Capital Structure in the Chilean Corporate Sector: Revisiting the Stylized Facts Structured abstract:
Purpose: This paper analyzes the traditional drivers of the capital structure in addition to others particularities of the Chilean corporate sector.
Design/methodology/approach: Using panel data methodology, this study examines the potential drivers of the capital structure in a sample of 157 Chilean firms. To do that, this study also includes variables not commonly used in the literature (e.g. ownership concentration, business groups affiliation, and dividends), which represent distinctive elements of the Chilean corporate sector. Findings: The results show a positive effect of firm size and ownership concentration on the leverage of firms, as well as a negative effect from the pay-out policy, growth opportunities, non-debt tax shields, and profitability on the leverage. Some expected relationships from the Anglo-Saxon context are also curiously observed in Chile. Nevertheless, there are some relations that are not in line with the current literature such as the negative relationship between asset tangibility and leverage. Finally, a firm´s affiliation to certain economic groups allows it to take advantage of internal capital markets, thus increasing leverage. This suggests that some of the insights from the current theoretical frameworks are not portable across countries, and consequently, much remains to be done to understand the impact of different institutional features on capital structure choices. Originality/value: Emerging markets provide a challenge to existing models that need to be reformulated to accommodate their specific characteristics. This study contributes to this by taking into consideration the particularities of an emerging Latin American Economy.
Paper type: Research paper.
Key words: Capital structure, debt, panel data, Chilean firms, business groups.
JEL Classification: G32.
Capital structure choice has been a controversial and recurring issue in corporate finance. Myers
(1984) in his work “The capital structure puzzle” raises the question: “how do firms choose their
capital structures?” and answers succinctly: “we don’t know”. Therefore, the seminal findings of
Modigliani and Miller (1958), (1963) continue inspiring us to this day to research the determinants
of capital structure policy. Currently, there is still no consensus on the capital structure puzzle and
on its determinant factors from a scholar point of view (Myers, 1984, Myers and Majluf, 1984,
Al-Najjar and Hussainey, 2011).1
The most salient contributions on capital structure decisions are based on empirical analyses of
public firms traded in economies with developed financial systems and low levels of market
frictions (Titman and Wessels, 1988, Rajan and Zingales, 1995, Frank and Goyal, 2009). However,
only a few works have been developed with samples of firms from developed and developing
countries (Demirgüç-Kunt and Maksimovic, 1999, Fan et al., 2012, Öztekin, 2015), and fewer yet
on firms from developing regions only (Booth et al., 2001, Gómez et al., 2014). Emerging markets
provide a challenge to existing models and suggest the need for brand new approaches of analysis
(Bekaert and Harvey, 2002). These last works demonstrate that capital structure decisions made in
firms of developing countries are highly influenced by institutional structures which are radically
different from those of more advanced countries. This drives us to focus our analysis on the
different dynamics across countries which impact the way companies set their capital structure
The goal of this work is to study the capital structure decisions for an emerging economy, the
Chilean corporate sector, based on the most important theories –trade off, pecking order, market
timing, agency costs, and signaling theories– which at the same time are contextualized according
to the particular dynamics of the Chilean corporate sector.
The major contributions of the paper are, first, that we focus on a sample of firms from an emerging
market that so far have been overlooked in the empirical literature, thus expanding the determinants
usually treated in the literature to explain capital structure decisions. This allows us to compound a
more comprehensive approach than that usually applied in the empirical literature by considering
for instance, the characteristics of the corporate ownership structure in Chile (e.g. high
concentration of ownership and prevailing business groups). Second, we proceed by employing an
empirical technique that properly accounts for cross-sectional and time series variation, as well as
for endogeneity and the heterogeneity problems. Additionally, since growth opportunities are
always a controversial variable, we use two proxies to capture the intrinsic idea of Tobin’s Q. Third,
through our research we conclude that modern finance models are not necessary transferable from
developed to developing countries unless local corporate characteristics are considered. In fact,
certain particularities of developing countries might derive opposite relationships from those
suggested by current theoretical models.
Our results confirm a positive effect of firm size and ownership concentration on firms leverage, as
well as a negative effect of the pay-out policy, non-debt tax shields, growth opportunities, and
profitability on the leverage. Nevertheless, there are some relations that are not in line with the
current theories such as the negative relationship between asset tangibility and leverage. Finally, a
firm´s affiliation to certain business groups allows it to take advantage of the internal capital
markets and increase its use of leverage.
The paper continues in the second section with the literature review and the development of the
research hypotheses. The third section describes the data set, variables, and the methodology used
in the empirical analysis. Section 4 summarizes the main results with section 5 concluding.
2. Theoretical framework
Chile is an emerging Latin American economy, categorized as a French Civil-Law country (La
Porta et al., 2008), but its financial system is more representative of one oriented toward capital
markets rather than banking (Djankov et al., 2008). An example of this is the high market
capitalization which was about 125% of the GDP between 2009 and 2012. Its financial deepness
increased from 46% of GDP in 1981 to 276% in 2011, and it is financially the most sophisticated
country in South America (La Porta et al., 1998, Beck et al., 2008). The rapid growth of the capital
market in Chile is the result of a cumulus of capital market reforms that originated in the1980s and
consolidated along the 1990s, relaxing, for instance, a number of restrictions to the capital account
and easing the issuance of corporate bonds and stocks in foreign markets (Gallego and Loayza,
2000). The development of the capital market regulation has replicated to a large extent the models
followed in developed markets and particularly in the USA (Lefort, 2003).
As a consequence of the privatization process during the 1970s and 1980s and since only a few
private agents were allowed to take part in it, this led to the subsequent concentration of ownership
and the formation of specific business groups (Silva et al., 2006, Buchuk et al., 2014). This fact
encouraged the development of pyramidal ownership structures linked to well-diversified business
groups (Lefort and Walker, 2007, Majluf et al., 1998, Lefort, 2003, Khanna and Yafeh, 2007);2
which originated internal capital markets within the conglomerates (Buchuk et al., 2014). This fact
implies that the horizontal majority-minority shareholders agency problem is perhaps more serious
than the traditional principal-agent agency problem (Araya et al., 2015, Saona, 2014, Lefort and
Walker, 2007). The spirit of the regulation was to try to make more transparent the information
flows between minority and majority shareholders as well as to strengthen the rights of the former.
For instance, the legislation defines the relevance of independent directors and the payout of a
mandatory dividend of at least 30% of earnings (La Porta et al., 2000).
2.2. Literature review
2 Cross-holdings among firms are forbidden by law. This makes the pyramidal structures relatively simple and straightforward to understand.
Since Modigliani and Miller (1958) proposed that capital structure was irrelevant, several theories
have been developed in order to reconcile the capital structure puzzle. Trade-off and pecking order
theories are the two most prominent. The former holds that managers try to balance tax benefits
with bankruptcy costs of debt (Myers, 1984), whilst pecking order theory suggests that the
asymmetries of information between the firm and its creditors lead to an undervaluation of the
securities issued by firms. This increases the financing cost of external sources in comparison with
internally generated funds and leads firms to follow a funding hierarchy, with a preference for debt
over equity (Myers, 1984, Myers and Majluf, 1984).
Additional scientific advances in corporate finance have led to new theories about the capital
structure puzzle. Agency considerations (Jensen, 1986, Jensen and Meckling, 1976, Myers, 1977),
market timing (Baker and Wurgler, 2002) and signaling theory (Ross, 1977, Leland and Pyle, 1977)
all point to new potential drivers of capital structure choice. Such drivers considered in this study
are analyzed in the following sections.
2.2.1. Firm size:Most studies reveal that a firm’s size and debt level are correlated. Rajan
and Zingales (1995) suggest that firm size seems to be inversely related to the bankruptcy risk and
that larger firms have fewer problems with information asymmetries as they are required by law to
disclose more relevant information than smaller firms. Large firms are also more diversified and
have less volatile cash flow streams which increase their debt capacity (Ghosh, 2007). Banks are
more willing to lend their funds to large diversified firms, which in turn also usually request a larger
amount of debt capital than smaller firms (Eriotis et al., 2007). Large firms are also more financially
sophisticated and may reduce transaction costs so that they can negotiate debt contracts at a lower
cost (Frank and Goyal, 2009, Booth et al., 2001, De Jong et al., 2008). Regarding these arguments,
2.2.2. Profitability: There is no consensus in the literature on the relationship between profitability and debt level. On the one hand, the pecking order theory suggests that profitable firms
are likely to have more retained earnings. Thus, a negative relation between debt and past earnings
should be expected (Titman and Wessels, 1988, Harris and Raviv, 1991, Rajan and Zingales, 1995).
On the other hand, trade-off theory posits that the relationship between profitability and leverage is
positive. More profitable firms are likely to get more external funds to take advantage of tax shields
(Fama and French, 2002).
For emerging market economies, Booth et al. (2001) and De Jong et al. (2008) find a negative
relationship between profitability and debt. Similar findings are recorded by Maquieira et al. (2007)
and Céspedes et al. (2010) for Latin American countries. The underlying reason is that the cost of
debt is relatively higher in developing than in developed economies (Bekaert and Harvey, 2003, La
Porta et al., 1998). Consequently, firms will primarily use retained earnings according to the
pecking order approach. Thus, we may expect a negative relationship between profitability and
2.2.3. Tangibility of assets:According to agency theory, shareholders of levered firms have
an incentive to invest suboptimally. However, tangible assets are more likely to become
collateralized in debt agreements, reducing the adverse selection problems as a signal about the
firm’s credit quality (Benmelech and Bergman, 2009). Collateralized assets can restrict such
suboptimal behavior supporting a positive relationship between asset tangibility and leverage.
Booth et al. (2001) suggest that the factors that influence capital structure choice are similar
between developed and developing countries. However, they also suggest that the signs on some of
the coefficients are sometimes the opposite of what one would expect. In fact, Ferri and Jones
(1979) suggest that the use of fixed assets can increase the risk of the firm’s future income and
consequently the operating leverage should be negatively related to debt. We believe that this is
might be negative in certain circumstances, for instance, when tangible assets reduce information
asymmetries which eventually allow equity to be less expensive than debt (Booth et al., 2001).
Equity markets in Chile have experienced a substantial development over the last three decades. As
a result, the cost of common equity became more sensitive to changes in firm risk. Therefore,
although tangible assets can be used as collateral to issue more debt, it is even easier for firms to
issue equity for financing their capital expenditure on tangible assets. Hence, a negative relationship
between tangibility and leverage is expected.
2.2.4. Growth opportunities: In Myers (1977) words, financing a firm’s operations with
risky debt might push managers not to accept positive NPV investment projects, suggesting that
debt level is negatively related to growth opportunities.
On the one hand, from a signaling perspective, growth opportunities are intangible in nature and
cannot be collateralized (Cantillo and Wright, 2000). On the other hand, growth may serve as an
alternative quality signal which hypothesizes less need for leverage for high quality firms
(Korajczyk and Levy, 2003, Titman and Wessels, 1988). Consequently, growing firms should
employ lower leverage.
The relationship between growth opportunities and leverage has been widely tested within the
Anglo-Saxon context, typically for US firms. Nevertheless, the Latin-American case in general (and
the Chilean in particular) has been barely studied (De Jong et al., 2008, Céspedes et al., 2010).
Since the Chilean capital market is relatively developed, we expect that the relationship between
growth options and the leverage to be more in line with the option model (Myers, 1977) and the
pecking order model (Myers and Majluf, 1984). Consequently a negative relationship between
growth opportunities and a firm’s leverage is expected.
2.2.5. Non-debt tax shields: DeAngelo and Masulis (1980) extend Miller (1977) analysis
to show that the existence of non-debt tax shields such as depreciation deductions or investment tax
model predicts that firms will select a debt level that is negatively related to the level of tax shield
substitutes for debt. As firms increase non-debt tax shields, they appear less interested in debt than
the income-substitution effect (López and Sogorb, 2008). Additionally, the trade-off theory predicts
that firms with high levels of tax shields different than debt will issue less debt because both of
them are substitute ways to obtain financing funds (Myers, 1984).
According to the accounting depreciation rules passed (Legal Resolution No 43), the depreciation
schedule in Chile is even faster than in the USA, Canada, Germany and others developed countries.
This new regulation created significant reductions in the number of depreciable years of fixed
assets, suggesting that the depreciation tax-shield is more appealing as a substitute for debt. Thus,
we should expect a negative empirical association between the non-debt tax shields and leverage.
2.2.6. Market timing: Market timing theory posits that corporate executives issue securities
depending on the time-varying relative costs of equity and debt (Baker and Wurgler, 2002). This
means that firms adjust their leverage to time the market valuation by taking advantage of windows
of opportunity (Graham and Harvey, 2001). Under efficient and integrated capital markets, a la
Modigliani and Miller (1958), the costs of different forms of capital do not vary independently so
there is no gain from opportunistically switching between equity and debt. In capital markets that
are less efficient or segmented, by contrast, market timing benefits existing shareholders at the
expense of newly entering ones. Managers thus have an incentive to time the market if they think it
is possible and if they care more about ongoing shareholders (Baker and Wurgler, 2002). In their
survey, Graham and Harvey (2001) reveal that two thirds of CFOs agree that the market price per
share is important or very important when considering new issuances of common equity.
Firms in Chile can reduce their leverage by issuing additional stocks whenever the stock price is
overvalued. Nevertheless, this timing effect might be constrained due institutional issues. For
Law of Public Corporations No18.046 (Article 27) stresses a number of conditions under which the
corporations can repurchase their own shares. All these conditions make the repurchase under the
market timing approach almost unfeasible. As a result, we suggest a negative relationship between
firm leverage and the market timing condition.
2.2.7. Ownership structure: Corporate ownership plays a crucial role as a governance
mechanism (Yafeh and Yosha, 2003). Thus, the higher the number of shares in the hands of the
same shareholder, the greater will be his or her incentive to control managers and reduce agency
conflicts (La Porta et al., 1999).
As a matter of fact, one of the most important characteristics of corporate ownership in Chile is the
widespread use of pyramidal structures (Lefort and Walker, 2007). Moreover, there is evidence that
business groups are an efficient mechanism to deal with the lack of more developed markets by
developing internal capital markets (Maquieira et al., 2012, Buchuk et al., 2014). In this line,
Buchuk et al. (2014) suggest that the controlling shareholders within the group may act
benevolently with other intra-group firms to provide funding. They also argue that those firms that
get intra-group lending might improve their return on equity since the cost of funds cannot be
greater than prevailing interest rates.
We believe that the pecking order theory might become more relevant in the context of big Latin
American corporations for two reasons. First, controlling shareholders try to avoid ownership
dilution by issuing debt before equity, and second, equity issuances are still relatively more
expensive in emerging markets than in developed economies. Consequently, concerning the
ownership concentration, we hypothesize a positive relationship with leverage, and concerning the
group affiliation it is expected that leverage be higher for firms belonging to a business group.
2.2.8. Dividends: the literature points out that firms pay dividends to signal inside
sense, the dividend pay-out might be used as a reliable signal for the financial position of a firm,
implying a higher debt capacity. Firms that pay out dividends and simultaneously increase their
leverage signal their credit quality to the capital markets (Ferris et al., 2009). Hence, a firm that
periodically pays out cash dividends is obliged to obtain external financing for its profitable
investment projects. In these cases, the firm is scrutinized by outsiders in the capital markets from
where the company obtains the external funds, and therefore, managerial behavior is supervised by
the participants in such markets (Easterbrook, 1984, Short et al., 2002). Thus, from this point of
view, one would expect a positive relationship between dividend payments and debt level.
Nevertheless, agency problems also seem to be one of the most important drivers of dividend policy
worldwide. For instance, La Porta et al. (2000) analyze the extent to which minority shareholder
rights influence dividend policy for several countries and its impact on the agency cost of equity.
They find that strong shareholder rights enable minority shareholders to obtain relatively high
dividend pay-outs from reluctant managers and controlling shareholders. In fact, La Porta et al.
(2000) argue that mandatory dividends are used only in the French-civil law countries like in Chile
(where they represent 30% of earnings). Consequently, these arguments support a negative
relationship between the dividend pay-out policy and the debt level.
3. Sample, Variables, and Methodology 3.1. Sample description
The empirical analysis was done with an unbalanced panel data of 157 non-financial firms quoted
in the Chilean Stock Exchange for the period from 2002 to 2010, comprising a total of 1,050
firm-year observations. The dataset was obtained from the Economatica Data Base. As in similar studies,
we exclude all financial firms from the analysis. We also exclude firms with negative equity and
firms with missing values for relevant variables.
The variables considered in the empirical analysis are directly related to the theoretical framework
described above (see details in the Appendix). Two alternative measures for dependent variables are
used in order to test for the consistency of our findings. The first measure is the leverage (Lev) at
book value (Frank and Goyal, 2009, Welch, 2011) and the second is the leverage at market value
The first independent variable is the firm’s size (Size) based on the firm’s total assets. For
profitability (Prof) we use return on assets, whilst for tangibility (Tang) we use a measure which
considers the fixed assets. The growth opportunities variable is measured with Tobin’s Q. We use
two alternative proxies for this: Q1, based on the reposition cost of total assets (Perfect and Wiles,
1994); and Q2, based on the widely used market-to-book ratio (Danbolt et al., 2002). Annual
depreciation is used to compute non-debt tax shield (Ndts). The market timing condition (Mktt)
variable is based on the market price per share. Two different variables are used for ownership
structure: Own which is the concentration of shares of the majority shareholder and Econgroup
which is a dummy variable that identifies the firm´s affiliation to a business group. This information
was obtained from the Chile’s Stock Market Supervisor, SVS. For the dividend policy (Div) we
used the pay-out ratio. We also include time dummies (Dummtemp) and industrial sector dummies
(Dummind) for each firm.
Additionally, we include the interaction of the growth opportunities with the firm size in its two
alternative measures (Q1*SizeI and Q2*SizeI) to test for the interacted impact of growth
opportunities as a function of firm size on the capital structure choice. The model to be tested takes
the following form:
The error term is decomposed in ηi which represents the firm-specific effect of each firm i and
captures all time-invariant variables (e.g. managerial style, patterns of financial decisions, etc.); ηt
which is the temporal effect for the t periods considered in this study, and the stochastic error term
εit which varies both cross-sectionally and over time.
The model that considers these interacted variables takes the form of:
Due to the panel structure of our data we estimate the models using the generalized method of
moments (GMM). The panel data methodology allows us to control for two typical problems in this
kind of study: unobservable heterogeneity and endogeneity problems (Arellano and Bover, 1990,
Lemmon et al., 2008). In fact, Arellano and Bover (1990) argue that panel data analysis also allows
measuring and identifying effects that are not observable with the cross-sectional or time-series
The Hansen statistic is used for examining the lack of correlation between the instruments and the
error term. Wald-test of joint significance for all independent variables is computed as well as the
non-linear restrictions test for the interacted variables (see Table 4).
4.1. Descriptive statistics
From Table 1 we can derive the following observations. First, approximately a 45.0% of the total
assets are financed with outstanding debt (Lev). The alternative variable (Lmv) suggests that
studies for the Chilean corporate sector (Espinosa et al., 2012) and also from other economies
(Céspedes et al., 2010, Rajan and Zingales, 1995). Second, the pay-out ratio (Div) is relatively high
(55.3%). The mandatory pay-out ratio of at least 30% to protect the claims of minority shareholders
pushes up the average pay-out ratio beyond the legal requirements. Third, a typical firm has an
approximately 7.3% rate of return on total assets (Prof). Four, the two alternative proxies of growth
opportunities, Q1 and Q2, are higher than one (1.041 and 1.322 times), meaning that the market as a
whole has a general positive perception about a company’s future prospects. Five, about 48.0% of
outstanding shares are in the hands of the majority shareholder; something that is far higher than
what is needed to exercise control. Moreover, about 70.0% of firms in our sample are affiliated with
a business group. Finally, we also observe that the measure for the market timing condition (Mktt)
is positive (0.220 times), meaning positive growth in stock returns.
The correlation matrix is reported in Table 1. As expected, Lev and Lmv are highly correlated
(0.478). Statistics show that firm size (Size) plays an important role in driving financing decisions.
In fact, there is a positive relationship between the size of the firm and its debt level. Leverage
seems to be negatively correlated with future growth opportunities (Q1 and Q2), profitability (Prof),
pay-out ratio (Div), and the market timing condition (Mktt). However, a firm´s ownership structure
seems to be positively correlated with leverage.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
4.2. Multivariate analysis
Table 2 shows the regression results corresponding to equation (1) where the dependent variable is
Lev. Estimates show a positive and statistically significant relationship between firm size (Size) and
leverage. Firms of larger dimension are more diversified, are less likely to be in default, and are
able to use more efficiently the economies of scale in debt issuances which increase their debt
Concerning profitability (Prof), our results support the pecking order theory. More profitable firms,
by default, have more internally generated resources, e.g. retained earnings, which allow them to
finance without external funds. Only once the internal funds are exhausted will the firm issue debt
and later, equity capital. This sequential financing decision supports the negative relationship found
between the firm’s profitability and leverage.
Collateral guarantee measured as tangibility of assets (Tang) does support our hypothesis which
indicates a negative relationship between the tangibility of assets and debt level. The explanation
for this negative relationship is consistent with theories based on information asymmetries and the
dynamics of the Chilean corporate sector (Denis and Mihov, 2003). Harris and Raviv (1991) argue
that the small information asymmetries associated with tangible assets allow equity to be less costly
than debt, driving a negative relationship between debt and tangibility. This negative relationship
seems to be particularly important in developing capital markets where information asymmetries are
a critical market friction in the allocation of resources. As a result, these signaling arguments seem
to support our findings in the Chilean corporate sector.
There is a negative and statistically significant relationship between growth opportunities –either
measured by Q1 or Q2, and leverage (Lev). It seems to be that it is harder to issue debt than equity
for financing growth opportunities. Additionally, since growth options represent strategic market
opportunities, firms might avoid sharing this source of strategic information with creditors by
financing the growth opportunities with internal sources instead of debt.
We find that firms try to reduce their tax burden by using non-debt tax shield (Ndts) instead of debt
itself, thereby avoiding distress and adjustment costs. Our hypothesis about a negative relationship
between non-debt tax shields and debt level is confirmed. The non-debt tax shield seems to be
particularly important whenever firms use an accelerated depreciation schedule, such as is the case
Although we suggested that the market timing condition could be constrained as a consequence of
the legal restriction on stock repurchases in Chile, the findings are robust in showing a negative
relationship between stock returns (Mktt) and a firm’s leverage (Lev). Therefore, it seems to be that
Chilean firms take advantage of markets when stock prices go up by issuing equity and reducing
The typical characteristics of the ownership structure in Chile addressed by a high concentration
and the active participation of a small number of controlling shareholders, as well as the firm
affiliation to a business group, allow companies to reduce efficiently the agency problems between
managers and shareholders. Our empirical results support this idea. The more concentrated the
ownership structure (Own), the higher leverage is, basically because better governed firms can issue
debt under more favorable contractual conditions. The firm´s affiliation to a certain economic group
or conglomerate (Econgroup) is also positively related with leverage. In this case, group-affiliated
firms have a higher average leverage than non-affiliated firms, which allows them to take advantage
of intragroup capital markets by both borrowing at the prevailing market interest rate (according to
the regulation) and having more flexibility in the negotiation of debt contracts with their
counterparties (Saona and Vallelado, 2005).
The pay-out ratio (Div) seems to be negatively correlated with debt according to our results in Table
2. This finding confirms our prediction supported by both the agency problem arguments and the
intrinsic characteristics of the regulatory system in Chile with regards to the protection of creditors’
rights. In this case, low dividend pay-out ratios serve as a substitute mechanism for weak creditor
rights protection. Consequently, creditors will impose restrictive covenants forcing managers to pay
low dividends in order to free up cash to pay back debt.
Finally, to check the robustness of our results, we consider the leverage at market value as an
alternative measure of the dependent variable (Lmv). In this case the results are qualitatively similar
[Insert Tables 2 & 3 about here]
Subsequent results take into consideration the interacted variables of growth opportunities and firm
size. These results are tabulated in Table 4. For the first four regressions the dependent variable is
Lev, whilst for the other four regressions the dependent variable is Lmv. In this table we observe
that growth opportunities and firm size consistently drive debt decisions. Results show that Chilean
companies whose size exceeds the average firm size in our sample tend to increase the debt level as
their growth opportunities increase. This result is observed in the addition of the variables Q1 and
Q1*SizeI (Q1 + Q1*SizeI). As we can see in the table, the linear restriction test rejects the null
hypothesis that the coefficient of the addition of these two variables is equal to zero. Therefore,
large firms which account for growth opportunities prefer to issue debt to finance their growth
options. Apparently, growth opportunities of firms of larger dimensions are very sensitive to
information asymmetries. Larger firms will prefer to use debt instead of equity capital, for instance,
to finance growth. One argument which supports this finding is that the company might prevent the
dissemination of the informative content of growth opportunities by negotiating debt contracts
though private debt (e.g. banks). If additional equity capital is issued to finance future growth
opportunities, the company must release strategic information which may harm its competitiveness.
Additionally, larger firms may take advantage of economies of scale in issuing debt and use their
bargaining power to negotiate favorable debt contracts when growth opportunities need to be
The opposite finding is observed for small firms represented in the coefficient of Q1. Table 4 shows
that smaller firms tend to reduce their leverage as their growth opportunities increase. Smaller firms
are usually less mature businesses and have fewer chances to secure external sources of debt in
conditions as advantageous as larger firms do. It seems that the underinvestment and the asset
substitution problems for smaller firms are more plausible, and as a result their debt capacity is
cost of debt is relatively higher for small than for large firms, it is more likely that small firms will
reject certain projects of comparable risk that would otherwise be accepted by larger firms.
Consequently, in the context defined by the presence of growth opportunities, our results show that
for smaller firms it is appropriate that they keep a low leverage (Jensen and Meckling, 1976, Goyal
et al., 2002).
[Insert Tables 4 about here]
According to various theories, the drivers of capital structure choice are still a black box. In this
work we attempt to shed some light on the determinants of capital structure for firms in an
institutional context that is often overlooked from empirical analyses: the Chilean corporate sector.
We have three primary findings.
First, the positive effect of firm size and ownership concentration as well as the negative effect of
growth opportunities, profitability, pay-out policy, the market timing condition, and non-debt tax
shields, have on firm leverage verify the postulates of the main theories on capital structure
decisions. The conclusions and expected relationships for certain variables in the Anglo-Saxon
context are also verified for the Chilean case.
Second, we observe some relations that are not in line with the current theoretical models on capital
structure. For instance, the negative relationship between the tangibility of assets and the level of
debt is justified by the existence of information asymmetries which compel firms with more (less)
information asymmetries to issue more (less) debt. Additionally, we conclude that the ownership
structure of Chilean firms as well as the formation of business groups allows them to reduce market
Finally, our work contributes to capital structure puzzle literature in a number of ways. Our
approach enhances the dynamics on the capital structure puzzle because we consider the current
theoretical arguments as well as particular facts which are characteristic of the Chilean corporate
sector to build up our research hypotheses. Our major findings suggest that some of the insights
from modern finance theory are not necessarily transferable across countries, though much remains
to be done to understand the impact of different institutional features on capital structure choices.
This paper also contributes to the strategic decisions made by both practitioners and policy-makers.
Concerning practitioners, this work allows them to understand what factors drive debt choices.
Subsequently, knowing this dynamics, executives might take actions to add value for the companies
they manage. Regarding policy-makers, this study provides evidence that the current institutional
context requires better corporate governance legislation to better protect minority shareholders and
firm creditors. Despite statistics that place Chile at the top of other Latin-American countries in
terms of addressing market inefficiencies, institutional legislators and authorities must still consider
Where TDit is the total liabilities at the year t for the i firm, and Eit is the total common equity.
ii) Lmv= TDit
Where MkCptzit is the market capitalization computed as the product among the year-end close price
per share Pit and the number of shares outstanding per firm i.
TDit is the total liabilities at the year t; and Kit is the replacement value of the firm´s assets which is
estimated in Perfect and Wiles (1994) as follows:
Where RNPit is the replacement cost of net property, plant, and equipment (net fixed assets); RINVit is
the replacement value of inventories, TAit is the total assets; BNPit is the book value of net property,
plant, and equipment; and BINVit is the book value of inventories.
For t>t0 where t0 is the first year of observations for a given company in this study; whilst
RNPi t0=BNPi t0. Moreover, ϕt is the growth of capital good prices in year t which is defined by the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator. In other words, ϕt=NomGDPt
100, where NomGDPt is the
nominal GDP and RealGDPt is the real GDP, both reported by the National Institute of Statistics of
Chile. δit is the real depreciation rate defined as δit= Depit
, where Depitis the annual book
Iit is the new investment en property, plant, and equipment or capital expenditure which is defined as
Where WPIt is the wholesale price index reported by the National Institute of Statistics of Chile. This
estimation for the replacement value of inventories assumes that the inventory accounting method is at
average cost. For this method, the value of inventories reported at time t is approximately equal to the
average of the prices at t−1 and t.
Firm size: ¿ ¿it=ln(TAit)¿
Where EBTit are the earnings before taxes.
Tangibility of assets: Tangit=BNPit
Where Dividendsit are the cash annual dividends and ¿it−1 is the net income.
Which represents the percentage of common shares held by the main shareholder.
¿ a business group¿0if stand−alone firm¿
Market timing condition:Mktt=Pit−1−Pit−2
We follow Baker and Wurgler (2002) for the measurement of this variable. It was estimated on the lags
of the t−1 and t−2 periods in order to prevent for the Welch (2004)´s inertia theory.
Non-debt tax shields:Ndts=Depit
Where Depit is the annual rate of depreciation.
AL-NAJJAR, B. & HUSSAINEY, K. 2011. Revisiting the Capital-structure Puzzle: UK Evidence. The Journal of Risk Finance, 12, 329-338.
ARAYA, F., JARA, M., MAQUIEIRA, C. & SAN MARTÍN, P. 2015. Influencia de los Inversionistas Institucionales en las Decisiones de Estructura de Capital de la Empresa. Evidencia para un Mercado Emergente. El Trimestre Económico, LXXXII (2), 279-311.
ARELLANO, M. & BOVER, O. 1990. La econometría de datos de panel. Investigaciones Económicas (Segunda
BAKER, M. & WURGLER, J.2002. Market timing and capital structure. The Journal of Finance, 57,1-32.
BECK, T., DEMIRGUÇ-KUNT, A., LAEVEN, L. & LEVINE, R. 2008. Finance, firm size, and growth. Journal of Money, Credit & Banking, 40, 1379-1405.
BEKAERT, G. & HARVEY, C. R. 2002. Research in emerging markets finance: looking to the future. Emerging Markets Review, 3, 429-448.
BEKAERT, G. & HARVEY, C. R. 2003. Emerging markets finance. Journal of Empirical Finance, 10, 3-55. BENMELECH, E. & BERGMAN, N. K. 2009. Collateral pricing. Journal of Financial Economics, 91, 339-360.
BOOTH, L., AIVAZIAN, V., DEMIRGÜÇ-KUNT, A. & MAKSIMOVIC, V. 2001. Capital structures in
developing countries. The Journal of Finance, 56,87-130.
BUCHUK, D., LARRAÍN, B., MUÑOZ, F. & URZÚA, F. 2014. The internal capital markets of business groups: Evidence from intra-group loans. Journal of Financial Economics, 112, 190-212.
CANTILLO, M. & WRIGHT, J. 2000. How do firms choose their lenders? An empirical investigation. The
Review of Financial Studies, 13,155-189.
CÉSPEDES, J., GONZÁLEZ, M. & MOLINA, C. A. 2010. Ownership and capital structure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 63, 248-254.
DANBOLT, J., HIRST, I. & JONES, E. 2002. Measuring growth opportunities. Applied Financial Economics, 12,
DE JONG, A., KABIR, R. & NGUYEN, T. T. 2008. Capital structure around the world: The roles of firm- and country-specific determinants. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32, 1954-1969.
DEANGELO, H. & MASULIS, R. W. 1980. Optimal capital structure under corporate and personal taxation.
Journal of Financial Economics, 8, 3-29.
DEMIRGÜÇ-KUNT, A. & MAKSIMOVIC, V. 1999. Institutions, financial markets and firm's choice of debt
maturity. Journal of Financial Economics, 54,295-336.
DENIS, D. & MIHOV, V. 2003. The choice among bank debt, non-bank private debt and public debt: Evidence
from new corporate borrowings. Journal of Financial Economics, 70,3-28.
DJANKOV, S., LA PORTA, R., LOPEZ-DE-SILANES, F. & SHLEIFER, A. 2008. The law and economics of self-dealing.
Journal of Financial Economics, 88, 430-465.
EASTERBROOK, F. H. 1984. Two Agency-Cost Explanations of Dividends. The American Economic Review, 74,
ERIOTIS, N., VASILIOU, D. & VENTOURA-NEOKOSMIDI, Z. 2007. How firm characteristics affect capital structure: an empirical study. Managerial Finance, 33, 321-321.
ESPINOSA, C., MAQUIEIRA, C., VIEITO, J. P. & GONZÁLEZ, M. 2012. Capital Structures in Developing Countries: The Latin American Case. Investigación Económica, LXXI, 35-54.
FAMA, E. F. & FRENCH, K. R. 2002. Testing trade-off and pecking order predictions about dividend and debt.
The Review of Financial Studies, 15,1-33.
FAN, J. P. H., TITMAN, S. & TWITE, G. 2012. An International Comparison of Capital Structure and Debt Maturity Choices. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 47, 23-56.
FERRI, M. G. & JONES, W. H. 1979. Determinants of Financial Structure: A New Methodological Approach. The Journal of Finance, 34, 631-644.
FERRIS, S., SEN, N. & UNLU, E. 2009. An international analysis of dividend payment behavior. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36, 496-522.
FRANK, M. Z. & GOYAL, V. K. 2009. Capital Structure Decisions: Which Factors Are Reliably Important? Financial Management, 38, 1-37.
GALLEGO, F. & LOAYZA, N. 2000. Financial structure in Chile: Macroeconomic development and microeconomic effects. Economía Chilena, 3, 5-30.
GHOSH, S. 2007. Bank Debt Use and Firm Size: Indian Evidence. Small Business Economics, 29, 15-23.
GÓMEZ, G., RIVAS, A. M. & BOLAÑOS, E. R. L. 2014. The determinants of capital structure in Peru. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 27, 341-354.
GOYAL, V. K., LEHN, K. & RACIC, S. 2002. Growth opportunities and corporate debt policy: the case of US defence industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 64, 35-59.
GRAHAM, J. R. & HARVEY, C. R. 2001. The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the
field. Journal of Financial Economics, 60,187-243.
GRAHAM, J. R. & LEARY, M. T. 2011. A Review of Empirical Capital Structure Research and Directions for the Future. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 3, 309-345.
HARRIS, M. & RAVIV, A. 1991. The theory of capital structure. The Journal of Finance, 46,297-355.
JENSEN, M. C. 1986. Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 72, 323-329.
JENSEN, M. C. & MECKLING, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3,305-360.
KHANNA, T. & YAFEH, Y. 2007. Business Groups in Emerging Markets: Paragons or Parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45, 331-372.
KORAJCZYK, R. & LEVY, A. 2003. Capital structure choice: Macroeconomic conditions and financial
constraints. Journal of Financial Economics, 68,75-109.
LA PORTA, R., LOPEZ-DE-SILANES, F. & SHLEIFER, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance, 54, 471-517.
LA PORTA, R., LOPEZ-DE-SILANES, F. & SHLEIFER, A. 2008. The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 285-332.
LA PORTA, R., LOPEZ-DE-SILANES, F., SHLEIFER, A. & VISHNY, R. 1998. Law and Finance. The Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113-1155.
LA PORTA, R., LOPEZ-DE-SILANES, F., SHLEIFER, A. & VISHNY, R. W. 2000. Agency Problems and Dividend Policies around the World. The Journal of Finance, 55, 1-33.
LEFORT, F. 2003. Gobierno corporativo. ¿Qué es? y ¿Cómo andamos por casa? Cuadernos de Economía, 120,
LEFORT, F. & WALKER, E. 2007. Do markets penalize agency conflicts between controlling and minority shareholders? Evidence from Chile. The Developing Economies, 45, 283-314.
LELAND, H. & PYLE, D. 1977. Information asymmetries, financial structure and financial intermediation. The
Journal of Finance, 32,371-388.
LEMMON, M. L., ROBERTS, M. R. & ZENDER, J. F. 2008. Back to the beginning: persistence and the cross-section of corporate capital structure. The Journal of Finance, 63, 1575-1608.
LÓPEZ, J. & SOGORB, F. 2008. Testing trade-off and pecking order theories financing SMEs. Small Business Economics, 31, 117-136.
MAJLUF, N., ABARCA, N., RODRÍGUEZ, D. & FUENTES, L. A. 1998. Governance and ownership structure in Chilean economic groups. Revista ABANTE, 1, 111-139.
MAQUIEIRA, C., OLAVARRIETA, S. & ZUTTA, P. 2007. Determinantes de la Estructura de Financiación: Evidencia empírica para Chile. El Trimestre Económico, 74, 161-193.
MAQUIEIRA, C., PREVE, L. & SARRIA-ALLENDE, V. 2012. Theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence and distinctive features in Latin America. Emerging Markets Review, 13, 118-148.
MILLER, M. 1977. Debt and Taxes. The Journal of Finance, 32, 261-275.
MODIGLIANI, F. & MILLER, M. 1958. The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment.
The American Economic Review, 48,261-297.
MODIGLIANI, F. & MILLER, M. 1963. Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction. The
American Economic Review, 53,433-443.
MYERS, S. C.1977. Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics,5,147-175.
MYERS, S. C.1984. Capital structure puzzle. The Journal of Finance, 39,575-593.
MYERS, S. C. & MAJLUF, N. 1984. Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have
information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13,187-221.
ÖZTEKIN, Ö. 2015. Capital Structure Decisions around the World: Which Factors Are Reliably Important?
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 50, 301-323.
PERFECT, S. & WILES, K. 1994. Alternative constructions of Tobin's Q: An empirical comparison. Journal of Empirical Finance, 1, 313-341.
RAJAN, R. G. & ZINGALES, L. 1995. What Do We Know about Capital Structure? Some Evidence from International Data. The Journal of Finance, 50, 1421-1460.
ROSS, S. A. 1977. The determinants of financial structure: the incentive signaling approach. The Bell Journal of
SAONA, P. 2014. Internal corporate governance mechanisms as drivers of firm value: panel data evidence for Chilean firms. Review of Managerial Science, 8, 575-604.
SAONA, P. & VALLELADO, E. 2005. Ownership structure and growth opportunities as determinants of bank debt:
Evidence from Chilean companies. Management Research, 3,119-134.
SHORT, H., ZHANG, H. & KEASEY, K. 2002. The link between dividend policy and institutional ownership. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8, 105-122.
SILVA, F., MAJLUF, N. & PAREDES, R. 2006. Ownership structure and performance: Empirical evidence from Chilean firms. Corporate Ownership & Control, 3, 173-181.
TITMAN, S. & WESSELS, R. 1988. The determinants of capital structure choices. The Journal of Finance, 43,
WELCH, I. 2004. Capital structure and stock returns. The Journal of Political Economy, 112, 106-131.
WELCH, I. 2011. Two Common Problems in Capital Structure Research: The Financial-Debt-To-Asset Ratio and Issuing Activity Versus Leverage Changes. International Review of Finance, 11, 1-17.
YAFEH, Y. & YOSHA, O. 2003. Large shareholders and banks: Who monitors and how? The Economic Journal,