Political connection and cost of debt: Some Malaysian evidence

This paper investigates the association between Malaysian politically connected (PCON) firms and the cost of debt. We extend previous research that finds Malaysian PCON firms are perceived as being of higher risk by the market, and by audit firms, by providing evidence that lenders also perceive these firms as being of higher risk. We also find that PCON firms have a significantly (1) higher extent of leverage, (2) higher likelihood of reporting a loss, (3) higher likelihood of having negative equity, and (4) higher likelihood of being audited by a big audit firm. We suggest that PCON firms are charged higher interest rates by lenders as a result of efficient contracting given their higher inherent risks. Additionally, we find that CEO duality present in PCON firms is perceived by lenders as being more risky, and that a higher proportion of independent directors on the audit committee mitigate this perceived risk.     

Do political connections affect the role of independent audit committees and CEO Duality? Some evidence from Malaysian audit pricing

This study examines whether political connection to firms affects the association between audit committee independence and demand for higher quality audits. In line with Carcello et al. (2002), our findings show that there is a positive association between audit committee independence and audit fees thus supporting the hypothesis that more independent audit committees demand higher audit quality. However, we find that this relationship is weaker for politically connected (PCON) firms suggesting that the independence of audit committees in Malaysian PCON firms may be compromised. Additionally, we provide evidence that PCON firms that have CEO duality are perceived by audit firms as being of higher risk than CEO duality firms without political connection.     

International Cross‐Listings and Subsequent Security‐Market Choices: Evidence from ADRs

We study the link between the attributes of American depositary receipt (ADR)‐listed firms and their post‐listing security‐market choices. We find that developed market firms are more likely to issue equity and debt than their emerging market counterparts. Furthermore, we find that large firms are more likely to issue debt and less likely to issue equity. When we examine locations where ADR firms raise their capital, we find that firms originating from countries where the protection of minority shareholders is weak are more likely to issue debt on their home markets and less likely to issue debt on international markets (excluding U.S. markets). Furthermore, ADR firms originating from developed (emerging market) countries are more (less) likely to issue their equity on their domestic markets and less (more) likely to issue equity on international markets (excluding U.S. markets).     

Book-tax conformity and capital structure

We examine the effect of increased book-tax conformity on corporate capital structure. Prior studies document a decrease in the informativeness of accounting earnings for equity markets resulting from higher book-tax conformity. We argue that the decrease in earnings informativeness impacts equity holders more than debt holders because of the differences in payoff structures between debt and equity investments such that increases in book-tax conformity lead to increases in firms’ reliance on debt capital. We exploit a natural experiment in the U.S. and find that firms facing an increase in required book-tax conformity increase leverage relative to other firms. We also provide evidence of an increase in the cost of equity (but not of debt) capital for firms facing an increase in required book-tax conformity, relative to control firms, and show that these increases in cost of equity capital are positively associated with an increase in leverage. Our findings are consistent with firms substituting away from equity and toward more debt in the presence of higher book-tax conformity.     

Corporate hedging and the cost of debt

For a large sample of U.S. firms from 1994 to 2009, we empirically examine the impact of corporate hedging on the cost of public debt. We find strong evidence that hedging is associated with a lower cost of debt. The negative effect of hedging on the cost of debt is consistent across industries, and remains economically and statistically significant under various controls and econometric specifications. A cross-sectional analysis based on propensity score matching suggests that hedging initiation firms experience a drop in cost of debt, while suspension firms sustain a jump. We confirm our findings after employing an extensive array of models to address potential endogeneity. The influence of hedging on cost of debt is mainly through the lowering of bankruptcy risk and agency cost, and the reduction in information asymmetry. Finally, hedging mitigates the negative effect of rising borrowing costs on capital expenditure and firm value.     

Political rights and the cost of debt

We examine the impact of country-level political rights on the cost of debt for corporate bonds issued by firms incorporated in 39 countries. Similar to, but separate from, the relation for creditor rights, greater political rights are associated with lower yield spreads. A one standard deviation increase in political rights is associated with an 18.6% decline in bond spreads. We find evidence that political and legal institutions are substitutes; marginal improvements in political rights produce greater reductions in the cost of debt for firms from countries with weaker creditor rights. We examine potential factors through which political rights may affect the cost of debt and find that greater freedom of the press provides an important channel for reducing bond risks. Moreover, debt of firms with cross-listed equity trades at a premium in U.S. markets, but this relation appears to be more consistent with improved visibility than with bonding effects.     

Firms' Off-Balance Sheet and Hybrid Debt Financing: Evidence from Their Book-Tax Reporting Differences

We match large U.S. corporations' tax returns during 1989–2001 to their financial statements to construct a firm‐level proxy of firms' use of off‐balance sheet and hybrid debt financing. We find that firms with less favorable prior‐period Standard & Poor's (S&P) bond ratings or higher leverage ratios in comparison to their industry report greater amounts of interest expense on their tax returns than to investors and creditors on their financial statements. These between‐firm results are consistent with credit‐constrained firms using more structured financing arrangements. Our within‐firm tests also suggest that firms use more structured financing arrangements when they enter into contractual loan agreements that provide incentives to manage debt ratings. Specifically, we find that after controlling for S&P bond rating and industry‐adjusted leverage, our sample firms report greater amounts of interest expenses for tax than for financial statement purposes when they enter into performance pricing contracts that use senior debt rating covenants to set interest rates. Furthermore, we find that the greatest book‐tax reporting changes occur when firms become closer to violating these debt rating covenants. These latter findings are consistent with firms' contractual debt covenants influencing their use of off‐balance sheet and hybrid debt financing.     

Does Auditor Quality and Tenure Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market

We examine the relation between auditor characteristics (quality and tenure) and the cost of debt financing. Consistent with the hypothesis that audit characteristics are important to the capital markets, we find that (1) auditor quality and tenure are negatively and significantly related to the cost of debt financing, (2) the relation between auditor characteristics and the cost of debt is most pronounced in firms with debt that is noninvestment grade, and (3) both the insurance and information role of audits are economically significant to the cost of debt. Overall, our results suggest that, through their dual roles of providing information and insurance, auditor quality and tenure matter to capital market participants.     

DOES FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY REDUCE INVESTMENT DISTORTIONS?

The average U.S. firm has less leverage than one would expect based on the trade‐off between tax shields and bankruptcy costs. We focus on firms’ financial flexibility and examine whether firms preserve debt capacity to reduce investment distortions in the future. We find that firms with high unused debt capacity invest more in future years than do firms with low unused debt capacity. Furthermore, firms that are reluctant to borrow in unconstrained periods are more likely to issue debt in periods in which access to capital markets is more constrained.     

Disproportional control rights and debt maturity

Using a hand-collected sample of U.S. dual-class firms, we find that corporate debt maturity increases in insiders' disproportional control rights, which is robust to several robustness tests. This relation is more pronounced among firms more vulnerable to control disruption. Besides, firms with greater disproportional control rights issue more long-term new debt. Further analysis of the stock market reaction to new debt issuance shows that controlling insiders' preference for long-term debt benefits outside shareholders. Overall, our findings suggest that the benefits of minimizing control disruption surpass the costs of long-term debt in insider-controlled firms.     

Political connection and leverage: Some Malaysian evidence

This paper extends prior work on the linkage between politically connected (PCON) firms and capital structure in developing countries. Specifically, this paper focuses on the association between Malaysian PCON firms and leverage, and is motivated by the results of Fraser et al. (2006) who report a positive association between leverage and political patronage. Controlling for a potential misspecification in that paper, this study documents that a significant proportion (almost 12%) of the Malaysian PCON firms have negative equity, and builds on the previous paper by providing fresh evidence that market to book ratio is positively associated with leverage, and that borrowing PCON firms have significantly lower ROA compared to non-PCON firms.     

The capital structure of multinational corporations: Canadian versus U.S. evidence

Contrary to the U.S. evidence, we show that Canadian multinational corporations (MNCs) display higher leverage than domestic firms (DCs). This higher leverage is due to lower agency costs of debt associated with MNCs' U.S. operations. We also find that the Canadian firms with international bond market access have higher leverage than firms without such access. Comparison with a U.S. matched sample shows that the sensitivity of leverage to firm-specific factors differs between the two countries, especially for the MNCs samples. Our evidence indicates that capital structures of MNCs are a complex interaction of both home and host country factors and differences in leverage determinants across countries.     

Location and lease intensity

U.S. firms lease assets extensively. We find that, during 1980–2011, the average U.S. firm has a lease intensity of about 40%. Or, the average firm has present and future (up to five years) rent commitments equal to 16.6% of their total assets. We investigate whether agency costs between the lessor and the lessee affect the lease intensity of firms. To do so, we examine the impact of firms' location on the use of operating leases. The main idea of our paper is that, because obtaining information and monitoring is costly for potential lessors, especially when a lessee is relatively far away from financial centers, rural firms are less likely to use operating leases. Consistent with this hypothesis, we show that rural firms tend to have lower lease intensities than similar urban and small city firms. In addition, we find that firms with higher levels of debt capacity lease less and firms that face more financial constraint lease more. Our findings are robust to industry and lease maturity controls and consistent with the existence of an agency problem associated with leasing.     

The cost of capital: U.S.-based multinational corporations versus U.S. domestic corporations

Using firm-level panel data, this paper examines whether the cost of capital (COC) differs significantly between U.S.-based multinational corporations (MNCs) and U.S. domestic corporations (DCs). The results suggest that U.S.-based MNCs have higher COC than U.S. DCs and that industry importantly influences COC. The study also finds that there is a significant time effect on COC, and the time effect follows the trend of the U.S. economic growth rate. Using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo approach, we estimate jointly cost of equity, cost of debt, and capital structure, and find that the higher cost of capital for MNCs is due mainly to their higher cost of equity and greater use of equity financing; the cost of debt financing does not differ significantly for MNCs versus DCs.     

Acquisitions and the cost of debt: Evidence from China

A large body of literature has examined the effect of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) on firm valuation, and generally find that M&As reduce acquirers' shareholder value. However, relatively little is known about the effect of M&As on the pricing of corporate debt by debtholders, especially for firms in less developed countries. Using a sample of Chinese listed firms with outstanding bonds from 2007 to 2020, we find that the cost of debt is lower for acquirers than for non-acquirers, and that the effect of acquisitions in reducing cost of debt is more pronounced for firms from provinces with less developed markets, for private firms, and for firms undertaking cross-province acquisitions. Our results are robust to a series of robustness checks that address various endogeneity concerns, including the use of a matched-sample approach, the use of the Heckman two-stage model and a change analysis, the control for acquirers' pre-acquisition bond yield spread, and the exclusion of acquisitions of publicly listed targets. Our analyses of provincial institutional factors show that the relationship between M&As and cost of debt is moderated by government relations to market, private economy development, and the development of market intermediaries and legal environment. We further document that acquirers have lower default risk during the post-acquisition period because of a coinsurance effect, and that acquirers attract more analyst following and investors after acquisitions. Overall, our results indicate that acquisitions can reduce cost of debt through reducing firms' default risk and information risk, and that institutional factors matter for the effect of M&As on the cost of debt.     

Implications of public corruption for local firms: Evidence from corporate debt maturity

Using political corruption conviction data from the U.S. Department of Justice, we examine the impact of local corruption on firms’ debt maturity structure while exploring both demand-side and supply-side explanations. Our results support the demand-side story and indicate that firms in high corruption areas utilize less short-term debt to mitigate liquidity and refinancing risks. Consistent with this, we find the effect is more pronounced among firms with smaller size, lower asset redeployability, and higher volatility. Our findings remain robust to the inclusion of an array of controls expected to influence debt maturity preferences as well as time, industry, and state fixed effects. Moreover, a seemingly unrelated regression approach, instrumental variables regression, propensity score matching, placebo analyses, and alternative corruption measures corroborate our findings. Altogether, our results indicate that firms alter their debt maturity choices in response to local corruption to limit refinancing risk and the uncertainty created by corrupt government officials.     

The Silent Majority: Private U.S. Firms and Financial Reporting Choices

This study uses a comprehensive panel of tax returns to examine the financial reporting choices of medium-to-large private U.S. firms, a setting that controls over $9 trillion in capital, vastly outnumbers public U.S. firms across all industries, yet has no financial reporting mandates. We find that nearly two-thirds of these firms do not produce audited GAAP financial statements. Guided by an agency theory framework, we find that size, ownership dispersion, external debt, and trade credit are positively associated with the choice to produce audited GAAP financial statements, while asset tangibility, age, and internal debt are generally negatively related to this choice. Our findings reveal that (1) equity capital and trade credit exhibit significant explanatory power, suggesting that the primary focus in the literature on debt is too narrow; (2) firm youth, growth, and R&D are positively associated with audited GAAP reporting, reflecting important monitoring roles of financial reporting; and (3) many firms violate standard explanations for financial reporting choices and substantial unexplained heterogeneity in financial reporting remains. We conclude by identifying opportunities for future research.     

Do multinational and domestic corporations differ in their leverage policies?

This paper examines the leverage policies of multinational corporations (MNCs) in comparison to those of domestic corporations (DCs). Prior studies document that MNCs have lower leverage levels. However, our analysis of U.S. firms over the period 1981–2010 reveals that the leverage levels of MNCs are not significantly lower than those of DCs if we control for key firm characteristics related to leverage levels. We also find that MNCs and DCs do not differ significantly in terms of their debt maturity structure, the speed of leverage adjustments, or the propensity to issue debt vs. equity (or vs. not to issue debt). The results suggest that MNCs' financial policies at the corporate level are not significantly influenced by their greater exposures, in comparison to DCs, to market imperfections such as taxes and regulations. Interestingly, however, our additional analysis of MNCs from outside the U.S. reveals that non-U.S. MNCs issue securities more frequently and adjust leverage faster than their domestic peers.     

Debt Specialization

This paper examines debt structure using a new and comprehensive database on types of debt employed by public U.S. firms. We find that 85% of the sample firms borrow predominantly with one type of debt, and the degree of debt specialization varies widely across different subsamples—large rated firms tend to diversify across multiple debt types, while small unrated firms specialize in fewer types. We suggest several explanations for why debt specialization takes place, and show that firms employing few types of debt have higher bankruptcy costs, are more opaque, and lack access to some segments of the debt markets.     

Financial Shocks and Corporate Investment in Emerging Markets

We examine how cross-firm and cross-country heterogeneity shapes the responses of corporate investment in emerging markets to changes in U.S. monetary policy and financial-market volatility, the latter proxying for uncertainty. We find that in response to increases in U.S monetary policy rates or financial-market volatility, financially weaker firms reduce investment by more than financially strong firms. We also show that firms with stronger balance sheets delay investment voluntarily when faced with higher uncertainty. Finally, we find that stronger macroeconomic fundamentals (lower public debt or higher international reserves) help to buffer corporate investment from increases in U.S. monetary policy rates.