sized firms are very meager. As majority of the research papers are written only at the organizational level, the impact of leverage on various industries is yet to be examined. The review highlights the major determinants of capital structure and their relationship with leverage. It also reveals the dominance of pecking order theory in explaining capital structure of firms theoretically as well as statistically. Originality/value: The paper covers a considerable period of time (1972-2013). Among very few review papers on capital structure research, to the best of authors’ knowledge; this is the first review to identify what is missing in the literature on the determinants of capital structure while offering recommendations for future studies. It also synthesize the findings of empirical studies on determinants of capital structure statistically.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to study the status of studies on capital structure determinants in the past 40 years. This paper highlights the major gaps in the literature on determinants of capital structure and also aims to raise specific questions for future research. Design/methodology/approach: The prominence of research is assessed by studying the year of publication and region, level of economic development, firm size, data collection methods, data analysis techniques and theoretical models of capital structure from the selected papers. The review is based on 167 papers published from 1972 to 2013 in various peer-reviewed journals. The relationship of determinants of capital structure is analyzed with the help of meta-analysis. Findings: Major findings show an increase of interest in research on determinants of capital structure of the firms located in emerging markets. However, it is observed that these regions are still under-examined which provides more scope for research both empirical and survey-based studies. Majority of research studies are conducted on large-sized firms by using secondary data and regression-based models for the analysis, whereas studies on small-sized firms are very meager. As majority of the research papers are written only at the organizational level, the impact of leverage on various industries is yet to be examined. The review highlights the major determinants of capital structure and their relationship with leverage. It also reveals the dominance of pecking order theory in explaining capital structure of firms theoretically as well as statistically. Originality/value: The paper covers a considerable period of time (1972-2013). Among very few review papers on capital structure research, to the best of authors’ knowledge; this is the first review to identify what is missing in the literature on the determinants of capital structure while offering recommendations for future studies. It also synthesize the findings of empirical studies on determinants of capital structure statistically.

KW - Capital structure

KW - Leverage

KW - Literature review

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Pecking order

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015743903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/IJMF-09-2014-0135

DO - 10.1108/IJMF-09-2014-0135

M3 - Review Article

AN - SCOPUS:85015743903

SN - 1743-9132

JO - International Journal of Managerial Finance

JF - International Journal of Managerial Finance

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • v.9(9); 2023 Sep
  • PMC10558878

Logo of heliyon

Capital structure determinants across sectors: Comparison of observed evidences from the use of time series and panel data estimators

a University Kuala Lumpur Business School, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abdul Razak Abdul Hadi

Hafezali iqbal hussain.

b Taylor's Business School, Taylor's University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

c University of Economics and Human Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Qazi Muhammad Adnan Hye

d Academic Research and Development Wing, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Associated Data

Data will be made available on request.

This comparative study is an attempt to explore the determinants of capital structure for Malaysian firms listed in various sectors level. Within the framework of traditional and moderate dynamic capital structure theories, the key determinants such as fixed assets, current assets, return on equity, size, earning per share and total assets are tested in relation to the debt-equity ratio. The large-scale study entails data collected from 551 listed firms of Bursa Malaysia main market over 12 years period i.e. 2005-2016. Notably, this study combines Time Series econometrics with Panel Data analysis to enhance methodological robustness. Moreover, the comparative analysis approach is designated to recognize the most persistent capital structure determinants. In the first place, the Multiple Regression analysis (MRA) is selected as a baseline estimation method. Subsequently, the Auto Regression Distributed Lag model (ARDL), the Panel Data Static models, and Dynamic model via the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) are employed to identify the capital structure determinants for the firms listed at Bursa Malaysia. The outcomes are surprising and indicate that the entire market is primarily controlled by the studied determinant total assets, which is significant in both construction and property sectors through MRA, ARDL, and GMM analysis. Technically, the significant role of tangibility and the existence of speed of adjustment across sectors imply that the Dynamic Capital Structure is the most prominent among all, followed by the Dynamic Trade-off theory.

1. Introduction

In the corporate finance literature, there have always been controversies and contradictory results among empirical inquiries when it comes to the topic of capital structure. Evidently, several studies have highlighted the importance of exploring the determinants that affect capital structure to boost an organization's financial performance. Capital Structure is referred to as the blend of debt and equity which is funded to a firm to carry out its operational activities and to attain strategic objectives of financial growth [ 1 , 2 ]. For this reason, the selection of debt-equity mix to formulate optimal capital structure and enhance profit margin to survive in the competitive environment is an important decision for the firms. Technically, an optimal capital structure is the best mix of debt and equity that raises the firm's market value and drops its overall cost of capital [ 3 ]. Despite myriad studies, the identification of determinants to articulate optimal capital structure is still unsettled. Nevertheless, the core capital structure theories such as Modigliani and Miller, Trade-Off, Pecking Order, and now their modern dynamic versions provide directions for the firms to select the most appropriate determinants that help them in formulating optimal capital structure [ 4 ]. Recently, academic investigations claim that the selection of best financing mix to formulate optimal capital structure can be done by combining various determinants that are associated with the firm's characteristics and its institutional-level settings [e.g. Refs. [ 5 , 6 ]]. Generally, a capital market is measured as an important institution of a country that delivers finance to improve the economic condition, performance, and industrial development [ 7 ]. Technically, sectors in the capital market are developed for those firms which have similar characteristics and nature of business [ 8 ].

Bursa Malaysia is one of the key capital markets and institutions that contribute meaningfully to Malaysian financial growth [ 9 ]. Earlier investigations that have been done in the context of Bursa Malaysia for investigating capital structure determinants deliver mixed and opposite results [see for e. g, Refs. [ 10 , 11 ]. In addition, with limited exceptions, previous investigations commonly do not offer any significant contribution, as they mainly focus on the firm's associated features instead of considering sector-specific determinants of capital structure [ 12 , 13 ]. Moreover, previous researchers have not provided a significant view and conclusive findings as their investigations chiefly focus on some specific sectors of the market, therefore, diverse and ambiguous outcomes are achieved [ [14] , [15] , [16] ]. Empirically, very limited studies have been conducted to explore the determinants of capital structure for Malaysian listed firms [ 17 ] and probe the implication of capital structure theories [ 18 ].

Moreover, prior inquiries suggest that the capital structure of Malaysian firms is not a static property and is dynamic in nature, hence, deviates from its targeted level [ [19] , [20] , [21] ]. Nevertheless, the presence of speed of adjustment (SOA) helps firms to return back toward their required targeted capital structure [ 22 ]. The SOA explicates the convergence period i.e. how speedily the firms move back to their required or targeted debt ratio [ 23 ]. A firm's targeted capital structure describes the capital structure which is optimal and a firm strives to maintain [ 24 ]. Unfortunately, in Malaysia, limited investigations have been conducted so far to recognize dynamic capital structure determinants [ 25 , 26 ]. Hence, the determinants of capital structure is still an unresolved issue in Malaysia and requires further broad investigation [ 27 , 28 ].

Motivated by the aforementioned facts, a comprehensive investigation considering the maximum sectors of Bursa Malaysia main market is warranted. Precisely, the sectors in Bursa Malaysia main market are categorized by dissimilar business models. Taking everything into account, this study is set to cover maximum sectors to explore the capital structure determinants for whole public listed firms at Bursa Malaysia. Therefore, in order to achieve these goals and to increase methodological robustness, this study combines Time Series econometrics with Panel Data analysis. Besides, this study also extends comparative analysis approach [e.g. [ 29 , 30 ]] among the obtained findings from various econometrics techniques to come up with persistent capital structure determinants.

Beneficially, this study contributes to the existing literature and academia by delivering new empirical insights in several ways. Firstly, this study postulates a new knowledge of combining Time Series econometrics with Panel Data analysis that enhances the methodological robustness of this study. Evidently, the former studies delivered contradictory findings as they adopted dissimilar types of datasets and estimation approaches. Secondly, the comparative approach among various econometric techniques introduces a new way that also helps firms of other emerging markets to identify core sector-specific capital structure determinants. Thirdly, the use of a large data sample set of 551 individuals over 12 years i.e. 6612 observations by including firms from almost all sectors provides conclusive findings that would be beneficial for the whole Malaysian firms. Fourthly, the dynamic model is used to explore the point of optimal capital across all dissimilar sectors of Bursa Malaysia. This is to identify the trend of maintaining capital structure across the sectors and by listed Malaysian firms. Lastly, the observed outcomes are the baseline for policymakers and investigators to formulate a better financing model for Malaysian listed firms.

The rest of the study is structured as follows. Section 2 explains the literature review and theoretical framework. Section 3 exhibits the data sample construction and methodology. Subsequently, section 4 presents discussion for the empirical findings in details. After that, the conclusion part delivers a complete summary of the results with some recommendations for further future investigations.

2. Literature review & theoretical framework

2.1. theoretical review of capital structure determinants.

The present-day theories of capital structure are grounded on the effort of [ 31 ] who confirm that within the capital market that is considered perfect, the choice for selection of finance has no significant effects on the value of a firm. Afterwards, another theory which is named as Trade-Off theory postulates the idea of optimal capital structure and states that firms have chance to select their debt level which balances the financial cost disadvantages with tax benefits [ 32 ]. Later, Pecking Order theory is announced [ 33 ] which proposes the idea that firms initially emphasize more on internal funds then move for debt and then equity [ 34 ]. Technically, discussed capital structure theories are static in nature and explain capital structure related decisions of firms which belong to one term or period. This gives a way of entrance to new dynamic version of these theories [ 35 ]. announce a Dynamic Trade-Off theory which explains that a firm's capital structure cannot be at optimal stage all the time and it deviates from its optimal level which later requires necessary adjustment to return toward its optimal level. Similarly, the new model of Pecking-Order theory is presented by Ref. [ 36 ] that explains dynamic component and assumes that firms have flexibility of considering time element for their investment.

Next, the most relevant determinants that have been explained and reported significant by aforementioned capital structure theories in Malaysian context will be deliberated in details. Remarkably, this study proposes debt equity (DE) ratio as a dependent variable and total assets, fixed assets, current assets, size, return on equity and earnings per share as independent variables to measure capital structure. In addition, the empirical analysis of this study along with development of hypotheses is based on former studies. The earlier investigations enlighten variation in the selection of debt equity ratio at Bursa Malaysia [ 37 ]. This corroborates that capital structure ratio of firms in Malaysia is expected to be dynamic [ 38 ]. For that reason, it is obligatory to discover long-run, short-run and dynamic relationships among capital structure and its determinants. Remarkably, former inquiries specify that tangibility, sales (SIZE), liquidity, and profitability (ROE and EPS) elucidate capital structure of listed firms of Bursa Malaysia [see for e. g Refs. [ 39 , 40 ]]. Nevertheless, their association level is dissimilar i.e. positive association or negative association for these selected determinants. Thus, in view of prior inquiries, this study predicts positive relationships of liquidity, tangibility, SIZE and negative relationships for EPS and ROE with leverage. Hence, in order to find the answer of research question of this study that states: What are the core sector-specific capital structure determinants of the public listed firms at Bursa Malaysia? Following hypotheses are constructed:

There is a long-run relationship between capital structure and determinants (Econometrics Time Series Analysis)

There is a short-run relationship between capital structure and determinants (Econometrics Time Series Analysis)

There is a significant relationship between capital structure and determinants (Dynamic Panel Data Analysis)

There is a positive relationship between capital structure and liquidity (CA).

There is a positive relationship between capital structure and tangibility (FA).

There is a positive relationship between capital structure and tangibility (TA).

There is a positive relationship between capital structure and SIZE.

There is a negative relationship between capital structure and profitability (EPS).

There is a negative relationship between capital structure and profitability (ROE%).

2.2. Empirical evidences of designated capital structure determinants

This section delivers the theoretical relevance and observed evidences for nominated dependent and independent variables of this empirical investigation.

2.3. Justification for using the dependent variable

2.3.1. debt equity ratio (de).

Capital structure is the mixture of debt and equity that the firms acquire to finance their growth. The debt equity ratio is one of the major tested measures for capital structure and explained as total liabilities over total stockholders' equity [ 41 ]. Technically, this leverage ratio defines the relationship between the debt attained from creditors and acquired by shareholders to use as a firm's capital. The academic literature associated to capital structure explains a sequence of observed inquiries that use DE ratio as a measure for capital structure. For instance Ref. [ 42 ], in Malaysian context and [ 43 ] for Chinese firms employed debt equity ratio to explore firms' capital structure. Hence, as suggested by earlier studies [e.g. [ 44 , 45 ]] this study adopts debt equity ratio as a measure for capital structure.

2.4. Justification for using the independent variables

2.4.1. size.

In this study, the size is measured as an independent variable represented by firm's annual sales figure. In context of Malaysia, earlier studies that investigate size as a capital structure determinant, report a positive relationship with a limited exception [e.g. Refs. [ 46 , 47 ]], however, it reveals mixed results in other contexts [e.g. [ 48 , 49 ]]. Notably, capital structure theories provide dissimilar views in term of relationship between sales and leverage. The Pecking Order theory forecasts a negative relationship between size and leverage of firms [ 50 ]. In contrast, the Trade-Off theory predicts a positive relationship and explains that in terms of profitability, the firms which are larger in size have minor chances of bankruptcy [ 51 ]. Following this, one may expect a positive relationship between the size of a firm and leverage.

2.4.2. Return on equity (ROE)

ROE explains the efficiency of using shareholder's fund by a firm's management. The ratio of return on equity is defined as net income over total stockholders' funds [ 52 ]. Evidently, in various contexts, ROE as a capital structure determinant discloses diverse results for its relationship with capital structure. For example [ 53 ], in context of Malaysia, whereas [ 54 ] in context of Ghana exposes significant positive relationship of ROE with debt. Theoretically, the MM proposition states that projected return rate on equity rises proportionally with the debt-to-equity ratio [ 55 ]. In contrast, the Pecking Order theory explains that a firm selects internal finance first then debt and equity as the last alternative. Therefore, the Pecking Order theory proposes a negative relationship of profitability with the firm's capital structure [ 56 ]. Thus, in consistent with the earlier investigations, this study predicts negative relationship between ROE and capital structure.

2.4.3. Earning per share (EPS)

EPS is a measure of profit that a firm has generated in a given period after tax, divided by the number of shares. Importantly, earlier literature specifies that EPS is a constantly positive and significant determinant of capital structure in Malaysian context with few exceptions [e.g. Refs. [ 57 , 58 ]]. According to the MM proposition II, share price of the leveraged firm is not affected and remains constant if increase in EPS is observed because of external leverage [ 59 ]. Clearly, this elucidates positive relationship between EPS and firm's capital structure. However, the Pecking Order theory favors to use retained earnings and clarifies negative relationship of EPS with capital structure [ 60 ]. Therefore, in view of Malaysian market where almost 80% firms are tagged as Shariah based firms which prefer to use internal finance first, this study accepts negative relationship of EPS with firms' capital structure.

2.4.4. Current assets (CA)

This study introduces current assets as a capital structure determinant for listed Malaysian firms by using annual year-end figures of the firms' total current assets. Technically, current assets are liquid assets which offer extra figure of liquidity and help firms to easily access extra percentage of debt [ 61 ]. Likewise, to settle short term debt, a firm must have acceptable level of current assets. Notably, the motive to use this variable is that the major portion (80%) of the Malaysian capital market is covered by the Shariah firms [ 62 ], which prefer short term debt to avoid interest which is connected with the long-term debt financing. From academic literature [ 58 ], claim that Malaysian firms are able to meet short term creditors with their current assets. From theoretical explanation, the Pecking Order theory clarifies that a firm which owns excess current assets, preserves less debt ratio [ 63 ]. However, the Trade-Off theory deliberates current assets as a security measure to avail short term debt and offers a positive significant relationship between current assets and leverage. Having considered all things, this study predicts positive relationship between current asset and firms’ capital structure.

2.4.5. Fixed assets (FA)

This study presents fixed assets as a key capital structure determinant of Malaysian firms by using end year stated figure of total fixed assets. Notably, the key purpose to deliberate fixed assets as a DE determinant is that the major fragment (80%) of Bursa Malaysia comprises of Shariah tagged firms that avoid interest-based debt and use its tangible assets as collateral to acquire more finance. Generally, Shariah-tagged firms are considered as tangible firms as they are not allowed to keep up with those assets which are receivable in nature, more than allowed percentage [ 64 ]. Similarly, in existence of sound fixed assets, stockholders consider their investment secure as they offer security to them against firm's bankruptcy [ 65 ]. Theoretically, the Trade-Off theory reflects a significant and positive relationship between firm's capital structure and its fixed assets as tangible assets are supportive to attain more debt from abundant sources. A few empirical inquiries support this claim, along with [ 66 , 67 ], who recognize positive and significant relationship between fixed assets and firms' leverage. Thus, this study predicts positive and significant relationship between fixed assets and capital structure.

2.4.6. Total assets (TA)

Fundamentally, the most central determinant which impacts on the creation of capital structure is the firm's total assets [ 68 ]. Therefore, this study accepts total assets as a variable that is denoted by firms' reported end year total assets figures. Technically, assets of a firm consist of fixed and current assets and termed as total assets. From literature [ 69 ], in context of Iranian SMEs and [ 70 ] for Malaysian firms report total assets a significant determinant of leverage. Theoretically, the Pecking Order theory infers negative connection between firm's total assets and capital structure [ 71 ]. On the contrary, the Trade-Off theory describes that total assets are considered as a core security measure by lenders [ 72 ]. Therefore, the Trade-Off theory predicts a significant positive association between total assets and firms' capital structure. Hence, this study assumes positive significant relationship between total asset and firms' capital structure.

3. Data & samples construction

3.1. sampling method and target population.

The sample set of this study is constructed by engaging the Purposive Sampling method. Principally, Purposive Sampling is a process to generate a data sample in which the researcher depends on their own decisions while confirming targeted population to execute analysis [ 73 , 74 ]. Furthermore, this study uses quantitative approach to answer the nominated research questions. In order to perform the analysis, secondary data for a large-scale data sample set that is expressed in local Malaysian Ringgit (RM) is mined from the Bloomberg database. Moreover, the targeted population for this study is total 921 listed firms from 14 sectors (Trading & Services, Property, Infrastructure Project Companies (IPC), Industrial Products, Hotel, Consumer Products, Technology, Plantation, Construction, Finance, REIT, Mining, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPAC), Close End Funds) of Bursa Malaysia main market.

3.2. Sample size and construction

In order to create final data sample set, Finance, REIT, Mining, Close End Funds and SPAC sectors are eliminated from the targeted population sample. Empirically, this is according to the practices of earlier studies [ 75 ]. The reason for not including the Finance and REIT sectors is that they are bound by local regulatory bodies to mitigate risk exposure, hence, their leverage-preserving practices are different [ 76 ]. Furthermore, limited data is accessible for three sectors i.e. Mining, SPAC and Close End Funds, thus, they are excluded from the sample. Next, after going through the filtering process, a large-scale data sample set of balanced Panel Data that comprises 551 listed firms over the 12-year period i.e. 2005-2016 is created. Technically, this provides total 6696 annual observations.

In the next step, the yearly average-based time series data sheet for selected nine sectors (Trading & Services, Property, IPC, Industrial Products, Hotel, Consumer Products, Technology, Plantation, and Construction) is created to perform econometrics time series analysis. Nevertheless, the assessment for dynamic capital structure determinants and speed of adjustment is subjected to survivorship bias as all those firms which are loss creating entities are omitted from the data sample set [ 77 ]. For that reason, data sample set size for dynamic assessment is reduced to 435 firms across seven sectors (Construction, Plantation, Property, Trading & Services, Technology, Consumer Products, and Industrial Products). Notably, SAS 9.4 analytical software is hired to perform empirical analysis on 551 firms’ data sample set.

4. Assessment methods and models specifications

Notably, this empirical study combines Time Series econometrics (Multiple Regression and ARDL) with Panel Data analysis (static models and dynamic model via GMM estimator) to boost the methodological robustness of the study. This is to recognize the key persistent determinants of capital structure across the selected sectors.

4.1. Multiple Regression analysis (baseline estimation method)

Multiple Regression (MR) is an econometrics technique that is used to explore the relationship between a sole dependent variable and multiple independent variables [ 78 ]. This study hires Multiple Regression estimation technique as a baseline method to perform comparative approach on 12-year average based time series data that is in line with the practices of former researchers in capital structure [see [ 79 , 80 ]]. Technically, a baseline method is used to generate forecasts for a created data sample set. By considering the assumptions of Multiple Regression, the projected theoretical model of this investigation is articulated which is explained in below equation (1) :

where coefficients are represented by α and β, time specific effects are t, the error term is symbolised by μ t , Debt Equity ratio is represented by DE. Total assets is mentioned as TA, Sales is indicated by SIZE, Return on Equity is represented as ROE and finally Earning per Share is symbolised by EPS. Statistically, the Multiple Regression considers five basic assumptions which are linearity, expected zero value of error term, absence of multicollinearity, autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity [ 81 ]. However, this investigation performs variance inflation factor (VIF) test to detect multicollinearity issue, Durbin Watson D test for autocorrelation and White test to find heteroskedasticity problem in the model.

4.2. The Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) analysis

This study mobilized the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) cointegration technique to capture short run and long run relationship between the selected variables. Fundamentally, cointegration technique is used as an econometrics method that constructs a model which has non-stationary variables and delivers meaningful results [ 82 ]. Remarkably, this investigation applies the exercise of ARDL cointegration technique by using 12-year average-based time series data which is consistent with the former researchers’ practices in capital structure [see Refs. [ 83 , 84 ]].

The main advantage of using the ARDL technique is that it can easily handle small data sample size [ 85 ]. Besides, ARDL permits to determine various lags of variables and accepts the relationship level either at level I (0) or I (1) or a mixture of both but not at I (2) [ 86 ]. Moreover, an Error Correction Model (ECM) of ARDL which is dynamic in nature can easily be formulated by a simple linear conversion. Technically, in ARDL estimation the pre-tests for unit root are not required [ 87 ]. Methodically, this study uses Schwarz Bayesian Criterion to determine the level of integration among the variables. Afterwards, the ARDL bound test is conducted to determine the long run relationship. When the long run relationship is established, this study moves to ARDL reparametrized Error Correction Model. The ARDL ECM model provides traditional ARDL results of long run relationship along with short run dynamic relationship of selected variables [ 88 ]. Hence, by following the work of former scholars [e.g. Ref. [ 89 ]] the ARDL long run estimation model of this investigation is presented in below equation (2) :

Here α is the coefficient and γ 2 to γ 6 , j = 1, 2, …,3 signify the long run relationship of selected variables. Similarly, Debt Equity ratio is mentioned as DE, total assets by TA, sales by SIZE and earning per share by EPS. Next, after estimating the long run relationship, the ARDL model is reparametrized into the ECM model to find long and short run dynamic relationships. The articulated ECM model is presented in below equation (3) :

Where α and β t are the estimated coefficient, Ϛ 1 to Ϛ 6 , j = 1, 2, …,6 specify the short run dynamic relationship among the variables. Likewise, Debt Equity ratio is represented by △DE, total assets by △(TA), sales by △(SIZE) and earning per share by △(EPS). Statistically, the ARDL estimators assume no autocorrelation, absence of heteroskedasticity and normal distribution in the model [ 90 ]. Hence, this investigation conducts a Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test for serial correlation, Ramsey's RESET test for the model misspecification. Similarly, normality is checked by analyzing skewness and kurtosis of residuals and heteroscedasticity by analyzing regression of square residuals on squared fitted values.

4.3. Panel Data Static and Dynamic models

A Panel Data is a grouping of time-series and cross-sectional data [ 91 ]. The motives for this investigation to consider the balanced Panel Data Static and Dynamic modelling techniques are that the Panel Data enhances the degree of freedom. Besides, it also increases sample size, reduces diagnostic issues of multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, heterogeneity and measures all those properties which are not acknowledged by cross-sectional data and time series data separately [ 92 ]. Analytically, this investigation starts with the condition of projected model which has been used by various prior researchers [e.g. Refs. [ [93] , [94] , [95] ]]. The constructed Panel Data model of this inquiry is displayed in below equation (4) :

Here, i is occupied as individuals or firms (i = 1,2, ….551) and t is represented as time period of 12-year (t = 1,2, ….,12). Similarly, α i specifies the cross sectional effect, γ t indicates the time series effect, β 1 , β 2 , β 3 , β 4 , β 5 , β 6 are the regression coefficients, DE designates debt to equity ratio, Total assets of firms is mentioned by TA, Fixed Assets by FA, Current Assets by CA, sales by SIZE, return on equity by ROE, earning per share by EPS and lastly ε i t mentions error term effect. First, this investigation executes the Static Panel data analysis, followed by the Dynamic Panel data model via GMM estimator.

4.3.1. Static Panel Data Models

The Panel Data Static Model is used to examine the individual behaviour or one-way effects in a repetitive environment [ 96 ]. The static panel models are further classified into three types: (i) Pooled Ordinary Least Squares (ii) Fixed Effects (iii) Random Effects. Pooled Ordinary Least Square (POLS), is the simplest model of the Panel Data analysis. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is the basic and best procedure for evaluating the unspecified parameters in a regression analysis. Similarly, in Fixed Effects model , the individual and time series give its effects on intercept. In this model parameters are not random and have fixed quantities [ 97 ]. The constructed empirical model of the Fixed Effects investigation is displayed in below equation (5) :

Here, debt equity ratio is represented by DE. Likewise, time period t and individuals i followed by all other selected six explanatory variables i.e. TA, FA, CA, SIZE, EPS and ROE. Furthermore, α is an individual fixed parameter that is mentioned as a constant, β is taken as parameters matrix, γ i designates effect which is lying on intercept and μ i t mentions the error term. In Random Effects model, parameters are random variables and the time series and individuals leave its effects on slope [ 98 ]. Hence, the Random Effects model for this study is evaluated by using the model that is stated below in equation (6) :

Here, DE is a dependent variable on individuals i and time period t which is followed by the selected six independent variables i.e. TA, FA, CA, SIZE, EPS and ROE. Likewise, β is considered as parameter matrix, μ i is taken as an error term due to component which is cross section, V t is also mentioned as an error term which is because of time series, W i t is error term because of time series and individual components. Statistically, to check the validity of the results attained from Panel data Static models' analysis, this investigation performs [ 99 ] Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test, Wallace and Hussain (VCR) test and Hausman test. Technically, the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test is performed to check the selection for random or pooled effects model. Next, if the Random Effects model is found effective over the model of pooled OLS, then model is analyzed by Wallace and Hussain VCR component to approximate the Random Effects model. Lastly, the Hausman's test [ 100 ] is performed to compare and select the Random or Fixed Effects model for further investigations

4.3.2. Dynamic Panel data model

Dynamic Panel model is used for investigations when current values of dependent variable depend on its past realization [ 101 ]. In other words, this model permits the use of dependent variable lags as an independent variable. Numerous empirical inquiries recommend that the firm's capital structure is not a static property and dynamic in nature [see [ 102 , 103 ]]. Notably, this study picks GMM estimator to examine Dynamic Panel model and SOA for the firms listed at various sectors of Bursa Malaysia. To check the robustness, this study engages difference GMM estimator that converts the independent variables by using a first difference, handle endogeneity and removes the unobserved fixed specific effect of the firm [ 104 ]. The dynamic effect model for GMM estimation of this study is specified in below equation (7) :

Here, D E i , t − 1 mentions lagged of dependen t variable i.e. D E i t . Likewise, by considering the difference GMM, the first modification in the dynamic model is given below in equation (8) :

By above equation (8) , the dynamic model that is developed to estimate the speed of adjustment (SOA) is given below in equation (9) :

Here, variables of equation (9) are well-defined in above equation (see equation (4) ). Debt Equity ratio is denoted by D E i t and, ( 1 − λ ) D E i t − 1 represents lagged value of dependent variable that is used for evaluating speed of adjustment for a firm to sustain targeted capital structure. Moreover, this study estimates SOA by deducting coefficient value ‘λ’ from 1 i.e. (1-λ) which specifies the alteration between targeted level of debt and actual level of debt [ 105 ]. Statistically, to handle the diagnostic issue for the GMM analysis, this study selects Sargan test to check the exogeneity issue. Moreover, Autocorrelation AR (m) test is used to check serial correlation issue in the models [ 106 ].

5. Empirical findings and discussions

This section delivers a comprehensive discussion on the observed findings. Prior to the Multiple Regression and ARDL estimations, the mentioned diagnostic tests (see sec 4.1 , 4.2 ) are executed (see Appendix A ) to determine the goodness of fit of the sectors models. In spite of some heteroscedasticity and multicollinearity issues, the outcomes settle that the models are effective in most of the cases and show satisfactory goodness of fit (see Appendix A ). Notably, to get significant results, the numbers of independent variables have been reduced to four (TA, SIZE, ROE, EPS) in Multiple Regression and ARDL analysis due to the presence of multicollinearity between total assets and its subcomponents namely fixed and current assets. Later, another variable i.e. ROE is eliminated from the ARDL model as it contains large number of negative observations. Analytically, this is according to the practices of former studies and researches [see [ 107 , 108 ]]. Similarly, for GMM estimation all the mentioned diagnostics tests (see sub sec 4 , 4.3.1 ) confirm that models are correctly specified and have the greater potential to predict (see Appendix A ).

Moreover, related theories are deliberated carefully and the strength of each supportive theory is emphasized. Likewise, the consistency level between the findings of the baseline estimation method i.e. Multiple Regression with ARDL and then with GMM results are also accurately cross-examined. To start up, the descriptive statistics of 551 public listed Malaysian firms over the 12-year period (2005–2016) are presented in Table 1 below:

Descriptive Statistics (551 Public listed Malaysian Firms).

Note: DE = Debt Equity Ratio, TA = Total Assets, FA= Fixed Assets, CA =Current Assets, SIZE = Sales, ROE = Return on Equity, EPS = Earnings Per Share.

Looking at statistical results obtained from descriptive analysis, it is clear that mean DE is reported at 0.8931% and join with the median of 61% which is moderately low. Likewise, the maximum TA is recorded at 1.32 billion but its mode stands at minor level of 529 million. The mean FA and CA are registered at 715 million and 586 million respectively. On the back of high mean value of sales revenue of RM830 million, the percentage mean of ROE is reported around 11.1. Interestingly, the EPS mean also stands 12.8% that is high, delivering solid earning to the listed firms’ stockholders. Lastly, from the descriptive analysis results for standard deviation, it seems that there has been a large degree of dispersions among all the studied variables. Notably, the preliminary results look credible and provide support to the above discussed capital structure theories discussed in the literature. Next, Table 2 presents the empirical findings obtained from Multiple Regression analysis. Analytically, this study uses Multiple Regression as a base line estimation method and for a comparative approach to identify core capital structure determinants of firms at Bursa Malaysia.

Empirical findings from multiple regression (MR) analysis.

***, **, * Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level Note: TA = Total Assets, Size = Sales, ROE = Return on Equity, EPS = Earnings Per Share, Prop. = Property, Const. = Construction, Con. Prod. = Consumer Products, Ind. Prod. = Industrial Products, Tech. = Technology, Trad/Ser = Trading & Services, Plant. = Plantation.

Subsequently, the ARDL bound testing approach is executed to find long run relations among studied variable. Technically, the null hypothesis of no cointegration (H 0 : A long run relationship does not exist) is rejected if F-Statistics outcome is greater than (F > Upper Bound) the value of its estimated upper bound. Moreover, the negative ECM coefficient (less than −1 or between 0 and -1) of ARDL ECM model and its significant p-value are used to describe the long-run and short-run dynamic relationship among the variables [ 109 ]. The following table summarizes the results obtained from the ARDL bound testing and long run coefficients estimation.

Table 3 above presents the findings obtained from ARDL bound testing technique. First, this study selects lag order by using Schwarz-Bayesian Criterion as long run coefficients calculation is very sensitive to its lag length order selection [ 110 ]. After that, the ARDL bound testing approach is applied. Evidently, the F-Statistics outcomes for Industrial Products and Hotel sectors are greater than its upper bound critical values. Statistically, this specifies the presence of a long run relationship between capital structure and its determinants in Industrial Products (F > 8.284) and Hotel (F > 6.5903) sectors. Hence, hypothesis H 1 of long-run relationship is accepted for these two sectors. Furthermore, the ARDL Normalized regression result mentions the significant capital structure determinants for investigated sectors. Evidently, the positive and significant long-run relationship of TA in Hotel and Industrial Products sectors indicate that these sectors efficiently maintain tangibility and are capable of using more leverage. The significant tangibility and sales directly suggest the application of Trade-Off theory in describing firms’ choices of capital structure in these sectors. The empirical findings from the Hotel sector are consistent with the study of [ 111 ] who conclude that asset tangibility is more influential determinant of Portuguese Hotel sector firms. Similarly, the empirical findings from the Industrial Products sector are in line with the results of [ 112 ] which describe significant tangibility for the listed Malaysian firms across various sectors including the Industrial Products sector.

(a): ARDL bound-testing approach and long run coefficients models ARDL bound tests for the existence of a long run relationship among the variables. (b) ARDL Normalized Regression Results Based on Schwarz Bayesian Criterion.

***, **, * Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level Note: TA = Total Assets, SIZE = Sales, EPS = Earnings Per Share, Prop. = Property, Const. = Construction, Con. Prod. = Consumer Products, Ind. Prod. = Industrial Products, Tech. = Technology, Trad/Ser = Trading & Services, Plant. = Plantation.

After establishing the long-run relationship, the ARDL model is reparametrized into ECM model to inspect long and short run dynamic relationships. The lag order for the ECM model is selected on the basis of Schwartz Bayesian Criteria. Clearly, the obtained results in above Table 4 indicates the establishment of short-run relationship between leverage and studied capital structure determinants of Trading & Services (TA, EPS), IPC (SIZE), Industrial Products (SIZE), Plantation (EPS), Hotel (TA, EPS, SIZE) and Consumer Products (TA, EPS, SIZE) sectors. Considering the statistical results obtained from ARDL ECM approach, the hypothesis H 2 of significant short-run relationship is accepted for these sectors. Evidently, the ECM model of Consumer Products sector specifies exciting results, whereby, the ECM coefficient is equal to −0.7776 for DE in the short run which infers that deviation from the long run equilibrium is corrected by 77.76% over every year. The significant role of tangibility and sales specifies the importance of Trade-Off theory for the Malaysian market. The findings are in line with the results of [ 113 ] who postulate long and short run relationship of tangibility and sales with leverage in various sectors of Pakistani capital market and conclude that sector level setting affects on firms’ capital selection choices. The following Table 5 portrays a comparative analysis of findings attained from time series techniques i.e. MR and ARDL across sectors. The literature review section provides the consistency of findings with the results of earlier investigations.

ARDL error correction model (ECM) based on Schwarz Bayesian criterion.

Time series analysis for capital structure determinants across sectors.

***, **, * Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level Note: TA = Total Assets, SIZE = Sales, EPS = Earnings Per Share, ROE = Return on Equity, Prop. = Property, Const. = Construction, Con. Prod. = Consumer Products, Ind. Prod. = Industrial Products, Tech. = Technology, Trad/Ser = Trading & Services, Plant. = Plantation, MR = Multiple Regression, ARDL = Autoregressive Distributed Lag.

Evidently, the comparative analysis in above table mentions that at sectors level, the selection for debt equity choices are dissimilar because of each sector's internal settings. Clearly, the outcomes obtained from both time series estimators which are MR and ARDL indicate that each sector has dissimilar significant capital structure determinants. However, the consistency level between MR and ARDL findings is detected for Plantation, Property, Technology and Construction sectors. Clearly, the comparative approach elucidates that Malaysian market is mainly controlled and measured by studied determinants total assets (TA), with the exclusion of Plantation, Technology and IPC sectors. Remarkably, the former investigations indicate the same point that asset tangibility is a key factor that defines Malaysian firms' capital structure choices [e.g. Refs. [ [114] , [115] , [116] ]]. The utmost significant TA at numerous sectors of Bursa Malaysia elucidates that Trade-Off theory is more supportive to describe capital structure choices of the firms at Bursa Malaysia.

Additionally, this study also endeavors to deliver an in-depth knowledge on the dynamic relationship for the sector-specific determinants with capital structure. In order to get robust results at this level, this study explores dynamic capital structure determinants via GMM estimator. Notably, the GMM analysis is subject to survivorship bias. The following table elucidates the comparative evaluation between the findings of the GMM analysis and the Multiple Regression techniques for the enduring sectors of Bursa Malaysia.

Table 6 above reveals the conclusions attained from the GMM estimation and the Multiple Regression (MR) technique which deliver inconsistency among all the sectors with the exemption of the Construction sector. The results expose that asset tangibility is a main determinant which controls the whole Bursa Malaysia. Similarly, the Dynamic Capital Structure determinants vary across the investigated sectors. Technically, the presence of dynamic capital structure designates the occurrence of targeted capital structure and speed of adjustment for the listed Malaysian firms at sectors level. Therefore, the following Table 7 displays the lagged dependent variable coefficients across the seven sectors that are found to be statistically significant and SOA for each selected sector.

Panel data analysis on capital structure determinants across sectors.

***, **, * Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level Note: TA = Total Assets, SIZE = Sales, EPS = Earnings Per Share, ROE = Return on Equity, Prop. = Property, Const. = Construction, Con. Prod. = Consumer Products, Ind. Prod. = Industrial Products, Tech. = Technology, Trad/Ser = Trading & Services, Plant. = Plantation, MR = Multiple Regression, GMM = the Generalized Method of Moments.

Dynamic GMM analysis and the speed of adjustment (SOA) across sectors.

***, **, * Significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level.

Note: Coeff. = Coefficient, Const. = Construction, Con. Prod. = Consumer Products, Ind. Prod. = Industrial Products, Tech. = Technology, Trad/Ser = Trading & Services, Prop. = Property, Plant. = Plantation, SOA= Speed of Adjustment.

Clearly, the evidence in above table provisions the presence of targeted capital structure as claimed by Ref. [ 117 ] clarifies the effects of dynamic forces behind the theories of capital structure. This study discovers that the SOA travels at a rapid pace across the selected sectors, from minimum of 42.0% up to the maximum of 80.2%. Under this examination of Dynamic Target Capital Structure, an average listed firm from these sectors progressively travels toward its suboptimal capital structure to the optimal level of 67.67% per year. Needless to say, significant lagged dependent variables and the presence of speed of adjustment across these sectors confirm that Dynamic Capital Structure and SOA do exist in the firms listed at Bursa Malaysia. Thus, the hypothesis H 3 for significant dynamic relationship is accepted for all of the seven sectors. Analytically, the results from GMM analysis specify that Dynamic or Targeted Capital Structure is the most prominent amongst all, shadowed by the Dynamic Trade-Off Theory. The findings are in line with the former studies of [ [118] , [119] , [120] ] that confirm the presence of dynamic or targeted capital structure and speed of adjustment.

As a whole, this investigation recognizes that the determinants choices of capital structure are not similar at various sectors levels because of each sector's internal and dissimilar settings. Therefore, in view of the maximum findings that are obtained by MR, ARDL and GMM estimators, the hypotheses H 4, H 5, H 6, and H 7 for the positive relationships among CA, FA, CA, SIZE and capital structure are accepted. Likewise, hypotheses H 8 and H 9 are accepted for EPS and ROE that postulate negative relationship among capital structure studied determinants. The findings are consistent with the earlier studies of [ 121 , 122 ] which conclude that sector or industrial setting affects firms' level capital structure determinants choices. At the onset, this study lays emphasis on key competing theories, however, the Dynamic Trade-Off Capital Structure theory emerges as the most prominent among all the theories, across investigated sectors at Bursa Malaysia.

6. Conclusion & limitations

This empirical investigation is comprehensive indeed as it examines sector-specific determinants of capital structure for 551 public listed firms at Bursa Malaysia over the period of 2005–2016. The key traditional capital structure theories which include Modigliani-Miller theory, Trade-Off theory, Pecking Order theory and modern Dynamic Capital Structure theories are put into test in this investigation. The results provide strong evidence that the choices for capital structure determinants are different across sectors, pointing out the importance of sector level analysis and despite the fact that the market is mainly controlled by determinant total assets. Even though the financing requirements and patterns in each individual sector are different, firms’ practice to maintain asset tangibility seem to be almost similar which is significant in both construction and property sectors across MRA, ARDL and GMM analysis. One possible reason behind the significance of this determinant is that maximum market fragment (80%) is covered by the Shariah firms which are generally considered as tangible firms [ 123 ]. The debt facilities awarded to Shariah firms are asset-backed and offered after considering their assets tangibility [ 124 ]. As a whole, the significant tangibility and lagged dependent variables across the sectors directly specify the relevance of Dynamic Trade-Off theory which describes capital structure preserving practices of listed firms at Bursa Malaysia.

The core limitation of this study is the ARDL and the Multiple Regression-based study data structure. Several data points are removed due to multicollinearity, serial correlation and heteroscedasticity issues. Thus, the use of only 13 data points over the years creates a constraint on degree of freedom and parameter estimates. Also, it is important to note that Bursa Malaysia recategorized its sectors classification in September 2018. Therefore, future researchers should add more data point while investigating capital structure determinants for Malaysian-listed firms. Several steps could be taken to reduce diagnostic issues of the models and this includes an increase in sample size and an elimination of highly correlated variables. Likewise, future researchers should consider new sectors classification in Bursa Malaysia main market.

Author contribution statement

Raja Rehan: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Wrote the paper.

Abdul Razak Abdul Hadi: Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Hafezali Iqbal Hussain: Qazi Muhammad Adnan Hye: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Data availability statement

Additional information.

No additional information is available for this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. 

Multiple Regression Diagnostic Tests for Sector-Specific Models

Note: VIF = Variance Inflation Factor, DW D = Durbin Watson D.

ARDL Diagnostic Tests for Sector-Specific Models

Note: Prop. = Property, Const. = Construction, Con. Prod. = Consumer Products, Ind. Prod. = Industrial Products, Tech. = Technology, Trad/Ser = Trading & Services, Plant. = Plantation.

Sargan Test results of GMM for Sector-Specific Models

Auto Correlation AR (m) Test results of GMM for Sector-Specific Model

COMMENTS

  1. (PDF) Determinants of capital structure: A literature review

    Determinants of capital structure: A literature review Authors: Athenia Sibindi University of South Africa Abstract and Figures The financing decision is one of the most important imperative in...

  2. Full article: Influencing factors that determine capital structure

    Influencing factors that determine capital structure decisions: A review from the past to present Prince Yeboah Boateng , Baba Issah Ahamed , Michael Gift Soku , Salomey Osei Addo & Lexis Alexander Tetteh Article: 2152647 | Received 20 Oct 2022, Accepted 24 Nov 2022, Published online: 04 Dec 2022 Cite this article

  3. Determinants of Capital Structure: a Literature Review

    DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE: A LITERATURE REVIEW | Semantic Scholar DOI: 10.22495/RCGV6I4C1ART13 Corpus ID: 55663115 DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE: A LITERATURE REVIEW A. Sibindi Published 1 November 2016 Business, Economics Risk Governance and Control: Financial Markets & Institutions

  4. Research on capital structure determinants: a review and future

    ISSN: 1743-9132 Article publication date: 3 April 2017 Permissions Downloads 10647 Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the status of studies on capital structure determinants in the past 40 years.

  5. Determinants of Capital Structure: A Literature Review

    Determinants of Capital Structure: A Literature Review R. Kaur Published 2018 Economics, Business Asian Journal of Research in Banking and Finance Capital structure decisions are significant financial decisions of the corporate firms as they influence the return as well as the risk of equity shareholders.

  6. Full article: Determinants of the capital structure of large companies

    The aim of the paper is to gain new insight into the determinants of capital structure in large companies in an emerging economy such as Serbia's. Serbia is an EU candidate country with evident characteristics of a transitional economy. 2. Theoretical background and literature review.

  7. Determinants of Capital Structure: a Literature Review

    DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE: A LITERATURE REVIEW Prabodh Kumar Published 2018 Economics, Business Financial decision is one of the most crucial decisions in corporate finance. Financial managers want to know the optimum level of debt and equity.

  8. Determinants of Capital Structure Choice: Empirical Evidence From

    We used panel regression with fixed effects and found strong evidence that capital structure is most affected by firm-specific factors such as tangibility, non-debt tax shields, liquidity, firm size, taxes paid, profitability, Tobin's Q ratio, and growth assets.

  9. Determinants of capital structure: Evidence from sub-Saharan African

    In this article, we conducted an econometric study of panel data covering the period 2006-2016, covering a sample of 206 non-financial enterprises in sub-Saharan Africa in order to study the determinants of the capital structure. This model is subdivided into two stages in order to study the determinants of the capital structure.

  10. The determinants of capital structure: Evidence from public listed

    2. Literature review on capital structure theory. Modigliani and Miller (Citation 1958) have pioneered research on the capital structure and its relation to firm value. Based on the strict conditions of competitive, frictionless and perfect market capital, the firm's market value is independent of its capital structure choices whereas the ...

  11. PDF Determinants of Capital Structure: a Literature Review

    227 DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE: A LITERATURE REVIEW Athenia Bongani Sibindi* *University of South Africa, Department of Finance, Risk Management and Banking, P.O Box 392, UNISA, South Africa Abstract The financing decision is one of the most important imperative in corporate finance.

  12. PDF Determinants of Capital Structure: a Literature Review

    Section 3 contains summary and conclusions. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this paper is to review the existing available literature on determinants of capital structure and to highlight the research gap of the existing available studies conducted in India and abroad for the period 2000 to 2015.

  13. Capital structure of SMEs: a systematic literature review and

    Determinants of capital structure, trade credit, corporate governance, and bankruptcy are also the prominent research topics in this field. Also, this study has identified the research gaps and has proposed five actionable research directions for the future. Similar content being viewed by others

  14. Capital structure determinants: a literature review

    In this paper, we present the literature review on determinants of capital structure of the research being done, both in India as well as internationally, in the last one and a half decade. We divide our study in two ways: one review for international research and second from Indian research. We further subdivide the research (both Indian as well as international) in two parts. In first part ...

  15. Capital structure determinants: a literature review

    In this paper, we present the literature review on determinants of capital structure of the research being done, both in India as well as internationally, in the last one and a half decade. We divide our study in two ways: one review for international research and second from Indian research. We further subdivide the research (both Indian as well as international) in two parts. In first part ...

  16. PDF Capital Structure: Definitions, Determinants, Theories and Link With

    Capital structure has been an important focus point in the literature since MM started publishing their research about it in 1958.Capital structure is a remarkable topic because it has researched in both academic level and corporate level since the financing decisions of a firm are of vital importance for its operating and investing...

  17. Research on capital structure determinants: a review and future

    Abstract. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to study the status of studies on capital structure determinants in the past 40 years. This paper highlights the major gaps in the literature on determinants of capital structure and also aims to raise specific questions for future research. Design/methodology/approach: The prominence of research ...

  18. Review of Empirical Research on Determinants of Capital Structure in

    Abstract Through a literature review of empirical research on determinants of capital structure in public companies from developed countries, this thesis gives a general overview on the relationship between determinants of capital structure and leverage based on the

  19. Capital structure determinants across sectors: Comparison of observed

    2.1. Theoretical review of capital structure determinants. The present-day theories of capital structure are grounded on the effort of [] who confirm that within the capital market that is considered perfect, the choice for selection of finance has no significant effects on the value of a firm.Afterwards, another theory which is named as Trade-Off theory postulates the idea of optimal capital ...

  20. [PDF] Literature Review of Capital Structure Theory and Influencing

    Corpus ID: 158841268 Literature Review of Capital Structure Theory and Influencing Factors Lanwendi Zhao Published 9 October 2018 Economics, Business Modern Economy Modigliani and Miller [1] conducted a pioneering study on the theory of capital structure.

  21. [PDF] Determinants of Banks' Capital Structure: A Review of Theoretical

    The determinant of capital structure is very crucial in decision making as the determinants of capital structure in banking system are vary from non-financial firms since banks played different roles from others. Banks are required to hold more capital than the minimum capital requirement laid down by the regulators. This is because of banks tend to confront with several risks which might be ...