CHANGES IN CAPITAL STRUCTURE,NEW EQUITY ISSUES,AND SCALE EFFECTS

This study determines the impact of a new issue of common stock on security holder wealth and the magnitude attributable to transaction costs, tax shield dilution, wealth transfers, and informational content. The empirical results indicate that shareholders of firms announcing new equity issues experience significant, abnormal, negative returns. The per share transaction cost accounts for 22.6 percent of the observed abnormal return. The tax shield dilution effect accounts for 7.8 percent. No evidence of a wealth transfer effect is found. Thus, approximately 70 percent of the abnormal return can be attributed to new unfavorable information that becomes available to the market.     

CAPITAL STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT AS A MOTIVATION FOR CALLING CONVERTIBLE DEBT

Using a matched-pairs methodology, we present empirical evidence of systematic changes within a corporation that are associated with calls of convertible debt. We find that calling firms experience significantly greater growth than noncalling firms in the same industry, as measured by retained earnings and long-term debt. Also, the converted debt provides a significant source of new book equity, and calling firms issue significantly less other new equity. The pattern of growth in balance sheet accounts is consistent with the pecking order hypothesis and supports the notion that some firms call convertible debt to reduce their total cost of obtaining additional external financing. The evidence also shows that, on average, calling firms experience a significant decline in their leverage ratio based on book value but no significant change in their leverage ratio based on market value of equity. This is consistent with the call's being used as part of the firm's management of its capital structure.     

THE CHOICE AMONG DEBT,EQUITY, AND CONVERTIBLE BONDS

The hybrid nature of convertible bonds continues to interest corporate financial managers, investors, and economists. While much theoretical and empirical research examines an issuer's choice between using straight debt and equity, little research evaluates how an issuer chooses among debt, equity, and convertible bonds. This study extends Marsh's [ 13 ] research on the differences between debt and equity issuers in the United Kingdom by examining U.S. industrial firms that issue debt, equity, or convertible bonds. It also illustrates how various distinguishing features influence the probability that each security will be issued.     

SECURITIES OFFERINGS AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE THEORY

This paper analyzes a large sample of public security offerings to determine the motivation to issue debt or common equity. The results provide new evidence that the existence of asymmetric information plays a key role in firms' choice of security. Bankruptcy risk appears to affect the issue decision, but other traditional capital structure considerations do not. Variations in the determinants of security choice over time suggest a dynamic aspect to capital structure decisions not recognized in previous studies.     

FINANCING INNOVATIONS AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE CHOICES

The last two decades have seen a stream of innovation in financial markets, especially in corporate bonds. Some of these innovations—notably, hybrid debt—have provided firms with more flexibility in designing cash flows on borrowings, allowing them to match cash flows on financing more closely to cash flows on assets. In so doing, the use of such innovative securities has increased corporate debt capacity and hence firm value.
But if such changes have been mostly good news for corporate treasurers, the relentless torrent of innovation has sometimes resulted in firms issuing these new securities for the wrong reasons. Some have done so to take advantage of loopholes in the way ratings agencies and regulatory agencies define debt and equity—and others to exploit perceived pricing anomalies—without considering the effect of such securities on the firm's overall risk profile. In this context, it is worth noting that as corporate bonds have become more complex, investment bankers have made themselves indispensable to the process by providing pricing as well as selling support. This article aims to help managers distinguish when financing with complex securities serves their company's interests, and when it can end up hurting them.