An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms

This study examines the empirical determinants of corporate debt maturity structure for the data set of 788 non-financial firms in Malaysia and employs a Panel Data method of Pooled Estimated Generalized Least-Squares (EGLS) with Autoregressive (AR1) for all the regression tests. The models in this...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Mohd Ariff, Ab Rahman
Format:	Thesis
Language:	eng eng
Published:	2011
Subjects:	HG Finance
Online Access:	https://etd.uum.edu.my/2777/1/Mohd_Ariff_Ab_Rahman.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/2777/2/1.Mohd_Ariff_Ab_Rahman.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-uum-etd.2777
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection	UUM ETD
language	eng eng
advisor	Rozali, Mohammad Badri
topic	HG Finance
spellingShingle	HG Finance Mohd Ariff, Ab Rahman An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms
description	This study examines the empirical determinants of corporate debt maturity structure for the data set of 788 non-financial firms in Malaysia and employs a Panel Data method of Pooled Estimated Generalized Least-Squares (EGLS) with Autoregressive (AR1) for all the regression tests. The models in this study incorporate factors representing the theories of agency cost, signaling, tax considerations and matching principle. The findings of the general test reveal that the agency cost theory provides mixed results where growth proxy is not significant but the proxy of size is significant to determine the debt maturity structure. The proxies of firm quality, financial strength and liquidity have significant effects to support the signaling theory. In addition, the proxies of tax and asset maturity have no evidence to support the tax theory and matching principle respectively. The findings of test across seven industry groups document that the results are varied, except for liquidity which has significant effects on all industries. This study also discovers that Shariah-compliance has negative and significant effects. In the robustness test, the findings produce mixed results where the proxies of signaling theory in particular present contradictory results. Lastly, this study generally finds strong evidence that the larger the firm size, the longer the maturity of debt.
format	Thesis
qualification_name	masters
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Mohd Ariff, Ab Rahman
author_facet	Mohd Ariff, Ab Rahman
author_sort	Mohd Ariff, Ab Rahman
title	An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms
title_short	An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms
title_full	An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms
title_fullStr	An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms
title_full_unstemmed	An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms
title_sort	empirical study of the debt maturity structure of malaysia firms
granting_institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department	Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business
publishDate	2011
url	https://etd.uum.edu.my/2777/1/Mohd_Ariff_Ab_Rahman.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/2777/2/1.Mohd_Ariff_Ab_Rahman.pdf
_version_	1747827426745909248
spelling	my-uum-etd.27772016-04-19T02:42:00Z An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms 2011 Mohd Ariff, Ab Rahman Rozali, Mohammad Badri Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business HG Finance This study examines the empirical determinants of corporate debt maturity structure for the data set of 788 non-financial firms in Malaysia and employs a Panel Data method of Pooled Estimated Generalized Least-Squares (EGLS) with Autoregressive (AR1) for all the regression tests. The models in this study incorporate factors representing the theories of agency cost, signaling, tax considerations and matching principle. The findings of the general test reveal that the agency cost theory provides mixed results where growth proxy is not significant but the proxy of size is significant to determine the debt maturity structure. The proxies of firm quality, financial strength and liquidity have significant effects to support the signaling theory. In addition, the proxies of tax and asset maturity have no evidence to support the tax theory and matching principle respectively. The findings of test across seven industry groups document that the results are varied, except for liquidity which has significant effects on all industries. This study also discovers that Shariah-compliance has negative and significant effects. In the robustness test, the findings produce mixed results where the proxies of signaling theory in particular present contradictory results. Lastly, this study generally finds strong evidence that the larger the firm size, the longer the maturity of debt. 2011 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/2777/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/2777/1/Mohd_Ariff_Ab_Rahman.pdf application/pdf eng validuser https://etd.uum.edu.my/2777/2/1.Mohd_Ariff_Ab_Rahman.pdf application/pdf eng public masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Altman, E. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23, 589–609. Aivazian, V.A., Ge, Y., & Qiu, J. (2005). Debt maturity structure and firm investment. Financial Management , 107-119. Arslan, O., & Karan, M.B. (2006). Ownership and control structure as determinants of corporate debt maturity: a panel study of an emerging market. Journal of Corporate Governance, 14, 312- 324. Antoniou, A., Guney, Y., & Paudyal, K. (2006). The determinants of debt maturity structure: evidence from France, Germany and the UK. European Financial Management 12, 161–194. Ayub, M. (2007). Understanding Islamic finance. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Bank Negara Malaysia, Quarterly Bulletins & Annual Report, Kuala Lumpur, various issues. Barnea, A., Haugen, R. A., & Senbet, L. W. (1980). A rationale for debt maturity structure and call provisions in the agency theoretic framework. Journal of Finance, 35, 1223-34. Barclay, M. J., & Smith, C. W. (1995). The maturity structure of corporate debt. Journal of Finance, 50, 609–632. Baker, Samuel H. (1973). Risk, leverage and profitability: An industry analysis. Review of Economics and Statistic, 55(4), 503-507. Berger, P.G., Ofek, E., & Yermack, D. L. (1997). Managerial entrenchment and capital structure decision. The Journal of Finance, 1, 4 . Brick, I. E., & Ravid, S. A. (1985). On the relevance of debt maturity structure. Journal of Finance, 40, 1423–1437. Cai, K., Fairchild ,R., & Guney,Y. (2008). Debt maturity structure of Chinese companies. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 16, 268–297. Copeland, Thomas E., & Weston, F. J. (1992). Financial theory and corporate finance policy. 3rd Ed. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Datta, S., Iskandar-Datta, M., & Raman, K. (2005). Managerial stock ownership and the maturity structure of corporate debt. Journal of Finance, 60, 2333–2350. Dennis, S., Nandy, D., & Sharpe, I.G. (2000). The determinants of contract terms in bank revolving credit agreements. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 35, 87–110. Diamond, D. W. (1991). Debt maturity structure and liquidity risk. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 709–737. Diamond, D. W. (1993). Seniority and maturity of debt contracts. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 341–68. Demirguc-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (1999). Institutions, financial markets and firm debt maturity. Journal of Financial Economics, 54, 295–336. Eriksson, M., & Hede, J. (2000). Optimal capital structure-a case of three real estate companies. Master Thesis, Graduate Business School, School of Economics and Commercial Law, Goteborg University. Elyasani, E., Guo, L., & Tang, L. (2002). The determinants of debt maturity at issuance: A system-based model. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 19, 351–377. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm, Journal of Economics, 88, 288–307. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 327–349. Friend, I., & Lang, I. H. P. (1988). An empirical test on the impact of managerial self interest on corporate capital structure. Journal of Finance, 42, 271–282. Flannery, M. J. (1986). Asymmetric information and risky debt maturity choice. Journal of Finance, 41, 19-37. Graham, J. R. (1996). Debt and the marginal tax rate. Journal of Financial Economics, 41, 41–73. Guedes, J., & Opler, T. (1996). The determinants of the maturity of corporate debt Issues. Journal of Finance, 51, 1809–1833. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D.C (2009). Basic econometrics. Fifth Edition, Singapore: Mc Graw Hill Guney, Y., & Ozkan, A. (2005). New insights on the importance of agency costs for corporate debt maturity decisions. Applied Financial Economics Letters, 1, 233–238. Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1995). Debt and seniority: An analysis of the role of hard claims in constraining management. American Economic Review 85, 567–585. Haris, M., & Raviv, A. (1991). The theory of capital structure. Journal of Finance, 56, 297–355. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. Johnson, S. A. (2003). Debt maturity and the effects of growth opportunities and liquidity risk on leverage. Review of Financial Studies, 16, 209–236. Jun, S. G., & Jen, F. C. (2003). Trade-off model of debt maturity structure. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20, 5–34. Kale, J.R., & Noe, T.H. (1990). Risky debt maturity choice in a sequential game equilibrium. Journal of Financial Research 13, 155–165. Kim, C.S, Mauer, D.C., & Stohs, M.H. (1995). Corporate debt maturity policy and investor tax-timing options: Theory and evidence. Financial Management 24, 33–45. Majumdar, R. (2010). The determinants of corporate debt maturity: A study of indian Firms. The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, 16, 2. Myers, S.C., & Rajan, R.G. (1998). The paradox of liquidity. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113, 733–771. Mitchell, K. (1991). The call, sinking fund and term-to-maturity features of corporate bonds: An empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 26, 201-22. Mitchell, K. (1993). The debt maturity choice: An empirical investigation. Journal of Financial Research 16, 309–320. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M.H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporate finance and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48, 201-97. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M.H. (1963). Corporate income tax and the cost of capital: A correction. American Economic Review, 53, 433-43. Morris, J. R. (1992). Factors affecting the maturity structure of corporate debt.. University of Colorado at Denver: Working paper. Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5, 147–175. Provisions in the agency theoretic framework. Journal of Finance, 35, 1223–1234. Ozkan, A. (2000). An empirical analysis of corporate debt maturity structure. European Financial Management, 6, 197–212. Ozkan A (2002). The determinants of corporate debt maturity: Evidence from UK firms. Applied Financial Economics, 12(1), 19-24. San, T. O., & Heng, B. T. (2011). Capital structure and corporate performance of Malaysia construction sector. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(2). Saad, N. M. (2010). Corporate governance cpmpliance and the effects to capital structure. International Journal of Economics and Financial , 2(1),105-114. Smith, C. W., Jr., & Warner, J. B. (1979). On financial contracting: An analysis of bond covenants. Journal of Financial Economics, 7, 117-61. Stohs, M. H., & Mauer, D. C. (1996). The determinants of corporate debt maturity structure. journal of business, 69, 279- 312. Stulz, R. (1990). Managerial discretion and optimal financing policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 26, 3–28. Stephan, A., Talavera, O., & Tsapin, A. (2011). Corporate debt maturity choice in emerging financial markets. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 51,141–151. Sharpe, S. A. (1991). Credit rationing, concessionary lending, and debt maturity. Journal of Banking and Finance, 15, 581–604. Titman, S., & Wessels, R. (1988). The determinants of capital structure choice. Journal of Finance, 43, 1–19. RAM Ratings (2008). The Malaysian Sukuk Market. Islamic Finance News, 5(45). Whited, T. M. (1992). Debt, liquidity constraints, and corporate investment: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Finance, 47, 1425-60. www.bursamalaysia.com.my www.sc.com.my

An Empirical Study of the Debt Maturity Structure of Malaysia Firms

Similar Items