Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:48:46.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence on the Impact of the Agency Costs of Debt on Corporate Debt Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Wi Saeng Kim  and
Eric H. Sorensen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last several years, there has been increased theoretical emphasis on the agent-principal problem as it applies to corporate finance. This paper is an attempt to empirically test for the presence of the agency costs and their relation to the debt policy of corporations. We find that firms with higher insider ownership have greater debt ratios than firms with lower insider ownership, which may be explained by the agency costs of debt and/or the agency costs of equity. Other regression results tend to confirm the theoretically optimal relationships put forth by Myers. We find that high-growth firms use less debt rather than more debt, high-operating-risk firms use more debt rather than less debt, and firm size appears to be uncorrelated to the level of debt.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 131 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Aivazian, A. V., and Callen, J. L.. “Corporate Leverage and Growth: The Game-Theoretic Issues.” Journal of Financial Economics, 8 (12 1980), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Black, F., and Scholes, M.. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (05/06 1973), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Barnea, A.; Haugen, R. A.; and Senbet, L. W.. “An Equilibrium Analysis of Debt Financing under Costly Tax Arbitrage and Agency Problems.” Journal of Finance, 36 (06 1981), 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Boquist, J. A., and Moore, W. T.. “Inter-Industry Leverage Differences and the DeAngelo-Masulis Tax Shield Hypothesis.” Financial Management, 13 (Spring 1984), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Bowen, R. M.; Daley, L.; and Huber, C.. “Leverage Measures and Industrial Classification: Review and Additional Evidence.” Financial Management, 11 (Winter 1982), 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]DeAngelo, H., and Masulis, R. W.. “Optimal Capital Structure under Corporate and Personal Taxation.” Journal of Financial Economics, 8 (03 1980), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Downs, D. H., and Heinkel, R.. “Signalling and the Value of Unseasoned New Issues.” Journal of Finance, 37 (03 1982), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Eaton, J., and Rosen, H. S.. “Agency, Delayed Compensation, and the Structure of Executive Remuneration.” Journal of Finance, 38 (12 1983), 1489–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Fama, E. F. “Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm.” The Journal of Political Economy, 88 (04 1980), 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Fama, E. F., and Jensen, M.. “Separation of Ownership and Control.” Journal of Law and Economics, 26 (05 1983), 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Ferri, M. G., and Jones, W. H.. “Determinants of Financial Structure: A New Methodological Approach.” Journal of Finance, 34 (06 1979), 631–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Flath, D., and Knoeber, C. R.. “Taxes, Failure Costs, and Optical Industry Capital Structure: An Empirical Test.” Journal of Finance, 35 (03 1980), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Haugen, R. A., and Senbet, L. W.. “Resolving the Agency Problems of External Capital through Options.” Journal of Finance, 36 (06 1981), 629–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Heinkel, R. “A Theory of Capital Structure Relevance under Imperfect Information.” Journal of Finance, 37 (12 1982), 1141–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Jensen, M. “Organization Theory and Methodology.” The Accounting Review, 58 (04 1983), 319–339.Google Scholar
[16]Jensen, M. C., and Meckling, W. H.. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics, 4 (10 1976), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Leland, H. E., and Pyle, D. H.. “Informational Asymmetries, Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation.” Journal of Finance, 32 (05 1977), 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Miller, M. H. “Debt and Taxes.” Journal of Finance, 32 (05 1977), 261–275.Google Scholar
[19]Myers, S. “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing.” Journal of Financial Economics, 5 (11 1977), 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Rozeff, M. “Growth, Beta and Agency Costs as Determinants of Dividend Payout Ratios.” The Journal of Financial Research, 5 (Fall 1982), 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Schneller, M. I. “Taxes and Optimal Capital Structure of the Firm.” Journal of Finance, 35 (03 1980), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Scott, D. F. “Evidence on the Importance of Financial Structure.” Financial Management, 1 (Summer 1972), 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Scott, D. F., and Martin, J. D.. “Industry Influence on Financial Structure.” Financial Management, 4 (Spring 1975), 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Zimmerman, J. L. “Taxes and Firm Size.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5 (04 1983), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar