Our research investigates the connection between firm characteristics and leverage based on a sample of firms listed in the Chinese Stock Index 300. We aim to examine the sustainability of the financial structure of Chinese enterprises covering the period 2010–2019. We employ a conditional quantile regression that discloses the behavior of regressions across the leverage distribution and compares its results for different leverage levels with those achieved by the linear regression model. The results confirm the effects of the determinants of capital structure change since the quantile of leverage varies. We find that both the trade-off theory (TOT) and the pecking order theory (POT) confirm the validity of Chinese firms’ financing decisions at different quantiles of leverage. Specifically, the empirical results support the POT more over the TOT at higher levels of the quantile. Furthermore, the relationship between firm size and leverage strongly switches to support the POT at the highest quantile. All empirical results are obtained from quantile regression, consistent with the prediction for an increase in asymmetric information of the POT when Chinese firms employ more debt in their capital structure.

Our study investigates Chinese manufacturing firms listed on both the Shanghai and the Shenzhen Stock Exchanges. These firms follow the pecking order or trade-off theories in their capital structure choices. Using panel data from the Taiwan Economic Journal and quantile regression, we construct three models to compare the two theories. Our first model tests the impact of profitability, tangible asset, firm size, and investment opportunities on leverage; our second model adds the dividend payout ratio to test the robustness of the first model; and our third model tests how leverage, profitability, firm size, and dividend variables affect a firm’s investments. From the results of all the models used in our study, we find a negative relationship between leverage and both profitability and the dividend payout ratio and a positive relationship between leverage and growth in a firm’s investments. We also find a negative relationship between dividends, firm size, and growth in a firm’s investments and a positive relationship between investment capital and profitability. The overall results indicate that the capital structure decisions of Chinese manufacturing firms are best explained by the pecking order theory.

No abstract

The firm’s market capitalization is an ideal proxy of the size of listed firms. Hence, this paper uses the firm’s market capitalization to capture the firm size instead of using other prior proxies to investigate the relationship between the market capitalized scale and corporate capital structure by employing the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) method to conduct analysis based on a sample of the 300 largest listed firms in China from 2010 to 2017. The CSI300 list consists of two subsample (CSI100 and CSI200), divided upon the firm’s market capitalized scales to represent both large-cap and small-cap firms. Our paper contributes to the literature on corporate finance by obtaining some new empirical results to assess the effect of market capitalized scale on corporate capital structure. We find that the market capitalized size has a significantly negative association with corporate leverage. We also find that both the Trade-Off Theory (TOT) and Pecking-Order Theory (POT) can partially explain the capital structure of the listed firms of the CSI300 Index such that the negative relationship between the market capitalized scales and corporate leverage is firmly identified in small-cap firms. Third, we observe that the greater validity of the POT’s predictions is enhanced in small-cap firms such that the greater inverse impact of profitability and the more significant positive effect of growth opportunities on corporate leverage are clearly shown in small-cap firms. Inversely, the more significant adverse effects of non-debt tax shields on corporate leverage are found in large-cap firms and there is no difference in the impact of tangible assets on debt ratios between CSI100’s listed companies and CSI200’s listed enterprises. Academics and practitioners could use our findings to draw better implications while policymakers could use our results to obtain better policies to improve the banking system with small listed companies.