Entrepreneurial finance: Banks versus venture capital

We analyze how entrepreneurial firms choose between two funding institution: banks, which monitor less intensively and face liquidity demands from their own investors, and venture capitalists, who can monitor more intensively but face a higher cost of capital because of the liquidity constraints that they impose on their own investors. Because the firm's manager prefers continuing the firm over liquidating it and aggressive (risky) continuation strategies over conservative (safe) continuation strategies, the institution must monitor the firm and exercise some control over its decisions. Bank finance takes the form of debt, whereas venture capital finance often resembles convertible debt. Venture capital finance is optimal only when the aggressive continuation strategy is not too profitable, ex ante; the uncertainty associated with the risky continuation strategy (strategic uncertainty) is high; and the firm's cash flow distribution is highly risky and positively skewed, with low probability of success, low liquidation value, and high returns if successful. A decrease in venture capitalists’ cost of capital encourages firms to switch from safe strategies and bank finance to riskier strategies and venture capital finance, increasing the average risk of firms in the economy.     

Financing constraints, cash-flow risk, and corporate investment

Using an analytically tractable two-period model of a financially constrained firm, we derive an investment threshold that is U-shaped in cash holdings. We show analytically the relevant trade-offs leading to the U-shape: the firm balances financing costs for present and future investment, respectively. Our main argument is that financing costs today are more important than the risk of future financing costs. The empirically testable implications are that low-cash firms facing financing costs today are more reluctant to invest if they have less cash, or if their future cash flows are more risky. On the other hand, cash-rich firms facing no financing costs today invest in less favorable projects (i.e., forgo their real option to wait) if they have less cash, or if their future cash flows are more risky. The magnitude of these effects is amplified by the degree of market frictions that the firms are facing.     

Cash flow uncertainty,financial constraints and R&D investment

Based on the data from Chinese listed companies of Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets between 2005 and 2016, we systematically examine the relationship between cash flow uncertainty and R&D investment, and further research the moderating effect of financial constraints on the association between the two. Our empirical results find that R&D investment decisions tend to be more conservative and cautious due to cash flow uncertainty, which is not conducive to innovation efficiency. Firms with higher cash flow uncertainty invest more cautiously in R&D innovation, whereas firms with lower cash flow invest more boldly in R&D innovation. Financial friction may exacerbate the negative impact of cash flow uncertainty on innovation activities. Strategic cash holding can help firms better deal with the risks caused by cash flow uncertainty. In provinces with high marketization, the market competition intensifies, resulting in more significant cash flow uncertainty.     

The Corporate Propensity to Save

Why do corporations accumulate liquid assets? We show theoretically that intertemporal trade‐offs between interest income taxation and the cost of external finance determine optimal savings. Intriguingly, we find that, controlling for Tobin's q, saving and cash flow are negatively related because firms lower cash reserves to invest after receiving positive cash‐flow shocks, and vice versa. Consistent with theory, we estimate negative propensities to save out of cash flow. We also find that income uncertainty affects saving more than do external finance constraints. Therefore, contrary to previous evidence, saving propensities reflect too many forces to be used to measure external finance constraints.     

The effect of financial constraints,investment policy,product market competition and corporate governance on the value of cash holdings

This study empirically investigates the value shareholders place on excess cash holdings and how shareholders’ valuation of cash holdings is associated with financial constraints, firm growth, cash‐flow uncertainty and product market competition for Australian firms from 1990 to 2007. Our results indicate that the marginal value of cash holdings to shareholders declines with larger cash holdings and higher leverage. However, firms that are more financially constrained, that have higher growth rates and that face greater uncertainty exhibit a higher marginal value of cash holdings. These findings are consistent with the explanation that excess cash holdings are not necessarily detrimental to firm value. Firms with costly external financing and that also save more cash for current operating and future investing needs find that the market values these cash hoarding policies favourably. Finally, there is limited evidence of an association between various corporate governance measures and the value of cash holdings for a shorter sample period.     

Cash holdings of listed and unlisted firms: new evidence from the euro area

This paper examines the cash holdings behavior of listed and unlisted firms. We argue that unlisted firms, which are smaller, face a greater wedge between the cost of external and internal finance and as a result they need to rely more on the later. Relying on internal funds means that firms have a precautionary motive to hold cash. We test our theory using an unbalanced panel of mainly small medium enterprises within the euro area over the period 2003–2017 paying special attention to the role of financial pressure, financial constraints and the recent financial crisis. Our findings reveal that unlisted firms hold more cash than their listed counterparts due to precautionary motives. In addition, when considering the effect of financial pressure, the results show that the difference in cash holdings between listed and unlisted firms exhibit a ‘U-shaped’ relationship. Finally, unlisted firms have a higher sensitivity to save cash out of cash flow than listed firms. Our results are robust to using different specifications and different financial pressure measures.     

A note on a semiparametric approach to estimating financing constraints in firms

In this paper, we present a novel approach to modeling financing constraints of firms. Specifically, we adopt an approach in which firm-level investment is a nonparametric function of some relevant firm characteristics, cash flow in particular. This enables us to generate firm-year specific measures of cash flow sensitivity of investment. We are therefore able to draw conclusions about financing constraints of individual firms as well as cohorts of firms without having to split our sample on an ad hoc basis. This is a significant improvement over the stylized approach that is based on comparison of point estimates of cash flow sensitivity of investment of the average firm of ad hoc sub-samples of firms. We use firm-level data from India to highlight the advantages of our approach. Our results suggest that the estimates generated by this approach are meaningful from an economic point of view and are consistent with the literature.     

Investment and financing decisions of private and public firms

We examine differences in the allocation of cash flow between Western European private and public firms. Public firms have a higher investment‐cash flow sensitivity than comparable private firms. This difference is not attributable to more severe financing constraints of public firms. Instead, because differences in investment‐cash flow sensitivities are only observed for the unexpected portion of firms’ cash flow, the empirical evidence supports an agency‐based explanation. Similar patterns are observable for the expected and unexpected portion of firms’ shareholder distributions. Our results are driven by firms from countries with low ownership concentration and more liquid stock markets, where shareholders have lower incentives to monitor. The results are also more pronounced for public firms with low industry Tobin's q and high free cash flow, which are more prone to suffer from agency problems.     

Economic policy uncertainty and corporate inventory holdings: evidence from China

We investigate the impact of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on corporate inventory holdings in China over the period 2007–2017. We find that EPU leads firms to significantly reduce inventory holdings and this effect is particularly pronounced among non-state-owned enterprises. The adjustment of inventory holdings enhances firms’ operating and market performance consequently. In addition, firms with greater financial constraints or stronger external governance are more affected by EPU. Further exploration shows that EPU induces high precautionary cash holdings, which crowds out inventories. Our results illustrate that firms reallocate between inventories and cash to cope with uncertainty associated with economic policy changes.     

Cash Flow Sensitivity of Investment

Investment cash flow sensitivity is associated with both underinvestment when cash flows are low and overinvestment when cash flows are high. The accessibility of external capital is positively correlated with cash flows, intensifying investment cash flow sensitivity. Managers actively counteract the variations in internal and external liquidity by accumulating working capital when liquidity is high and draining it when liquidity is low. These results imply that cash flow sensitive firms face financial constraints, which are binding in low cash flow years. Traditional indicators of financial constraints, such as size and dividend payout, successfully distinguish firms that may potentially face constraints, but are less successful in distinguishing between periods of tight and relaxed constraints. These periods are much more clearly separated by the KZ index, which, on the other hand, is less successful in identifying firms that are likely to face liquidity constraints.     

Investment efficiency of firms outside the business group

Using Korean firms between 1987 and 2010, we show that non-group firms suffer more from investment inefficiency if they operate in industries where group firms belong to larger business groups. We also find that this effect exists mainly during a period characterized by a capital supply shortage and low cash flow pledgeability to investors. Further analyses indicate that the effect is attributable not to human capital constraints, but external financing constraints imposed by business group firms and that causality runs from business group strength to investment inefficiency of non-group firms.     

The impact of labor unions on investment-cash flow sensitivity

This paper empirically examines how labor unions affect investment-cash flow sensitivity using samples from the US covering the period of 1984–2009. We find a significant positive union effect using a q model of investment. The capital expenditures of firms are 1.71 times more sensitive to internal cash flows when unionization rates increase one standard deviation from the mean. This effect holds when we control for other proxies of financial constraints. In addition, unionized firms are associated with lower cash–cash flow sensitivity, which suggests that the higher investment-cash flow sensitivity in unionized firms is primarily driven by the incentive of these firms to reduce liquidity and enhance bargaining power against the union. We also show that the above union effects become more pronounced during labor contract negotiation years.     

To beat or not to beat? The importance of analysts’ cash flow forecasts

We investigate the implications of firms’ benchmark-beating patterns with respect to analysts’ quarterly cash flow forecasts for firms’ current capital market valuation and their future performance. We hypothesize that nonnegative earnings surprises are more likely to be supported by real operating performance and signal higher earnings quality if they are achieved via higher than expected cash flows or lower than expected accruals. We show that firms beating analyst earnings forecasts have larger positive capital market reactions and larger earnings response coefficients if they beat analyst cash flow forecasts or report lower than expected accruals. We also demonstrate that these firms’ superior future performance may provide an economic justification for their more favorable market response. Our findings suggest that firms’ ability to beat analyst cash flow forecasts is informative regarding the quality of their earnings surprises.     

Is Family Control Relevant for Corporate Cash Holding Policy?

This empirical research examines the effect of family control on firms’ cash holding policy. Using a sample of Western European firms, we confirm the precautionary motive for holding cash as family‐controlled firms’ desire to perpetuate the family legacy for future generations motivates them to accumulate more cash than their non‐family counterparts. We also show that, given family‐controlled firms’ long‐term perspective, they focus on cash flow volatility rather than cash flow level. Finally, the relation between financing constraints and cash holdings is not homogeneous: financially constrained family‐controlled firms hold higher levels of cash than financially constrained non‐family firms. Overall, these results suggest that family firms’ cash holding policy is the result not of a specific financial outcome but rather on the strategic objectives of the firm.     

Corporate precautionary cash holdings

This paper models the precautionary motive for a firm's cash holdings. A two-period investment model shows that the cash holdings of financially constrained firms are sensitive to cash flow volatility because financial constraints create an intertemporal trade-off between current and future investments. When future cash flow risk cannot be fully diversifiable, this intertemporal trade-off gives constrained firms the incentives of precautionary savings: they increase their cash holdings in response to increases in cash flow volatility. However, there is no systematic relationship between cash holdings and cash flow volatility for unconstrained firms. We test the empirical implications of our theory using quarterly information from a sample of U.S. publicly traded companies from 1997 to 2002, and find that the empirical evidence supports our theory.     

Is cash negative debt? A hedging perspective on corporate financial policies

We show theoretically that while cash allows financially constrained firms to hedge future investment against income shortfalls, reducing current debt is a more effective way to boost investment in future high cash flow states. Thus, constrained firms prefer higher cash to lower debt if their hedging needs are high, but lower debt to higher cash if their hedging needs are low. We provide empirical evidence that supports our theory. Our analysis points to an important hedging motive behind cash and debt management policies. It suggests that cash should not be viewed as negative debt in the presence of financing frictions.     

自由现金流量创造力与违约风险——来自A股公司的经验证据

本文基于我国A股上市公司数据,研究了企业自由现金流量创造力与违约风险之间的关系。研究发现:(1)企业自由现金流量创造力越强,其违约风险越低。经过一系列稳健性检验后,该结论依旧成立。(2)自由现金流量创造力越强的企业往往有更低的债务规模、更高的资产收益率和更低的股票波动,因而其违约风险更低。(3)自由现金流量创造力与违约风险的负相关关系,主要存在于货币政策紧缩时期以及外部信息环境较差的企业。本文发现意味着,监管部门和投资者应重视上市公司自由现金流量创造力不足所带来的潜在债务违约风险,通过不断提高公司自由现金流量创造力,助力我国宏观经济与微观企业高质量发展。     

终极股东特征、公司多元化与融资约束

理论研究表明公司多元化经营形成的内部资本市场有助于缓解公司所面临的融资约束,不同的终极股东特征可能由于代理问题或由于加强内部资本市场功能而减弱或增强缓解公司融资约束的作用。本文以2004～2009年中国上市公司作为样本,实证考察不同终极股东特征下,非国有控制公司与国有控制公司多元化经营战略缓解公司融资约束的作用是否存在显著差异。实证结果表明当终极股东现金流权与控制权不偏离,或者当终极股东控制链层级较多时,非国有控制公司多元化缓解融资约束的作用显著强于国有控制公司。然而,当终极股东现金流权与控制权偏离,或者当终极股东控制链层级较少时,国有控制公司多元化缓解融资约束的作用并没有显著强于非国有控制公司。     

Corporate investment,government control,and financing channels: Evidence from China's Listed Companies

We investigate the relation between the internally generated cash flows and fixed asset investments of Chinese firms and find that it is U-shaped. Cash flow and investment are negatively related for low levels of cash flow but positively related for high levels of cash flow. We find that government controlled listed firms have greater investment–cash flow sensitivities than do privately controlled listed companies, especially on the left-hand side of the U-shaped curve where cash flow is negative. However, the difference in sensitivities appears only among firms that possess few profitable investment opportunities. We attribute this finding to the government having multiple socio-economic objectives, which leads to increased capital expenditures by the firms it controls when internal funds are abundant and when internal funds are negative. There is no evidence that access to finance and soft budget constraints explain the differences between the investment–cash flow sensitivities of government controlled and privately controlled listed firms.     

The determinants of corporate cash management policies: Evidence from around the world

We examine the determinants of corporate cash management policies across a broad sample of international firms. We document that firms in countries with strong legal protection of minority investors are more likely to decrease their cash holdings in response to an increase in cash flow than are firms in countries with weak legal protection. This relationship is most pronounced for firms that are financially constrained and those with high hedging needs. More importantly, we do not find evidence that financial development plays an incremental impact on the cash flow sensitivity of cash, after controlling for the effect of legal protection. Therefore, we argue that the legal protection of investors (rather than financial development) represents the first-order effect in influencing international firms' cash management policies. The results are robust to alternative specifications. In general, our findings reinforce the importance of country-level legal protection of investors in mitigating the effects of firm-level financial constraints and hedging needs on corporate cash management policies.