The Leveraging of Corporate America: A Long‐Run Perspective on Changes in Capital Structure

In a study published recently in the Journal of Financial Economics, the authors of this article documented a substantial increase in the use of debt financing by U.S. companies over the past century. From 1920 until the mid‐1940s, the aggregate leverage of unregulated U.S. companies was low and stable, with the average debt‐to‐capital ratio staying within the narrow range of 10% to 15%. But during the next 25 years, the use of debt by U.S. companies more than doubled, rising to 35% of total capital. And since 1970, aggregate leverage has remained above 35%, peaking at 47% in 1992. Moreover, this pattern has been observed in companies of all sizes and operating in all unregulated sectors. Changes in the characteristics of U.S. public companies during this period provide little help in explaining the increase in corporate leverage. For example, the displacement of tangible by intangible assets in many sectors of the U.S. economy during the past 50 years would have led most economists to predict, holding all other things equal, a reduction rather than an increase in aggregate corporate leverage. Instead, according to the authors' findings, the main contributors to the increases in U.S. corporate leverage since the 1940s have been external changes, including increases in corporate income tax rates, the development of financial markets and intermediaries, and the reduction in government borrowing in the decades following World War II. The authors' analysis also identifies these last two changes—the development of financial markets, including the rise of institutional investors and shareholder activism, and the post‐War reduction in government debt—as having played the biggest roles in the leveraging of corporate America.     

The Effect of Taxes on Corporate Financing Decisions: Evidence from a Panel of Italian Firms

This paper provides additional evidence on the relationship between corporate taxes and debt using panel data on Italian companies. The panel covers 1054 companies for the years 1982–1994.The paper follows the Graham-Shevlin methodology for calculating company specific marginal tax rates (MTR) relying on the non-linearity of corporate tax schedules resulting from company losses and the ensuing tax provisions (carry-forward and backward rules). In the period covered by the panel there were in Italy two taxes on corporate income (IRPEG and ILOR), with different loss carry-forward rules, whose statutory tax rates and tax bases changed several times. For these reasons the simulated MTRs display both cross-sectional and time-series variation.The paper tests whether taxes encourage the use of debt by analysing incremental financing decisions. In order to cope with the endogeneity of the MTR the paper considers two different specifications. The first uses the lagged value of the simulated MTR. The second employs the estimate of before-financing MTR proposed by Graham et al. (1998). Significant cross-sectional tax effects are identified under both specifications whereas time-series variation cannot be identified if due account is taken of firm-fixed tax effects.The paper also investigates whether personal taxes affect corporate financing decisions. The MTR may either overstate or understate the fiscal benefit of debt financing according to whether, at the personal level, interest income is taxed at a rate that is higher or lower than the tax rate on returns from common stocks. Differences in the dividend-payout ratio across companies and several reforms in interest, dividend and capital gains taxation provide sufficient cross-section and time-series variations to identify the effect of personal taxes on debt usage.     

DESIGNING CAPITAL STRUCTURE TO CREATE SHAREHOLDER VALUE

In the past decade, many U.S. companies have launched aggressive share repurchase programs with the expectation that value can be created by returning excess capital to shareholders and moving the firm closer to its optimal capital structure. But how much capital does a company really need to support its business activities? This article presents an economic framework or “model” that can be used to simulate the effect of various capital structure choices on shareholder value. The fundamental insight underlying the model is that judicious use of debt can add value by reducing corporate taxes and strengthening management incentives to increase efficiency, but that too much debt can result in a loss of business and perhaps a costly reorganization. Indeed, one of the key findings of the authors' recent research is that companies with highly leveraged balance sheets suffer disproportionately large losses in market share and value during industry downturns. As illustrated in a case study of a hypothetical general merchandiser, the model makes it possible to identify an optimal debt-equity ratio (and percentage of fixed- versus floating-rate debt)—one that balances the value of the tax shield from debt against the increased risk of financial distress.     

Taxes,Inflation and Corporate Financial Policy

This paper examines inflation-induced distortions in personal and corporate income taxes and discusses the implications for corporate dividend and financial structure policies and for shareholder unanimity. The tax effects relating to capital gains and debt interest cause changes in aggregate corporate borrowing and lead to equilibrium tax relationships which differ from the zero-inflation tax relationships.     

Statement of the Financial Economists Roundtable: Corporate Tax Reform

Corporate tax reform has been a controversial issue in the U.S. for several years, particularly as U.S. companies have accumulated cash in lower‐tax overseas subsidiaries, while some have used “inversions” to establish overseas corporate domiciles. Two features of U.S. corporate taxation stand out: 1. U.S. corporate income tax rates are the highest in the industrialized world. The federal rate is 35%; and, when combined with state taxes, it averages 39%, as compared to an OECD average of 24%. 2. U.S. corporations pay U.S. tax on their worldwide income, but can choose to avoid indefinitely corporate tax on foreign profits by not repatriating them. Neither feature is present in most other Western countries, where the norm is a “territorial” system that taxes companies only on their domestic profits. The Trump administration has proposed to cut U.S. corporate tax rates to 20%, thereby bringing them down to the OECD average, and to adopt a territorial tax regime like those found in most other Western nations. In this statement signed by 31 senior financial economists, the authors recommend cutting U.S. corporate tax rates, but retaining the current system of taxing the worldwide profits of U.S. companies (while giving them credit for taxes paid in overseas jurisdictions). Once U.S. rates drop to the international average, the economists point out, U.S. companies would have much less incentive under the worldwide system to use transfer pricing schemes to shift their profits to low‐tax jurisdictions than under the proposed territorial alternative. Indeed, under the current system, if the lower rates under consideration are enacted, the location of a company's business activity (including the firm's underlying intellectual property) would not affect its taxation. Along with lower corporate tax rates, the economists also recommend that Congress limit or remove the corporate option to defer the taxation of offshore profits and provide a schedule for repatriating off‐shore funds, using the inducement of the now lower rates as well as the possibility of a “tax holiday.”     

Financial leverage clienteles: Theory and evidence

This paper examines the hypothesis that investors will sort themselves out into tax-induced ‘financial leverage clienteless’ in which the common stocks of highly levered firms will be held by individuals with low personal tax rates, while the shares of firms with little or no leverage will be held by individuals with high personal tax rates. Although the idea of financial leverage clienteless has appeared in the literature before, the immediate motivation for this investigation is a recent paper by Merton Miller. In that paper he argues that under the current U.S. tax structure, personal taxes will offset corporate taxes such that in equilibrium the value of any individual firm will be independent of its use of debt financing. We extend his analysis to show specifically the way in which financial leverage clienteles would come about in his assumed tax environment. We then conduct some direct empirical tests of the leverage clientele hypothesis. These tests can also be viewed as indirect tests of Miller's new proposition on the irrelevance of capital structures. The results of the tests are mixed: The relationship between corporate leverage policies and investors' tax rates is statistically significant, but its magnitude is less than would be predicted by the theory.     

The Capital Structure Puzzle: The Evidence Revisited

Since the formulation of the M&M propositions almost 50 years ago, financial economists have been debating whether there is such a thing as an optimal capital structure—a proportion of debt to equity that maximizes shareholder value. Some finance scholars have followed M&M in arguing that both capital structure and dividend policy are largely "irrelevant" in the sense that they have no significant, predictable effects on corporate market values. Another school of thought holds that corporate financing choices reflect an attempt by corporate managers to balance the tax shields and disciplinary benefits of greater debt against the costs of financial distress. Yet another theory says that companies do not have capital structure targets, but simply follow a financial "pecking order" in which retained earnings are preferred to outside financing, and debt is preferred to equity when outside funding is required.
In reviewing the evidence that has accumulated since M&M, the authors argue that taxes, bankruptcy (and other "contracting") costs, and information costs all appear to play an important role in corporate financing decisions. While much of the evidence is consistent with the argument that companies set target leverage ratios, there is also considerable support for the pecking order theory's contention that firms are willing to deviate widely from their targets for long periods of time. According to the authors, the key to reconciling the different theories—and thus to solving the capital structure puzzle—lies in achieving a better understanding of the relation between corporate financing stocks (the levels of debt and equity in relation to the target) and flows (or which security to issue at a particular time).     

Distilling the reserve for uncertain tax positions: the revealing case of black liquor

We examine the extent to which management discretion affects the reserve for unrecognized tax benefits. We analyze the financial statement disclosures of 19 paper companies that received a total of $6.4 billion in refundable excise taxes during 2009. All of these companies included the refunds in financial income, but 14 excluded all or part of the refunds from taxable income. Despite the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the exclusion, we find that only five of the excluding firms accrued a full reserve for an uncertain tax position, three firms accrued a partial reserve, and six firms did not accrue any reserve. This variation suggests managers enjoy wide latitude in applying the more likely than not standard for determining additions to the reserve. Our findings suggest that financial statement users should exercise caution when comparing tax reserves across companies. In addition, we find some evidence that income-increasing tax accrual decisions are related to characteristics generally associated with weak corporate governance.     

YANKEE BONDS AND CROSS-BORDER PRIVATE PLACEMENTS: AN UPDATE

With U.S. Treasury yields near historical lows and the recent relaxation of U.S. regulatory reporting requirements, the U.S. bond markets are more and more frequently the markets of choice for international issuers. Total crossborder U.S. bond issuance is expected to top $350 billion in 2000, easily surpassing previous issuance levels.
Overseas issuers have three primary forms through which they can participate in the U.S. long-term debt markets: publicly traded, SEC-registered bonds (commonly known as "Yankee" bonds); traditional private placements; and underwritten Rule 144A private placements. Each of these three financing methods has distinct benefits and limitations that should be thoroughly evaluated in light of the specific objectives of the issuer. Yankee bonds are typically the most cost efficient vehicle for large, investment grade issuers, and they are expected to account for over 75% of the $350 billion market in 2000. Second in importance is the rule 144A market, which is typically used for complex structures requiring heavy rating-agency involvement, such as future financial flow transactions and project financings. The 144A market has also become a particular favorite with international issuers because of its less formal disclosure requirements and streamlined execution process. The private placement market continues to be the dominant choice of smaller issuers, companies with complicated "stories," and firms that do not wish to submit to regular scrutiny by rating agencies. This article provides a detailed analysis of each type of bond issuance and the issues facing a financial officer in trying to determine the most appropriate source of long-term debt.     

A Multinational Perspective on Capital Structure Choice and Internal Capital Markets

This paper analyzes the capital structures of foreign affiliates and internal capital markets of multinational corporations. Ten percent higher local tax rates are associated with 2.8% higher debt/asset ratios, with internal borrowing being particularly sensitive to taxes. Multinational affiliates are financed with less external debt in countries with underdeveloped capital markets or weak creditor rights, reflecting significantly higher local borrowing costs. Instrumental variable analysis indicates that greater borrowing from parent companies substitutes for three‐quarters of reduced external borrowing induced by capital market conditions. Multinational firms appear to employ internal capital markets opportunistically to overcome imperfections in external capital markets.     

Coming Through in a Crisis: How Chapter 11 and the Debt Restructuring Industry Are Helping to Revive the U.S. Economy

During the recent financial crisis, U.S. bankruptcy courts and debt restructuring practitioners were faced with the largest wave of corporate defaults and bankruptcies in history. In 2008 and 2009, $1.8 trillion worth of public company assets entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection—almost 20 times the amount during the prior two years. And the portfolio companies of U.S. private equity firms faced a towering wall of debt that, many observers predicted, was about to wipe out most of the industry. But far from the death of private equity or a severe contraction of corporate America, the past three years have seen an astonishingly rapid working off of U.S. corporate debt overhang, allowing corporate profits and values to rebound with remarkable speed and vigor. And as the author of this article argues, corporate America's recovery from the recent financial crisis provides a clear demonstration of the importance of U.S. bankruptcy laws and restructuring practices in maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. companies and the long‐run growth of the U.S. economy.     

Taxes, Leverage, and the Cost of Equity Capital

We examine the associations among leverage, corporate and investor level taxes, and the firm's implied cost of equity capital. Expanding on Modigliani and Miller [1958, 1963] , the cost of equity capital can be expressed as a function of leverage and corporate and investor level taxes. Based on this expression, we predict that the cost of equity is increasing in leverage, and that corporate taxes mitigate this leverage‐related risk premium, while the personal tax disadvantage of debt increases this premium. We empirically test these predictions using implied cost of equity estimates and proxies for the firm's corporate tax rate and the personal tax disadvantage of debt. Our results suggest that the equity risk premium associated with leverage is decreasing in the corporate tax benefit from debt. We find some evidence that the equity risk premium from leverage is increasing in the personal tax penalty associated with debt.     

How do financial institutions react to a tax increase?

This paper empirically highlights the role and significance of taxes for the capital structure decisions of banks. Using a difference-in-differences methodology, I show that an increase in the local U.S. state corporate tax rate affects the banks’ financing as well as their operating choices. Better-capitalized banks raise their long-term non-depository debt and thus benefit from an enlarged tax shield. Worse-capitalized banks instead reduce their lending because a higher tax rate increases the tax-adjusted cost of funding, which renders the marginal loan unprofitable.     

The welfare loss from differential taxation of sectors in Germany

In the spirit of Harberger, we apply a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model and estimate the excess burden stemming from the tax-induced distortion in the allocation of capital across the corporate and the non-corporate sectors in Germany. In doing so, we perform a counterfactual analysis and ask how the allocation of capital across sectors would change compared with a sector-neutral tax system which assures an identical effective tax burden on both sectors. Our estimates suggest that the excess burden per-period amounts to approximately 2.2 billion Euros or to about 0.1 per cent of GDP. In present value terms, the excess burden translates to about 89 billion Euros or 4.0 per cent of GDP. In order to identify the impact of the firm’s financial behaviour on the size of the emerging excess burden, we perform several sensitivity analyses with regard to debt financing, external equity financing and debt constraints via agency cost.     

Analyzing the Tax Benefits from Employee Stock Options

Employees tend to exercise stock options when corporate taxable income is high, shifting corporate tax deductions to years with higher tax rates. If firms paid employees the same dollar value in wages instead of stock options, the average annual tax bill for large U.S. companies would increase by $12.6 million, or 9.8%. These direct tax benefits of options increase in the convexity of the tax function. In addition, profitable firms can realize indirect tax benefits because stock options increase debt capacity. Although tax minimization is probably not the main motive for option grants, firms with larger potential tax benefits grant more options.     

When financial markets work too well: A cautious case for a securities transactions tax

Unlike most major industrialized nations, the United States does not impose an excise tax on securities transactions. This article examines the desirability and feasibility of implementating a U.S. Securities Transfer Excise Tax (STET) directed at curbing excesses associated with short-term speculation and at raising revenue. We conclude that strong economic efficiency arguments can be made in support of a STET that throws sand into the gears, in James Tobin's (1982) phrase, of our excessively well-functioning financial markets. Such a tax would have the beneficial effects of curbing instability introduced by speculation, reducing the diversion of resources into the financial sector of the economy, and lengthening the horizons of corporate managers. The efficiency benefits derived from curbing speculation are likely to exceed any costs of reduced liquidity or increased costs of capital that come from taxing financial transactions more heavily. The examples of Japan and the United Kingdom suggest that a STET is administratively feasible and can be implemented without crippling the competitiveness of U.S. financial markets. A STET at a .5% rate could raise revenues of at least $10 billion annually.     

STERN STEWART ROUNDTABLE ON CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND STOCK REPURCHASE

This roundtable brings together a small group of finance theorists and practitioners to discuss two important—and in most companies closely related—financial policy decisions: (1) the optimal mix of debt and equity and (2) the amount (and form) of cash distributions to shareholders. The result is an interesting set of comments and exchanges that show current theory and corporate practice to be consistent in some respects, but at odds in others. In the first part of this two‐part discussion, the University of Rochester's Clifford Smith presents a broad theoretical framework in which companies set leverage targets by weighing tax and other benefits of debt against potential costs of financial distress, particularly in the form of underinvestment. According to this theory, mature companies with stable cash flows and limited investment opportunities should make extensive use of debt, while growth companies should be funded primarily (if not entirely) with equity. But, as becomes clear in the case study of PepsiCo that follows the opening discussion, putting theory into practice is far from straightforward. Consistent with the theory, Pepsi does have a target leverage ratio, and management has attempted to adhere to that target through a policy of regular stock repurchase. But if the company's decision‐making process appears consistent with the framework mentioned above, it also relies on conventional ratingagency criteria to an extent that surprises some of the panelists. Moreover, Pepsi's policy of maintaining a single‐A credit rating sets off an interesting debate about the value of preserving access to capital markets “under all conditions.” In the second part of the discussion, Rice University's David Ikenberry begins by offering four main corporate motives for stock repurchases: (1) to increase (or at least maintain) the target corporate leverage ratio; (2) to distribute excess capital and so prevent managers from destroying value by reinvesting in low‐return projects; (3) to substitute for dividends, thereby providing a more flexible and tax efficient means of distributing excess capital; and (4) to “signal” and, in some cases, profit from undervaluation of the firm's shares. As in the first part of the discussion, the case of Pepsi largely supports the theory. Assistant Treasurer Rick Thevenet notes that, in 2000, the company generated free cash flow of $3 billion, of which $800 million was paid out in dividends and another $1.4 billion in stock buybacks. And each of the four motives cited above appears to have been at work in the design or execution of Pepsi's buyback policy. There is also some discussion of a fifth motive for buybacks—the desire to boost earnings per share. Although this motive is perhaps the most widely cited by corporate managers, the idea that EPS considerations should be driving corporate buyback programs is shown to rest on flawed reasoning. Moreover, questions are raised about what appears to be an EPS‐driven phenomenon: the corporate practice of attempting to buy back as many shares at the lowest price possible—and the lack of disclosure that often surrounds such a practice. In closing, Dennis Soter offers the novel suggestion that corporate buyback policy should not be designed to transfer wealth from selling to remaining shareholders, but rather to “share the gains from value‐creating transactions.” Through more and better disclosure about their repurchase activities (and Pepsi's policy appears to be a model worth emulating), companies are likely to establish greater credibility with investors, thereby increasing the liquidity and long run value of their shares.     

Canadian Business Trusts: A New Organizational Structure

The focus of this paper is a subset of income trusts called business trusts, a Canadian financial innovation that has experienced remarkable success in the Canadian market, but not in the U.S. At theendof2005, there were more than 170 business trusts (most of them in Canada, but a handful in the U.S.) with an aggregate market value of over $90 billion. Like income trusts generally, which include REITs and oil & gas trusts, business trusts are designed in large part to avoid taxation at the corporate level by distributing a substantial proportion of a business's operating cash flow. The business trust structure provides investors (called “unit holders”) with what amounts to a combination of subordinated, high‐yield debt and high‐yielding equity. But unlike the subordinated debt in most highly leveraged transactions (HLTs), the “internal” debt in a business trust unit is effectively “stapled” to the equity part of the security. And this kind of “strip financing” (which was a common practice in U.S. LBOs during the‘80s) means that, besides providing stable cash‐generating companies with a tax‐minimizing way of paying out excess cash, the business unit structure also limits the “financial distress costs” associated with HLTs. In the event of financial trouble, the unit holders are likely to be much more cooperative than ordinary subordinated debt holders in restructuring interest payments since the benefits of so doing accrue to the equity portion of their units. The original income trust structure has also been used by a number of U.S.‐based companies that listed their shares on the TSX. But, in the attempt to make the securities suitable for listing on the AM EX, and in response to auditor demands intended to address potential IRS concerns, the instruments were modified in ways that sacrificed one of the important benefits of the original structure. The changes were designed to make the subordinated debt issued as part of a package with equity look more like external, third‐party debt. And in so doing, the low‐cost restructuring feature built into the Canadian version was lost, and the U.S. trusts failed to gain acceptance.     

CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES: A TOLLBOX OF FLEXIBLE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR CORPORATE ISSUERS

During the 1990s, convertible and equity-linked securities emerged as a major source of financing for U.S. corporate issuers. Issuance volume grew steadily throughout the decade and the secondary market value of U.S. convertible securities now exceeds $200 billion. In this overview of the market, the authors discuss the following: (1) the growth of issuance volume in the U.S. equity-linked market; (2) the basic characteristics of convertible securities; (3) convertible debt alternatives; and (4) convertible preferred alternatives.
As a result of the proliferation of new convertible structures, corporate issuers are now able to adjust coupon/dividend, conversion premium, and call protection in order to meet their tax, accounting, rating agency, and cost-of-capital objectives. Historically, the convertible new issue market has had a broad variety of issuers, spanning all industry sectors as well as both investment grade and high yield credits. But in the last two years, the most aggressive issuers have been technology-oriented companies, including telecommunications, Internet, hardware, software, and biotechnology concerns. Such technology-related issuers, which are often rated below investment grade and unable to secure straight debt capital, are generally in heavy-spending phases and view convertible bonds as a source of inexpensive financing. At the same time, investment-grade, "old-economy" issuers have continued to use convertible securities selectively, in most cases as cheap "quasi-equity" in the context of mergers and acquisitions, or as a tax-deferred strategy for selling cross-holdings of stock.     

Leverage and Taxes: Evidence from the Real Estate Industry

Finance theory has long viewed corporate income taxes as a potentially important determinant of corporate financing decisions and capital structures. But finance academics have been unable to provide convincing empirical evidence of a material effect of taxes on corporate leverage, in part because of difficulties in constructing an effective proxy for marginal corporate tax rates, and hence for the tax benefits of debt, for large samples of individual companies. The authors address this by analyzing leverage decisions in an industry whose publicly traded entities are organized either as taxable corporations, or as real estate investment trusts (REITs) that effectively avoid entity level taxation. This enables them to measure the relative tax benefits of debt with greater precision while controlling for important nontax characteristics that affect debt usage. The tax hypothesis predicts that for real estate firms with similar asset portfolios, taxable firms should have more debt than their nontaxable counterparts. Both the nontaxable and the taxable real estate firms in our sample routinely have more than twice the leverage of industrial firms, which suggests that factors other than taxes are contributing to their use of debt. But among real estate firms, tax status appears to play a much weaker role. Taxable firms have significantly more leverage only after 2000, when restrictions on REITs were removed through new regulations that made their operations much more like those of taxable real estate firms. Our findings also depend on real estate characteristics—most notably, only residential real estate firms demonstrated differences that are consistent with the tax hypothesis. Taken together, the authors’ findings suggest that although taxes do seem to matter, their role is clearly secondary relative to factors such as the nature of the firm’s assets. A generous interpretation of our evidence puts the effect of taxes between one‐third and one‐half of that implied by prior research.