Impact of Firm Specific Factors on Capital Structure Decision: An Empirical Study of Bangladeshi Companies

Md. Faruk Hossain & Prof. Dr. Md. Ayub Ali
International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Volume (3) : Issue (4) : 2012 163
Impact of Firm Specific Factors on Capital Structure Decision:
An Empirical Study of Bangladeshi Companies
Md. Faruk Hossain faruk_par_fin@yahoo.com
Department of Business Administration
Northern University Bangladesh
Khulna, 9100, Bangladesh
Prof. Dr. Md. Ayub Ali ayubali67@yahoo.com
Department of Statistics
University of Rajshahi
Rajshahi, 6205, Bangladesh
Abstract
This study attempts to explore the impact of firm specific factors on capital structure decision for a
sample of 39-firm listed on Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE) during 2003-2007. To achieve the
objectives, this study tests a null hypothesis that none of the firm’s specific factors namely
profitability, tangibility, non-debt tax shield, growth opportunitiy, liquidity, earnings volatility, size,
dividend payment, managerial ownership, and industry classification has significant impact on
leverage using estimate of fixed effect model under Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression.
Checking multicollinearity and estimating regression analysis through Pearson correlation and
autoregressive model respectively this study found that profitability, tangibility, liquidity, and
managerial ownership have significant and negative impact on leverage. Positive and significant
impact of growth opportunity and non-debt tax shield on leverage has been found in this study.
On the other hand size, earnings volatility, and dividend payment were not found to be significant
explanatory variables of leverage. Results also reveal that total debt to total assets ratios are
significantly different across Bangladeshi industries.
Keywords: Capital Structure, Leverage, Firm’s Specific Factors, Dhaka Stock Exchange,
Bangladesh.
1. INTRODUCTION
The theories of capital structure are the most attractive and complicated issue in the field of
finance. Relating to capital structure two sides are frequently focused in finance that are the
impact of capital structure on firm’s value that is pertinent to optimal capital structure and the
determinants of capital structure of firms. Decision making in capital structure is very much
susceptible issue to all firms due to its internal and external effects on firms. One of the many
objectives of financial managers is to maximize the wealth of the firm, more specifically
shareholder’s wealth maximization. To maximize firm’s value as well as minimize the cost of fund,
a manager should set up an optimal capital structure. The fundamental components in capital
structure are debt and equity. A firm should attempt to determine the optimal capital structure
that causes the maximization of firm’s value. Positive relationship between leverage and value of
the firm has been identified in some studies (Champion, 1999; Ghosh et al, 2000; Chowdhury S.
& Chowdhury A., 2010). Capital structure policy is also important in a sense that level of risk and
return of a firm is mostly affected by it. Using more debt in capital structure to finance firm’s
assets results in increase the variability of firm's cash flows stream more specifically it leads to
generate higher risk consequently, to compensate the higher risk stockholders expect a higher
rate of return to firm. But no strict theory has been developed yet to determine the exact optimal
capital structure. So it concerns managers in identifying some factors influencing capital structure
decision by which they can benefit to make an optimal mix of debt and equity to maximize firm’s
value. Moreover these factors vary across countries and firm’s characteristics i.e. size of firm,

agency costs, bankruptcy costs, profitability, growth opportunity, variability of earnings, liquidity,
assets structure, ownership structure, etc. Since Modigliani and Miller (1958), who are the
pioneer in this field, executed an instructional research in identifying the determinants of capital
structure. Thereafter, many researches have been conducted in the developed country such as
Rajan and Zingales (1995) (the G-7 countries), Akhtar (2005) (Australia), and Akhtar and Oliver
(2009) (Japan).
As a developing country Bangladesh has become an emerging market with a lot of potential of
investment that gets an attention for investors and managers to rethink about the influencing
factors of using debt and their extent of influence over firms. Although there have been small
numbers of research in Bangladesh focusing on the primary determinants of capital structure
such as Chowdhury MU. (2004), Lima M.(2009) , and Sayeed M.A. (2011), there is still
disagreement regarding which factors have significant impact in determining a firm's capital
structure. Nevertheless, an important factors affecting capital structure determination of a firm in
developed country may not be equally important to a firm in developing country like Bangladesh.
Furthermore, all possible factors affecting capital structure decision have not been considered in
a research at a time and that is why some factors are still important to further use in measuring
their impact on capital structure determination and there is a need to bridge between current
study and capital structure theory.
This study extends the existing literature by analyzing the factors affecting capital structure
decision on 39 listed companies in the Dhaka Stock Exchange by using the panel data models
over the periods 2003-2007. This study is different from others because it considers some firm’s
specific factors that have not been used yet in Bangladesh. This study attempts to analyze the
impact of firm specific factors on capital structure decision in a systemic manner and provides
practical and applicable guideline for any one who wants to have insight of the topic. Therefore,
this study provides further evidence of the capital structure theories pertaining to a developing
country.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 shows some predictions
associated with major leverage theories. Section 3 provides insights to recognize capital structure
and its empirical determinants. The objectives of the study are addressed in section 4.
Hypotheses of the study, that are to be tested, are presented in section 5. Chapter 6 summarizes
the methods and methodology of the research. Data analysis and interpretation of results are
presented in section 7. Conclusions and recommendations for further analysis are discussed in
section 8 followed by references.
2. THEORETICAL DISCUSSION ON CAPITAL STRUCTURE
To represent and examine the possible determinants of leverage requires some theoretical
platform. The importance of making a decision relating to the capital structure decision was firstly
introduced by the article published by Modigliani and Miller (MM) in 1958 where they proved that,
in a world of no taxes, the firm’s value is unaffected by the debt to equity ratio. Following the
pioneering works of MM in this field, many critical studies have been made about the
assumptions made by MM. In fact, the MM theory does not crystallize the definition on how a
company should finance its assets to enjoy the benefits of optimal capital structure and also it
does not explain the empirical findings on capital structure very well. Then, after such criticisms,
they reviewed their capital structure theory including corporate tax factor in and excluding
dividends from the model and published the new article in 1963. Then, in 1977, Miller published
another article and included corporate tax and individual income tax in their models. According to
MM theory, an optimum capital structure is subject to tax advantages of debt and that is why firms
should have a capital structure almost totally composed of debt. But in the real world, firms
generally assume to use moderate amounts of debt due to its high bankruptcy costs. After MM
theorem, three fundamental theorems have been developed on capital structure. These are Static
Tradeoff Theory, Pecking Order Theory and Agency Cost Theory.
Jensen and Meckling (1976) are the pioneers in introducing the agency theory. Agency theory
suggests that the managers (agent) are given authority by the shareholders (the principal) to

manage the firm in a way by which firm’s welfare and shareholder’s wealth are maximized. In
particular, the managers do not always act in the interest of the shareholders in which the
managers can adopt an opportunistic behavior and benefit them from achieving their own
selfishness that may put the firm at risk. Eventually, achieving the goal of maximizing the value of
the firm often becomes unattainable. Such a conflict of interest will create agency problems and
costs. According to Jensen and Meckling (1976), an individual will work harder for a firm if he/she
owns a large percentage ownership of the company than if he/she owns a small percentage.
However, when managers hold a significant portion of a firm’s equity, an increase in managerial
ownership may lead to an increase in managerial opportunism and therefore may cause lower
debt. Moreover, Jensen and Meckling (1976) argue that managers avoid leverage to reduce the
risk of corporate bankruptcy and transfer of control to bondholders. The loss to managers from
bankruptcy is potentially greater when managers hold larger ownership. Grossman and Hart
(1982) suggest that the use of debt increases the chances of bankruptcy and job loss that further
motivate managers to use the organizational resources efficiently and reduce their consumption
on perks.
M. Jensen (1986) develops the free cash-flows theory to limit the managerial discretion. He
defines the free cash-flows as the sum of the cash available to the managers after the financing
of all the projects with a positive NPV. It concerns Jensen that the managers with ample free cash
flow may be tempted to plow too much cash into mature business or ill-advised projects. If it is
treated as problem, then it can be solved by either using more debt or paying more dividends.
Even a firm can apply both policies concurrently. According to this theory debt reduces free cash
flows, because the firm must make interest and principal payments. Furthermore, an increase in
dividends should benefit the stockholders by reducing the ability of managers to pursue wasteful
activities.
The signaling theories are initially developed by Ross (1977). According to Ross, managers
often use capital structure as a signal of firm to investors. Ross assumes that managers (the
insiders) know the true distribution of firm returns, but investors do not. If managers decide to add
more debt into capital structure, investors interpret it as a signal of high future cash flows and a
firm’s commitment towards its contractual obligation. Thus, this shows higher level of confident to
the public sentiment that lead them to think that the firm has delightful prospects in the near
future. However, if managers decide to finance the firm by issuing new equity, it signals that firm
has unfavorable prospects and attempt to raise new investors to share the losses. Accordingly,
he concludes that investors take larger levels of debt as a signal of higher quality.
Trade-off theory (Scott, 1977) claims that a firm’s optimal debt ratio is determined by a trade-off
between advantages of using debt (tax deductibility of interest payments) and its disadvantages
(cost of bankruptcy). Higher profitability of a firm decreases the expected costs of financial
distress and let the firm increase their tax benefits by raising leverage. Furthermore, a firm with
large investment in tangible assets will have smaller costs of financial distress than a firm relies
on intangible assets. This theory suggests that firms would prefer debt financing over equity until
the point at which the bankruptcy probability is equal to the tax advantage of using debt.
The Pecking Order theory (POT) was first initiated by Myers and Majluf (1984). According to this
theory, a firm does not follow a target amount of leverage. Each firm chooses its leverage ratio
based on financing needs. Firms first fund projects out of retained earnings. If retained earnings
are not sufficient, the firms go for debt and if further financing is required, they issue equity. The
retained earning is preferred over debt and equity because it almost has no cost, but if the
external resources are used for financing like issuance of new shares it may take very high cost.
Profitable firms generate cash internally and end up relying on less debt. Because the Pecking
Order Theory is based on the difficulties of obtaining financing at a reasonable cost, a cynical
investor thinks that a stock is overvalued if the managers try to issue more of it, thereby stock
price is expected to fall.

3. CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND EMPIRICAL FACTORS AFFECTING CAPITAL
STRUCTURE DECISION
3.1 Capital Structure
In this analysis, the capital structure is dependant variable and it is measured by total leverage
that is the ratio of total debt to total assets. Total debt contains both long term debt and short term
debt. It is argued by Harris and Raviv (1991), Rajan & Zingales (1995), Hung and Song (2006),
Chen (2003), and Buferna, et al. (2005).
3.2 Firm Specific Factors Affecting Capital Structure Decision (Leverage)
3.2.1 Profitability
According to the pecking order theory, a profitable firm is more likely to finance from internal
sources rather than external sources. More profitable firms are expected to hold less debt
because they are able to generate adequate funds easily and cost effectively from internal
sources for satisfying project’s cost that shows an inverse relation between profitability and
leverage. A negative relation between profitability and leverage is found in Rajan and Zingales
(1995), Supanvanij (2006), Sayilgan et al. (2006) and Sheikh & Wang (2010). Sayeed M.A.
(2011) found profitability is irrelevant in determining capital structure. On the other hand, the high
ability of paying debt’s obligations which is, in general, mostly considering factor to all lenders is
often subject to firm’s profitability that ultimately measures the firm’s tolerable level of debt. It is
argued that the more profitable companies can easily add more debt in their capital structure.
Jensen (1986) shows that firms with more likelihood of agency problem use more debt to reduce
availability of free cash flows at manager’s hand so that managers can be restrained from bad
investment decision. However, the trade-off theory, signaling theory, and agency cost theory
support a positive relation between profitability and leverage. Following Rajan and Zingales
(1995), and Supanvanij (2006), the ratio of operating income to total assets is used as a proxy for
profitability.
3.2.2 Growth Opportunitiy
Myers (1977) argues that firms with growth potential will tend to have less debt in capital
structure. Growth opportunities can produce moral hazard effects and push firms to take more
risk. In order to mitigate this problem, assets in growth opportunities should be financed with
equity instead of debt due to minimizing the loss/risk per stockholder. It supports inverse relation
between firm growth and leverage which is also the findings of Gued et al. (2003), Sayilgan
(2009), Buferna et al. (2005), and Akhtar and Oliver (2009). On the other hand, Titman & Wessels
(1988), and Chen (2003) found a positive association between growth opportunities and leverage.
According to pecking order theory firm prefers to finance new project with internal funds.
Nonetheless, a growing firm may not have sufficient internal funds to finance its new projects
frequently. As a result firms require external financing that prefers debt financing to equity
financing. Following Chen (2003) and Buferna et al. (2005), the percentage change in book value
of total assets is used as a proxy for firm growth.
3.2.3 Tangibility
The tangible assets of a firm can be considered as collateral to ensure guarantees against the
default risk of borrowers to its creditors. The trade-off theory predicts a positive relationship
between measures of leverage and the proportion of tangible assets. However, the direction of
influence has not been clear yet. Empirical studies that confirm the above theoretical prediction
include Friend and Lang (1988), Harris and Raviv (1991), Shah & Khan (2007), Rajan and
Zingales (1995), Akhtar (2005), and Akhtar and Oliver (2009). Grossman and Hart (1982) suggest
the idea that firms with less collateralizable assets should use more debt to monitor managerial
activity, even at high cost of debt to limit the manager’s tendency to consume excessive perks.
This implies a negative relationship between tangibility of assets and leverage which is confirmed
by the findings of Sheikh & Wang (2010), Sayilgan et al. (2006), and Abdullah (2005). This study
measured tangibility as the ratio of net fixed assets to total assets following Friend and Lang
(1988), Shah & Khan (2007), and Akhtar (2005).

3.2.4 Size
The relationship between firm size and leverage is also ambiguous. Some literatures offer the
positive relationship between firm size and financial leverage with reasons that larger firms are
more likely to be more diversified causes more stable or less volatile cash flows, less often
failure, and more utilization of the economies of scale in issuing securities. Eventually, larger
firms may issue debt at lower costs than smaller firms. In this case therefore, we can expect size
to be positively related to leverage. Empirical studies, such as Rajan and Zingales (1995), and
Booth et al. (2001), Gued et. al. (2003) generally found that leverage is positively correlated with
company size. On the other hand, some of the studies conducted by Chung (1993), and Ozkan
(2001) found no systematic relationship between firm size and total debt ratio. However, Fama
and Jensen (1983) argue that there may be less asymmetric information about large firms, since
these firms tend to provide more information to outside investors than smaller firms. Therefore,
they increase their preference for equity relative to debt. Results of some studies such as Icke
and Ivgen (2011), Elli and Farouk (2011), and Kila and Mahmood (2008) revealed negative
association between size and leverage. In this study, our expectation on the effect of size on
leverage is ambiguous. Following Rajan and Zingales (1995) the natural logarithm of net sales is
used as a proxy for size.
3.2.5 Earnings Volatility
Earnings Volatility is a measure of business risk. According to Frank and Goyal (2003), the
companies with more volatile cash flows face higher expected costs of financial distress and
should use less debt in the objective of maintaining a moderate total risk profile. This suggests a
negative relation between earnings volatility and leverage. A number of study such as Harris and
Raviv (1991), and Akhtar and Oliver (2009) have indicated a negative relation between earnings
volatility and leverage. However, risky firms are more likely to suffer from information
asymmetries that make it difficult for firms to issue equity at higher price, and they are expected
to have higher levels of leverage. This supports a positive relation between earnings volatility and
leverage as shown in Booth et al. (2001), Deesomsak et al. (2004), and Ellili and Farouk (2011).
In this study, our expectation on the effect of earnings volatility on leverage is ambiguous.
Following Ellili and Farouk (2011) this study uses the ratio of standard deviation of EBIT over total
assets to measure earnings volatility.
3.2.6 Non-debt Tax Shield
There is a another type of expenses that has a power of generating tax shield like interest
expenses, which is depreciation expenses and that’s why both can be considered as tax
deductible expenses. Cloyd (1997) claims that the existence of non-debt tax shields provide an
alternative (and perhaps less costly) means of reducing income taxes and may serve to mitigate
the benefit of debt tax shields. Therefore, some of the literatures like Wiwattanakantang (1999)
and Ozkan (2001) found an inverse relationship between non-debt tax shields and debt. But in
the contrary to the results of above literatures, Graham (2006) and AL-Shubiri (2010) found a
positive relation between non-debt tax shield and leverage. Hence, this study tries to find out
whether non-debt tax shield affects leverage. Following Ozkan (2001) the ratio of depreciation
over total assets has been used as a measure of non-debt tax shield.
3.2.7 Dividends
Professor Donaldson G. of Harvard (1961) suggested that firms set target dividend payout ratios
based on expected future investment opportunities and expected future cash flows. Firms are
reluctant to raise dividends unless they are confident that higher dividend can be maintained, and
they are especially reluctant to cut the dividends. So dividend payment is likely to play a
prominent role in the financing-mix decision mainly because of market imperfections. Bhaduris
(2002) suggested that dividends are carefully considered as signal of financial health of a firm by
the outsiders. If any increase in dividends signals an increase future earnings then the firm’ s cost
of equity will be lower, favoring equity to debt. This implies a negative relation between leverage
and payout ratio that is also found by Kuczynski (2005), Frank and Goyal, (2003), and Rozeff
(1982). On the other hand, the higher the amount of dividend payments the lower the amount of

internal funds to firms. And it needs more external financing. Moreover, if high dividend payout
ratio conveys negative information to the investors in a sense that firm is lacking in profitable
project resultant low growth opportunity, investors will be unwilling to pay more money for equity
and firms prefer debt to equity. Chang and Rhee (1990) found a positive relationship between
payout ratio and leverage. But Chen and Chen (2011) found that dividend policy is not
significantly related with leverage.
In Bangladesh firms who paid at least 10 percent dividend in last year, that is one of the some
obligations, can be categorized as A-category listed company in Dhaka Stock Exchange. In these
sense paying a dividend above 10 percent may convey a significant message to investors and it
is expected to have an influencing effect on firm’s value as well as capital structure. Following
Frank and Goyal (2003) dividend payment is used as dummy.
3.2.8 Liquidity
As predicted by the pecking order theory, firms with high liquidity will borrow less. The fact that a
firm with more current assets is expected to generate more internal inflows, which can be used to
finance its operating and investments activities. Thus a negative relationship between liquidity
and leverage is expected. Friend and Lang (1988) Deesomsak, et al. (2004), Sbeiti (2010), and
Icke and Ivgen (2011), found liquidity are negatively and significantly related to leverage. On the
other hand, trade-off theory suggests a positive relationship between leverage and liquidity
because higher liquidity ratio reflects the greater ability of a firm to meet short-term obligation on
time. Ozkan (2001) suggests that liquidity has ambiguous effect on the capital structure
decisions. In the line with study of Ozkan (2001) the proportion of current assets to current
liabilities is chosen as a proxy for liquidity.
3.2.9 Managerial Ownership
According to agency theory, it is expected that there is a correlation between ownership
(including managerial ownership) structure and leverage. Moreover, free cash flow theory
suggests that managers with only a small ownership interest have an incentive for wasteful
behavior or ill-investment. Ellili and Farouk (2011) found an inverse relationship between low level
managerial ownership and leverage and a positive relationship between high level managerial
ownership and leverage. Harris and Raviv (1991) affirm that the managers increase the debt ratio
in order to reinforce their control mainly to control a large fraction of voting rights. Novaes and
Zingales (1995) confirm that the threat of a takeover forces the managers to issue debts and to
prove their alignment. Huang and Song (2006), confirm such positive correlation. On the other
hand, Friend and Lang (1988) and Friend and Hasbrouck (1988) contended that an increase in
managerial ownership pushes firms to reduce leverage in order to decrease default risk thereby
advocating a negative relationship between managerial ownership and leverage. The results from
Mohammed et al. (1998) for a sample of Malaysian firms indicate that both insider ownership and
outsider ownership have a significant negative relationship with a firm’s long-term debt ratio.
According to Huang and Song (2006), in this empirical analysis, the managerial ownership is
measured by the total shares held by top managers, directors and supervisors.
3.2.10 Industry Classification
Titman and Wessels (1988), among others, show that industry classification influences firms’
capital structure. Harris and Raviv (1991) noted that it is generally accepted that companies in a
given industry will have similar leverage ratios while leverage ratios vary across industries.
Empirically, the regression results of Abor (2007) indicate clearly that the industry effect is
important in explaining the capital structure and that there are variations in capital structure
across the various industries. In the context of Bangladesh Sayeed M.A. (2011) found industry
classification to be a significant determinants of leverage. Therefore, it is expected that capital
structure should vary across different industry groups among listed firms in Bangladesh. Using
dummy variables, we test if the leverage ratios are significantly different across the industries of
cement, food, fuel & power, ceramic, information technology, pharmaceuticals, and jute in
Bangladesh.

4. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
This study will attempt to accomplish the following objectives:
i. To identify the firm specific factors affecting capital structure decisions of listed firms
in Dhaka Stock Exchange.
ii. To analyze how the factors affecting capital structure decision are related to
leverage.
iii. To analyze whether each of the factors has significant impact on leverage (total debt
to total assets ratio).
5. HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
Taking into account the literature on capital structure debate, the null hypotheses we proposed
about the possible determinants of the capital structure decisions of listed firms are as follows:
HO1: There is no significant impact of profitability on leverage.
HO2: There is no significant impact of tangibility on leverage.
HO3: There is no significant impact of non-debt tax shield on leverage.
HO4: There is no significant impact of growth opportunity on leverage.
HO5: There is no significant impact of liquidity on leverage.
HO6: There is no significant impact of size on leverage.
HO7: There is no significant impact of earnings volatility on leverage.
HO8: There is no significant impact of dividend payment on leverage.
HO9: There is no significant impact of managerial ownership on leverage.
HO10: There is no significant impact of industry classification on leverage.
6. METHODS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
6.1 Sample Size
For the purpose of this study, population has been defined in term of the number of companies
listed in Dhaka Stock Exchange Ltd. (DSE). There are 502 firms listed on Dhaka Stock Exchange
including 137 non-financial firms in 2012. The banks and the other financial institutions were kept
out of this study because of their specific financial activities and their supervision under the
central bank. That is why initially this study started its journey taking into account 56 non-financial
firms that were listed in DSE during 2003-2007 to discover whether firm’s specific factors have
significant impact on leverage. 12 firms out of 56 were excluded due to their inexistence in DSE in
year 2012 for their continual poor performance that might cause an outlier’s effects in that study,
and in addition to, 5 firms were omitted because their financial period didn’t satisfy the study
periods ranging 2003-2007. Finally, our sample size stands at 39 non financial firms. Table 1
shows frequency distribution of industry classification.
Industry Frequency
Ceramic 3
Cosmetic 3
Pharmaceuticals 10
Jute 3
Fuel &Power 7
Food 10
Information Technology 3
Total 39
TABLE 1: Frequency Distribution of Industry Classification.

6.2 Data Collection Procedures
This study is based on secondary data. The data used in this analysis can be divided into two
groups: the firm specific factors influencing capital structure decision (independent variables) and
the capital structure’s variable (dependent variables). It takes ten potential firm specific factors
that may have significant impact on capital structure decision namely profitability, size, tangibility,
growth opportunity, earnings volatility, non-debt tax shield, dividend, managerial ownership,
liquidity, and industry classification. In this analysis, the capital structure is the dependant variable
and it is measured by the leverage. These data have been collected from the book value based
yearly financial data given in the financial statements (Balance Sheet & Profit and Loss A/C) of
selected companies over 2003 to 2007 which has been gathered from Dhaka Stock Exchange
Library.
6.3 Data Analysis Procedures
This study combines cross-sectional with time series to make it a panel data. As noted by
Schulman et al (1996), panel data allow economists and other social scientists to analyze, in
depth, complex economic and related issues which could not be treated with equal rigidity using
time-series or cross-sectional data alone. Like cross-sectional data, panel data describes each of
a number of individuals. Like time-series data, it describes changes through time. According to
Baltagi (1995), by combining time series of cross-section observations, panel data give “more
informative data, more variability, less collinearity among variables, and more efficiency.”
Descriptive and quantitative analysis is used for this research. Descriptive analysis presents
mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum value for each variable used in the study. In
quantitative analysis, Pearson’s correlation and pooled regression analysis is used. In regression
analysis fixed effects model is used to investigate the relationship and also to prove the
hypotheses. The cross section company data and time series data are pooled together in a single
column letting the intercept may differ across each cross-sectional unit (here the eight industries)
and each industry’s intercept does not vary over time. In addition to, it is assumed that the slope
coefficients of the regressors do not vary across industry or over time. Analyses are computed
using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 for windows.
Therefore the equation for our regression model is:
Υit = α + βΧit + εit
Where i =1.....N is denoting the cross-sectional dimension and t =1...T is representing the time
series dimension. The left-hand variable, Yit represents the dependent variable in the model,
which is the firm’s debt ratio. Xit contains the set of explanatory variables in the estimation model,
α is the constant, β represents the slope coefficients, and ε is the random errors. In this context,
the study includes 195 (=5×39) observations in total as 39 sections and 5 time periods.
The functional form of econometric model is as follows;
Levit=α+β1Profit+β2Tangit+β3Ndtsit+β4Groit+β5Liqit+β6Sizeit+β7Eavoit+β8+Divdumit+
β9Mangit+β10Indum1it+β11Indum2it+β12Indum3it+β13Indum4it+β14Indum5it+
β15Indum6it+β16Indum7it+ β17Indum8it+ εit

Where:
Variables Measures (proxy)
Lev = Leverage Total Debt/Total Assets
Prof = Profitability EBIT / Total Assets
Tang = Tangibility Net Fixed Assets / Total Assets
Ndts = Non-debt Tax Shield Depreciation / Total Assets
Gro = Growth Opportunity % Change in Total Assets
Liq = Liquidity Current Assets / Current Liabilities
Size = Size Natural Logarithm of Sales
Eavo = Earnings Volatility Standard Deviation of EBIT/ Total Assets
Divdum = Dividend Paying
Dummy
“1” if a firm pays more than or equal to 10% dividend
and “0” otherwise.
Mang = Managerial Ownership The part of the capital held by the manager, directors
and supervisors.
Indum1 = Industry Dummy “1” if the observation belongs to Food, “0” otherwise.
Indum2= Industry Dummy “1” if the observation belongs to Fuel & Power, “0”
otherwise.
Indum3= Industry Dummy “1” if the observation belongs to Jute, “0” otherwise.
Indum4= Industry Dummy “1” if the observation belongs to Cosmetic, “0”
otherwise.
Indum5= Industry Dummy “1” if the observation belongs to Pharmaceuticals, “0”
otherwise.
Indum6= Industry Dummy “1” if the observation belongs to Information
Technology (IT), “0” otherwise.
7: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section contains the descriptive statistics, correlation coefficient and the results of regression
analysis of 39 sample firms in seven types of industries listed on DSE during the five year period
from 2003 to 2007. The interpretation of the empirical findings is also presented in this section.
Finally, important conclusions about the results of the study have been drawn.
7.1 Descriptive Statistics
The analysis of this study starts with a descriptive statistics of dependent and independent
variables revealing mean, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation presented in table 2.
From the table 2, the results of dependant variables, which is the ratio of total debt to total assets,
shows that on average selected Bangladeshi companies are financing 60% of total assets with
total debts. The maximum debt financing used by any one company in any year is 360.41% which
seems to be unusual but it may happen when the equity of one company is negative. The
minimum level of debt ratio is 15%.

Mean Maximum Minimum Std. Deviation
Lev 59.9638 360.41 .15 46.61529
Prof 5.4416 35.87 -16.25 7.87189
Tang 47.0537 97.97 .02 25.35355
Ndts 3.3367 18.10 .00 3.09299
Gro 10.2551 153.41 -33.81 22.67409
Liq 2.5541 253.00 .02 15.11372
Size 18.9223 23.12 .00 2.79308
Eavo 3.6978 75.00 .11 5.40012
Divdum .6591 1.00 .00 .47510
Mang 44.9589 92.72 .01 17.91285
Table 2: Summary of Descriptive Statistics.
Source: Calculations based on annual financial reports of 39 listed firms during 2003-2007
The average value of profitability is 5.4416% with the variation of individual data set from the
mean value by 7.87189%. The maximum profitability for a firm in any year is 35.87% while the
minimum value is -16.25%. The mean value of tangibility shows that, on average, firms use
47.0537% of net fixed assets in their assets structure. The maximum tangibility for a firm in any
year is 97.97% and minimum value of tangibility is .02%. The mean value of non-debt tax shield
is 3.3367% with a standard deviation of 3.09299 %. The minimum value of no-debt tax shield for
a firm in any year is 0.00 which means that no depreciation has been computed and it may
possible if firms do not go to production and trading. The average growth rate of selected firms is
10.2551% with a standard deviation of 22.67409%. The liquidity ratios indicate that on average
firms use current assets by 2.5541 times of current liabilities. The mean value of size measured in
log of sales is 18.9223% while the standard deviation is 2.79308. The maximum and minimum
value of size is 23.12 and 0.00 respectively. The mean value of earnings volatility measured in
the ratio of standard deviation of EBIT over total asset is 3.6978-time with a standard deviation of
5.40012. On average, 44.958% of firm’s ownership is held by the directors, sponsors, and
managers, which are the measure of managerial ownership, while the standard deviation is
17.91285%. The maximum value of managerial ownership is 92.72% and minimum value is
0.01%.
7.2 Collinearity
To examine the existence of multicolinearity among regressors pearson correlation coefficients is
used. In general, independent variables having collinearity at 0.7 or greater would not include in
regression analysis due to multicollinearity. As shown in table 3 the highest correlation coefficient
is 0.4275 between profitability and dividend payment. Thus all of the independent variables are
free from serious problems of multicollinearity and more competent for regression analysis.

Lev Prof Tang Ndts Gro Liq Size Eavo Divd
um
Man
g
Lev 1.0000
Prof
-0.4205
1.000
0
Tang
0.0609
0.137
8
1.0000
Ndts
0.1666
0.189
5
0.2966
1.000
0
Gro
-0.1411
0.192
4
0.0648
0.033
7
1.0000
Liq
-0.3271
0.101
2
-0.2585
0.280
4
0.1627 1.0000
Size
-0.0877
0.414
6
-0.2011
0.017
4
0.0616 0.0321
1.000
0
Eavo
0.0604
0.118
7
0.1455
0.081
4
0.0247 -0.0586
-
0.031
5
1.000
0
Divd
um
-0.2017
0.427
5
-0.2203
0.124
1
-0.0344 0.0963
0.272
9
-
0.136
5
1.000
0
Man
g
-0.1519
0.031
5
-0.2966
-
0.125
6
0.0380 0.0408
0.116
2
0.073
8
-
0.097
9
1.00
00
Table 3: Summary of Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Variables.
7.3 Regression Model
7.3.1 Results of Regression Analysis
Table 4 shows the results of pooled regression analysis, in which fixed effect model is applied. In
our regression model for leverage has an R-squared (coefficient of determination) of 0.501.It tells
us that the fraction of variation in the dependent variable that is explained by variation in the
independent variables more precisely it shows how well the sample regression line fits the data
(goodness of fit). Thus, 50.1% of the variation in leverage (Total Debt/Total Assets) is accounted
for by variation in the independent variables. The value of adjusted R-squared is 0.459. F-
statistic, 11.982, shows that overall model is satisfied at the 1% level. But the low value of Durbin-
Watson, 0.770, signals that perhaps the model is affected by positive autocorrelation. The
existence of autocorrelation does not bias the estimated coefficient, but it makes the estimates of
the standard errors smaller than the true standard errors. This means that the t-ratios calculated
for each coefficient will be overstated, which in turn may lead to the rejection of null hypothesis
that should not have been rejected. So it is no longer successful to interpret the estimated
regression coefficient presented in table 4.

Coefficients a
Beta
Coefficients
Standard Error t-value Sig.
(Constant) 89.123 31.653 2.816 .005
Prof -3.030 .532 -5.695 .000
Tang -.388 .155 -2.508 .013
Ndts 10.471 1.385 7.561 .000
Gro .168 .138 1.214 .226
Liq -9.866 2.043 -4.830 .000
Size .632 1.312 .482 .630
Eavo .791 .471 1.679 .095
Divdum -12.163 7.164 -1.698 .091
Mang -.704 .187 -3.767 .000
Indum1 19.572 11.447 1.710 .089
Indum2 36.915 12.054 3.063 .003
Indum3 13.699 14.136 .969 .334
Indum4 43.592 14.047 3.103 .002
Indum5 23.016 11.464 2.008 .046
Indum6 -52.718 21.757 -2.423 .016
Table 4: Regression Model results
Model Summary
b
R- Squared .501
Adjusted R -Squared .459
Durbin-Watson .770
F-statistic 11.982
Sig. ( F-statistic) .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Prof, Tang, Ndts, Gro, Liq, Size, Eavo, Divdum, Mang, Indum1,
Indum2, Indum3, Indum4, Indum5, Indum6
b. Dependent Variable: Lev
R-squared and Adjusted R-Squared measure “Goodness of Fit”.
Since this study has an attempt to investigate the impact of firm specific factors on capital
structure decision, it ran an autoregressive model, among the several suggested models, for
estimating factual regression coefficient through eliminating the possible effects of
autocorrelation. In autoregressive model one lagged value of dependent variable is employed as
an independent variable. Table 5 shows the results of autoregressive model.

Coefficients a
Beta
Coefficients
Standard Error t-value Sig.
(Constant) 51.657 21.815 2.368
**
.019
Prof -1.796 .374 -4.800*
.000
Tang -.284 .106 -2.674*
.008
Ndts 7.799 .966 8.075
*
.000
Gro .161 .095 1.704***
.090
Liq -5.918 1.425 -4.154*
.000
Size -.318 .900 -.353 .724
Eavo .348 .324 1.076 .283
Divdum -7.848 4.911 -1.598 .112
Mang -.269 .131 -2.042**
.043
Indum1 .715 7.942 .090 .928
Indum2 15.412 8.383 1.838***
.068
Indum3 2.846 9.702 .293 .770
Indum4 19.375 9.759 1.985**
.049
Indum5 10.004 7.896 1.267 .207
Indum6 -41.331 14.907 -2.773
*
.006
TD/TA(1-lagged) .598 .042 14.296*
.000
Table 5: Results of Autoregressive Model
TD/TA= Total Debt/ Total Assets
*significant at 1% level
** significant at 5% level
*** significant at 10% level
Model Summary
b
R- Squared .768
Adjusted R -Squared .747
Durbin-Watson 1.837
F-statistic 36.769
Sig. ( F-statistic) .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Prof, Tang, Ndts, Gro, Liq, Size, Eavo, Divdum, Mang, Indum1,
Indum2, Indum3, Indum4, Indum5, Indum6, TD/TA(1-lagged)
b. Dependent Variable: Lev
R-squared and Adjusted R-Squared measure “Goodness of Fit”.
The results of this regression reveal the Durbin-Watson of 1.837 which is almost close to 2, but it
is not appropriate to find out if there is any autocorrelation in the data because the model contains
lagged regressand as a regressor. For this type of model Durbin has developed the so-called h-
statistic to test for serial correlation. According to Durbin, h-statistic follows the standard normal
distribution where the null hypothesis is ρ (rho) =0, that is, there is no first order autocorrelation.
From the properties of normal distribution it is given that the probability of ƠhƠ>1.96 is about 5
percent. Therefore, we can reject the null hypothesis that ρ (rho) =0, that is, there is evidence of
first order autocorrelation in the autoregressive model, if a calculated ƠhƠ is greater than 1.96.
Since the sample used in this study is reasonable large and the computed h, (1.4051), is less
than 1.96, null hypothesis can’t be rejected at 5% significance level. So our results confirm that
there is no strong evidence of serial correlation in this model. According to autoregressive model,

the value of R-squared (0.768) suggests that 76.8% of the variation in leverage is captured by the
variation in the regressors. The result of F-statistic is 36.769 which shows that the model is
statistically significant at 1 % level and hence prove the validity of estimated model.
7.4 Discussion of Results
7.4.1 Profitability
As it is observed from the table 4, the coefficient value of profitability is -1.796 which is significant
at 1% level. Thus, first null hypothesis, profitability has no significant impact on leverage, is
rejected. Negative coefficient of profitability implies that 1% increase in the ratio of EBIT/Total
Assets causes the ratio of TD/TA to decrease by 1.796%. The negative relation between
profitability and leverage is consistent with pecking order theory, whereas trade off theory is not
substantiated. That means that profitable firms listed in DSE use internal funds at first to finance
its assets before seeking debts. Thus the more profitable firms would tend to use lower debts in
their capital structure. This result is also in line with other studies as Rajan & Zingales (1995),
Sayilgan et al. (2006) and Sheikh & Wang (2010). This finding is contrast to the previous findings
by Sayeed M.A. (2011) in Bangladesh. He found that profitability has insignificant and positive
association with leverage. However the reason may be that he used the ratio of net income to
total assets as a proxy of profitability and this study used the ratio of EBIT to total assets.
7.4.2 Tangibility
The negative coefficient value of tangibility rejects the second hypothesis, tangibility is not
impacting leverage ratio significantly, at 1% significance level. The coefficient value of tangibility
is -0.284 which reveals that 1% increase in the ratio of net fixed assets to total assets of listed
firms in DSE leads to 0.284% decrease in the ratio of total debt to total assets. This negative
association between tangibility and leverage is consistent with implication of pecking order theory
and contradict with trade off theory. According to Gaud et al. (2005), in favoring of this
association, the companies with lower level of tangible assets are more subject to information
asymmetry problems that lowers price of equity, and consequently, more willing to use debt to
finance their assets. The results also support the findings of Sheikh & Wang (2010), Sayilgan et
al. (2006), and Abdullah (2005). Sayeed M.A.(2011) and Lima (2009) found a positive coefficient
of this control variable in Bangladesh using total fixed assets to total assets as a proxy of
tangibility, but this study used net fixed assets to total assets as a measure of this control
variable, where net fixed assets are gross fixed assets less accumulated depreciation and found
negative coefficient value that may be the reason of inconsistent results with those of previous
studies.
7.4.3 Non-debt Tax Shield
Results of regression model show that exogenous non-debt tax shield has significant positive
association with leverage and third hypothesis is rejected at1% level. A positive coefficient value
of non-debt tax shield, (7.799), explains 1% increase in the ratio of depreciation to total assets
results in 7.799% increase in the leverage ratio. Bangladeshi firms heavily depend on
depreciation as well as debt to enjoy a big advantage of tax shield. This result is in line with AL-
Shubiri (2010) who also found a significant positive relation between leverage and non-debt tax
shield but it contrasts with the findings of Sayeed M.A (2011) most probably due to different
cross-sectional and time series observations.
7.4.4 Growth Opportunity
Beta coefficient value of control variable growth is 0.161 and rejects the fourth hypothesis at 10%
significance level. This positive coefficient implies that 1% change in growth rate which is
measured by the percentage change in total assets leads to 0.161% change in leverage ratio.
Although this relationship is in contradiction with what the trade-off theory predicts. However, it
supports pecking order theory and signaling theory with an explanation that growing firm require
more financing but may not have sufficient retained earnings and then firms go to finance their
new projects with debt financing before equity financing. The results of this study are in
compliance with the results of Titman & Wessels (1988), Chen (2003), Abdullah (2005), Sheikh &
Wang (2010), Lima (2009), and AL-Shubiri (2010).

7.4.5 Liquidity
One of the most important explanatory variables in this study is liquidity that has not been used
as control variable in Bangladesh yet and it is significant at 1% level in this study. Beta coefficient
associated with liquidity rejected the fifth null hypothesis. The coefficient of liquidity is -5.918. It
suggests that liquidity has strong negative impact on leverage for listed firms in DSE. This
association of liquidity with leverage confirms to the prediction of pecking order theory. Firms that
maintain high liquidity ratio tend to employ less debt in their capital structure because it is
expected that they are able to generate high cash inflows and resultant the excess cash flows
can be used to finance the operations and investment activities. The findings also confirm some
earlier studies such as Friend and Lang (1988), Sheikh and Wang (2010), Icke & Ivgan (2011),
and Abdullah (2005).
7.4.6 Size
The regression model finds insignificant negative relation between size measured in log of sales
and leverage and thus sixth null hypothesis is accepted. One possible explanation regarding the
negative sign of size may be that bigger size firms have more easy access in equity market form
where they can raise substantial long term funds at true price due to less asymmetric information
compared to firms of smaller size that confirms the view of Fama and Jenson (1983). The
negative association between size and leverage is also in the line with Icke and Ivgan (2011), Elli
and Farouk (2011), and Kila and Mahmood (2008). This result does not parallel the findings of
previous study done by Sayeed M.A. (2011) for selected Bangladeshi listed companies as likely
as not due to use of ln(total assets) in his study as a proxy of size of firm instead of ln(net sales).
7.4.7 Dividend Payment
Dividend, Control variable, has not been used yet in Bangladesh in measuring its effects on
leverage that is why it gives us new insights into this field. The negative relationship between
dividend payment and leverage is observed in this study but the eighth hypothesis has not been
rejected at 10% level. The beta coefficient of dividend payment is -7.848. It implies that dividend
payment has negative impacts on leverage. Though negative sign is consistence with signaling
theory sustaining one possible explanation that a firm with a dividend payment above 10% can
send a message to public about favorable future earnings capacity, causing investors to discount
the firm’s earnings at a lower rate and, all else being equal, to place higher value on the firm’s
stock. Therefore, high payout firms can enter equity market with low costs that lowers the firm’s
necessity to seek more debt. This result also indicates that investors of DSE prefer high payout
ratio to low payout ratio and this investors’ behavior may impede the growth of firm as it makes
firms reluctant to create retained earnings. This result is compliance with the findings of Chen &
Chen (2011).
7.4.8 Earnings Volatility
The insignificant positive relationship between earnings volatility and leverage is found in this
study with a coefficient value of 0.348. Thus results of regression do not reject the seventh null
hypothesis. One possible explanation is that the higher the earnings volatility the higher the risk of
firms, resulting in firms are no longer beneficiary to issue equity due to high cost of equity and
intend to use debt in their capital structure. This result is in line with Booth et al. (2001),
Deesomsak et al. (2004), Ellili and Farouk (2011) and Sayeed M.A. (2011).
7.4.9 Managerial Ownership
There are very few empirical evidence in examining the impact of managerial ownership on
capital structure decision especially in Bangladesh. In this study it is found that managerial
ownership is negatively related to leverage at 5% significance level. The coefficient of this control
variable is -.269 that rejects the ninth hypothesis. This sign implies that any increase in
managerial ownership results in a decrease in leverage ratio. One possible explanation
regarding this result is that when managers are given more shares of the company they become
high risk averse and more reluctant to invest in risky project thus firm’s profit may be more stable
. According to Smith (1990), there exists a positive relationship between management ownership
and the performance of the firm. In addition to, an increase in managerial ownership significant

portion of agency costs can be eliminated because they work in the interest of the share holders
and finally it leads to increase profit, retained earnings and firm performance. For high profit the
availability of retained earnings of a firm lowers the use of debt in capital structure. These findings
are partly in compliance with Ellili and Farouk (2011).
7.4.10 Industry Classification
To identify the impact of industry classification on firm’s leverage, total numbers of firms used in
this study were categorized into seven industries namely Food, Fuel and Power, Jute, Cosmetic,
Pharmaceuticals, Information Technology (IT), and Ceramic in accordance with the category read
by DSE. In our study it is revealed that Fuel & Power, Cosmetic, and IT industry are statistically
significantly different from Ceramic industry at least at 10% significance level and thus tenth
hypothesis is rejected. On the other hand Pharmaceuticals, Jute, and Food are not significantly
different from Ceramic industry.
Lagged dependant variable Total Debt/Total Assets (one lagged) has significant positive impact
on leverage.
8. CONCLUSION
This study attempted to investigate how firm specific factors are impacting the capital structure
decision of a sample of 39 Bangladeshi firms listed in DSE utilizing OLS regression method. Data
were collected from the financial statements of each firm during the five-year period from 2003 to
2007. Under OLS regression, fixed effect model was run but the results were affected by
autocorrelation. As a remedial measure of autocorrelation, autoregressive model was used to
examine the impact of ten explanatory variables such as profitability, tangibility, non-debt tax
shield, size, earnings volatility, liquidity, managerial ownership, dividend payment, growth, and
industry classification on total debt to total assets ratio. The findings of the study show that
profitability, tangibility, liquidity, and managerial ownership have significant negative relations with
leverage. This study also found that growth and non-debt tax shield are positively and
significantly related with leverage. Where as size, earnings volatility, and dividend payment were
not found to be significant explanatory variables of leverage. Results also reveal that leverage
ratios are significantly different across Bangladeshi industries. Overall all the results are almost
consistent with previous study and capital structure.
Nonetheless, the limitations of this study can open the door of opportunity for further research
work in this area. This study only uses total debt to total assets as a dependent variable, the other
definition of leverage can be used in future study to identify which definition of leverage is
powerfully explained by given control variables. In conclusion, overall results can be improved by
including new explanatory variables and observations.
9. REFERENCES
[1] A. M. Abdullah, “Capital Structure and Debt Maturity: Evidence from Listed Companies in
Saudi Arabia.”, Journal of Business & Economics, Vol.11 May, pp.15-33, 2005.
[2] A. Ozkan, “Determinants of Capital Structure and Adjustment to Long Run Target: Evidence
from UK Company Panel Data”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 28, No.
1, pp.175-198, 2001.
[3] A. Shah and S. Khan, “Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from Pakistani Panel
Data”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 265-282, 2007.
[4] A. Smith, “Corporate ownership structure and performance: The case of Management
Buyouts”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 27, pp.143-164, 1990.
[5] B. H. Baltagi, “Econometric Analysis of Panel Data”, Third Edition, New York, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., 2005.

[6] B.T. Icke and H. Ivgen, “How Firm Specific Factors Affect Capital Structure: An Emerging
Market Practice – Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE)”, Middle Eastern Finance and Economics,
Vol. 13, pp. 90-102, 2011.
[7] C.B. Cloyd, S.T. Limberg and J.R. Robinson, “The impact of federal taxes on the use of
debt by closely held corporations”, National Tax Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 261-277, 1997.
[8] C. Ghosh, R. Nag and C. Sirmans, “The pricing of seasoned equity offerings: evidence from
REITs”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 28, pp. 363-84, 2000.
[9] C.T. Schulman, W.T. Deborah, K.F. Sellers and D.B. Kennedy, “Effects of tax integration
and capital gains tax on corporate leverage”, National Tax Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 31-
54, 1996.
[10] Deesomsak, R. Paudyal and G. Pescetto, “The determinants of capital structure: evidence
from the Asia Pacific region”, Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 14, 387-405,
2004.
[11] D. Champion, “Finance: the joy of leverage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, pp. 19-22,
1999.
[12] D. Gujarati, Basic econometrics, 4th ed., New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill, 2003, pp. 503-504.
[13] E.F. Fama and M. Jensen, “Agency problem and residual claims”, Journal of Law and
Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 327-349, 1983.
[14] F. AL-Shibiri, “Determinants of Capital Structure Choice: A Case Study of Jordanian
Industrial Companies”, An-Najah Univ. J. of Res. (Humanities), Vol. 24, No.8, pp. 2457-
2494, 2010.
[15] F. Buferna, K. Bangassa and L. Hodgkinson, (2005), “Determinants of capital structure:
evidence from Libya”, Research Paper Series, 8, University of Liverpool. [Online] Available
at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/managementschool/research/working%20papers/wp200508.pdf.
[Aug. 10, 2011].
[16] F. Modigliani and M. H. Miller, (1958), “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and Theory
of Investment”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 261-297,
[Online]Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1809766 [Oct. 24, 2011].
[17] F. Modigliani and M. H. Miller, “Corporate Income Taxes and the Cost of Capital: A
Correction”, American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 433-443, 1963.
[18] G. Donaldson, “Corporate Debt Capacity: A Study of Corporate Debt Policy and the
Determination of Corporate Debt Capacity”, Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School
of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1961.
[19] G. Sayilgan, H. Karabacak and G. Küçükkocalıoglu, (2006), “The Firm-Specific
Determinants of Corporate Capital Structure: Evidence from Turkish Panel Data”,
International Journal of Investment Management and Financial Innovations, Vol. 3. pp. 125-
139, [Online] Available at: http://www.baskent.edu.tr/~gurayk/kisiselcapstrpaper.pdf [Aug.
10, 2011].
[20] I. Friend and J. Hasbrouck, “Determinants of Capital Structure”, In: Chen, A., ed., Research
in Finance, New York , JAI Press Inc., Vol. 7, pp. 1-19, 1988.

[21] I. Friend and L. H. Lang, “An empirical test of the impact of managerial self-interest on
corporate capital structure”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 271-281, 1988.
[22] J. Abor, “Corporate governance and financing decisions of Ghanaian listed firms”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 7, No.1, pp. 83-92, 2007.
[23] J.J. Chen, “Determinants of capital structure of Chinese-listed companies”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 1341-1351, 2003.
[24] J. R. Graham, “A review of taxes and corporate finance”, Foundations and Trends in
Finance, Vol. 1, pp. 573-691, 2006.
[25] J. Scott, “Bankruptcy, secured debt, and optimal capital structure”, Journal of Finance, Vol.
32, pp. 1–19, 1977.
[26] J. Supanvanij, “Capital structure: Asian firms vs. multinational firms in Asia”, The Journal of
American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 10, pp. 324-330, 2006.
[27] K.H. Chung, “Asset characteristics and corporate debt policy: an empirical test”, Journal of
Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.83-98, 1993.
[28] L. Booth, V. Aivazian, A. Demirguc-Kunt, and V. Maksimovic, “Capital structures in
developing Countries”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 56, pp. 87-130, 2001.
[29] L.J. Chen and S.Y. Chen, “How the Pecking Order Theory Explain the Capital Structure”,
Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 92-100, 2011.
[30] M. A. Mohammed, L. G. Perry and J. N. Rimbey, “The Impact of Ownership Structure on
Corporate Debt Policy: A Time-Series Cross-Sectional Analysis,” Financial Review, Vol. 33,
No. 3, pp. 85-98, 1998.
[31] M. A. Sayeed, “The Determinants of Capital Structure for Selected Bangladeshi Listed
Companies”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 21-36,
2011.
[32] M. C. Jensen, (1986), “Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance and
Takeovers”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 323-329, [Online]
Available
at:http://www.ecsocman.edu.ru/images/pubs/2007/10/25/0000314524/jensen_agency_cost
s_1986.pdf [Oct. 27, 2011].
[33] M. C. Jensen and W. Meckling, (1976), “Theory of The Firm: Managerial Behaviour,
Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.
305-360, [Online] Available at: ies.fsv.cuni.cz/default/file/download/id/7770 [Feb. 20, 2012].
[34] M. Frank and V. Goyal, “Testing the pecking order theory of capital structure”, Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 67, pp. 217-48, 2003.
[35] M. Harris and A. Raviv, “The theory of capital structure”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 46, pp.
297-355, 1991.
[36] MU.Chowdhury, “Capital Structure Determinants: Evidence from Japan &
Bangladesh”, Journal of Business Studies, vol.xxv, no.1, pp. 23-45, 2004.

[37] M. Lima, (2009), “An Insight into the Capital Structure Determinants of the Pharmaceutical
Companies in Bangladesh” [Online] Available at:
http://www.gbmf.info/2009/An_insight_into_the_Capital_Structure_Determinants_ Lima.pdf
[Aug. 10, 2011].
[38] M. Miller, (1977), “Debt or Taxes”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 261-275
[Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2326758.pdf [Aug 15, 2011].
[39] M.S. Rozeff, "Growth, Beta and Agency Costs as Determinants of Dividend Payout Ratios,"
Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 249-259, 1982.
[40] N.D Ellili, and S. Farouk, (2011), “Examining The Capital Structure Determinants: Empirical
Analysis of Companies Traded on Abu Dhabi Stock Exchange”, International Research
Journal of Finance and Economics, [Online] Available at:
http://www.eurojournals.com/IRJFE_67_08.pdf [Aug. 24, 2011].
[41] N. Sheikh and Z. Wang, “Financing Behavior of Textile Firms in Pakistan”, International
Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 130-135, 2010.
[42] P. Gaud, E. Jani, M. Hoesli and A. Bender, (2003), “The Capital Structure of Swiss
Companies: An Empirical Analysis using Dynamic Panel Data”, [Online] Available at:
http://andrebender.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/the-capital-structure-of-swiss-
companies.pdf [Feb. 27, 2012]
[43] R. G. Rajan, and L. Zingales, “What do I know about capital structure? Some evidence from
international data”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 50, pp. 1421-1460, 1995.
[44] R. P. Chang and S. G. Rhee, “The Impact of Personal Taxes on Corporate Dividend Policy
and Capital Structure Decisions”, Financial Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 21-31, 1990.
[45] S. Akhtar, “The determinants of capital structure for Australian multinational and domestic
corporations”, The Australian Graduate School of Management, Vol. 30, pp. 321-341, 2005.
[46] S. Akhtar and B. Oliver, “Determinants of capital structure for Japanese multinational and
domestic corporations”, International Review of Finance, Vol. 9, pp. 1-26, 2009.
[47] S. A. Ross, “The Determination of Financial Structure: the Incentive Signaling Approach”,
Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 23-40, 1977.
[48] S. Huang and F. Song, “The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from China”,
China Economic Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 14-36, 2006.
[49] S. J. Grossman and O. Hart (1982), “Corporate financial structure and managerial
incentives”, In J. McCall (ed.), The Economics of Information and Uncertainty, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
[50] S. Myers, “Determinants of corporate borrowings”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 5,
pp. 147-75, 1977.
[51] S. Myers and N. Majluf, “Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have
information that investors do not have”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 187-
221, 1984.

[52] S.M. Kila and W.M.W. Mahmood, “Capital Structure and Firm Characteristics: Some
Evidence from Malaysian Companies”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, [Online] Available
at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14616/1/MPRA_paper_14616.pdf [Aug. 22, 2011].
[53] S. N. Bhaduri, “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing: Some Evidence from the Indian
Corporate Structure”, Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 200-215,
2002.
[54] S.P. Chowdhury and A. Chowdhury, “Impact of Capital Structure on Firm’s Value: Evidence
from Bangladesh”, Business and Economic Horizons, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 111-122, 2010.
[55] S. Titman and R. Wessels, “The determinants of capital structure choice”, Journal of
Finance, Vol. 43, pp. 1-9, 1988.
[56] T. Kuczynski, (2005), “The Determinants of Capital Structure, an Empirical Study of
Japanese Companies”, [Online] Available at: http://www.ob.shudo-
u.ac.jp/jimuhp/souken/web/magazine/pdf/ec/p9-2-10.pdf [Aug. 24, 2011].
[57] W. Novaes and L. Zingales, “Capital Structure Choice When Managers Are in Control:
Entrenchment versus Efficiency”, The Journal of Business, Vol. 76, pp. 49-81, 1995.
[58] W. Sbeiti, “The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from the GCC Countries”,
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Vol. 47, pp. 55-81, 2010.
[59] Y. Wiwattanakantang, “An empirical study on the determinants of the capital structure of
Thai firms”, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 371-403, 1999.

Impact of Firm Specific Factors on Capital Structure Decision: An Empirical Study of Bangladeshi Companies

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Impact of Firm Specific Factors on Capital Structure Decision: An Empirical Study of Bangladeshi Companies (20)

More from Waqas Tariq (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Impact of Firm Specific Factors on Capital Structure Decision: An Empirical Study of Bangladeshi Companies