Defectos comunes durante la impresión 93

This section shows the last robustness test of this research. This robustness test is applied in order to check whether the main results could be generalized to several industry groupings. There are namely empirical evidences found by prior studies that support the hypothesis that industry has an effect on

83

the capital structure of the companies. La Rocca et al. (2011) have, for example, found that the financial preferences of the companies are not homogeneous across industries.

Regarding the OLS regression results for the sample companies in the Manufacturing industry, table 16 in appendix H shows that the impact of the Growth life cycle stage on the leverage ratios is, in contrast to the main results in table 8, not significant (except model 5). Furthermore, the (incremental) impact of the Maturity life cycle stage on the long-term debt ratio, relative to the Growth and Decline life cycle stages, is not significant. While, this impact is negative and significant at the level of 0.1 for the full sample. Moreover, in contrast to the main results in table 8, the impact of the Decline life cycle stage on the long-term debt ratio is positive and significant at the level of 0.5. While, this impact is not significant for the full sample. Overall, concerning the OLS regression results for the sample companies in the Manufacturing industry, the impacts of the life cycle dummies only differ in terms of significance level compared to the main results in table 8, while the sign of the impacts are similar.

Looking at the impact of the life cycle dummies on the leverage ratios for the companies in the Information and Communication industry, table 17 in appendix H shows that these results are consistent with the main results in table 8. The only difference is that the positive (incremental) impact of the Decline life cycle stage on the measures of the capital structure, relative to the Maturity life cycle stage, is not significant for the sample companies in the Information and Communication industry. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the magnitude of the life cycle effects (Growth and Maturity life cycle stages) on the leverage ratios is clearly higher for the sample companies in the Information and Communication industry compared to the OLS regression results for full sample. Lastly, it is noticeable that the adjusted R square of the OLS regression models for the companies in the Information and Communication industry is clearly lower compared to the OLS regression models for the full sample. More specifically, total debt ratio models with adjusted R square values between 1.0% and 6.0%, long-term debt ratio models with values between 9.3% and 11.1% and shot-term debt ratio models with values between 2.7% and 7.8%.

The OLS regression results for the subsample “Mining, Construction, Retail and Transport” shows contradictory results. These results show namely contradictory signs for the impact of the life cycle stages on the leverage ratios. More specifically, in contrast to the expected positive impact, table 18 in appendix H shows that the Growth life cycle stage has a negative and significant effect on the total debt ratio (b=-0.126**, t=-2.150) and the short-term debt ratio (b=-0.093**, t=2.005), relative to the Maturity life cycle stage. Further, in contrast to the expected negative impact, the Maturity life cycle stage has a positive and significant impact on the short-term debt ratio (b=0.054***, t=2.649). These results support partially that the total debt ratio and the short-term debt ratio of the companies in the subsample “Mining, Construction, Retail and Transport” follow an inverted U-shaped pattern

84

(low-high-low pattern) in contrast to the expected the U-shaped pattern. Lastly, it is noticeable that the adjusted R square of the OLS regression models for the subsample “Mining, Construction, Retail and Transport” is clearly higher compared to the OLS regression models for the full sample. More specifically, total debt ratio models with adjusted R square values between 31.3% and 32.5%, long- term debt ratio models with values between 48.8% and 49.2% and short-term debt ratio models with values between 23.7% and 26.5%.

Regarding the OLS regression results for the subsample “Other service companies”, table 19 in appendix H shows that the impact of the Growth life cycle stage is, as predicted, positive and significant on the total debt ratio (b=0.102***, t=2.669) and long-term debt ratio (b=0.102***, t=3.238) at the 0.01 level or better. However, in contrast to the main results, there is no positive and significant impact found on the short-term debt ratio for the companies in the subsample “Other service companies”. Furthermore, in contrast to the main results in table 8, the (incremental) impact of the Decline life cycle stage, relative to the Maturity life cycle stage, is negative and significant on the short-term debt ratio (model 8). Besides that, the negative (incremental) impact of the Maturity life cycle stage, relative to the other life cycle stages, is only significant on the long-term debt ratio (model 6).

Overall, regarding the OLS regression results for the different subsamples (industry groupings), tables 16-19 in appendix H show that the OLS regression results for the different subsamples (industry groupings) are not always consistent with the main results in table 8. More specifically, the sign, magnitude and significance of the impacts of both independent variables (life cycle dummies) and the control variables on all the three measures of capital structure differ for some subsamples (industry groupings) compared to the main results in table 8. Furthermore, the explained variances in the dependent variables by the independent variables are also clearly higher or lower for some subsamples. Therefore, it can be assumed that the financial preferences and the leverage patterns along the life cycle of the sample companies vary across industries.

85