does malaysian firms' corporate capital … malaysian firms’ corporate... · sarna ada...
Post on 23-Mar-2019
226 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DOES MALAYSIAN FIRMS' CORPORATE CAPITAL STRUCTURE CHANGE HAVE AN IMPACT ON ITS CORPORATE PERFORMANCE?
Teoh Ker Li
Bachelor of Finance (Honours) 2012
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik VNIVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
ADAKAH PERUBAHAN STRUKTUR MODAL KOPORAT FIRMA-FIRMA DI MALAYSIA MEMBERI KESAN KEATAS PRESTASI KOPORATNYA?
FI.KHICMAT MAKLUMAT AKACI!MIK
11111 III1Ifiill111111111 1000245041
TEOHKERLI
Projek ini merupakan salah satu keperluan untuk Ijazah Sajarna Muda Kewangan dengan Kepujian
Fakulti Ekonomi dan Perniagaan UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARA W AK
2012
I
-
DOES MALAYSIAN FIRMS' CORPORATE CAPITAL STRUCTURE CHANGE HAVE AN IMPACT ON ITS CORPORATE PERFORMANCE'!
TEOH KERLI
This project is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Finance with Honours
(Finance)
Faculty of Economics and Business UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK
2012
I PENGESAHAN PELAJAR
Saya mengakui bahawa Projek Tahun Akhir bertajuk Adakah Perubaham Struktur Modal Koporat Firma-Firma di Malaysia
Memberi Kesao ke atas Prestasi Koporatoya? ini adalah hasil kerja saya sendiri kecuali nukilan, petikan, huraian dan ringkasan
yang tiap-tiap satunya telah saya nyatakan sumbernya.
7 (Tarikh Serahan) (Tandatangan Pelajar)
TeohKerLi 25699
ST ATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This work described in this Final Year Project, entitled Does Malaysian Firms' Corporate Capital Structure Change Have an Impact
on Its Corporate Performance? is to the best of the author's knowledge that of the author except where due reference
is made.
.lr1 (Date Submitted) (Student'S Signature)
Teoh Ker Li 25699
ABSTRAK
ADAKAH PERUBAHAN STRUKTUR MODAL KOPORAT FIRMA-FIRMA
01 MALAYSIA MEMBERI KESAN KEAT AS PRESTASI KOPORATNY A?
oleh
Teoh Ker Li
Kajian ini bertujuan mengkaji hubungan yang wujud dalam tahun-tahun yang
berlainan di antara struktur modal dan prestasi koporat dengan menggunakan 505
buah firma yang tersenarai di Bursa Malaysia. Kajian ini telah dijalankan dengan
menganalisasikan kesan nisbah corak perubahan hutang dan ekuiti dalam 505 buah
firma yang terpilih dari tahun 2005 hingga 2010 dan menentukan hubungan tersebut
sarna ada menyokong teori Static Trade-ofJatau teori Pecking Order. Tempoh kajian
ini adalah dijalankan dalam bentuk keseluruhan serta dalam keadaan ekonomi yang
berbeza, terutamanya dalam keadaan ekonomi yang mengalami krisis. Perubahan
jumlah hutang, jumlah hutang jangka panjang, jumlah hutang jangka pendek dan
jumlah ekuiti digunakan sebagai proksi stuktur modal manakala pasaran nilai buku,
margin untung bersih serta pulangan ekuiti telah digunakan sebagai pengukuran
prestasi koporat. Keputusan kajian menunj~kkan hanya jumlah ekuiti didapati
mempunyai hubungan positif yang kukuh terhadap semua ukuran prestasi koporat.
Pada masa yang sarna, hubungan antara semua jenis perubahan hutang dengan
petunjuk-petunjuk prestasi kQPorat adalah dalam bentuk yang bercampuran. Secara
keseluruhan, kebanyakkan hubungan antara perubahan struktur modal firma dengan
perubahan prestasi koporat didapati mengikuti teori Static Trade-off.
ABSTRACT
DOES MALAYSIAN FIRMS' CORPORATE CAPITAL STRUCTURE
CHANGE HAVE AN IMPACT ON ITS CORPORATE PERFORMANCE?
by
Teoh Ker Li
This study aims to examine the relationship that exists to be varying year by
year between the corporate financial structure in debt and equity ratio change pattern
of movement that affects the performance of the selected 505 public listed firms in
Malaysia from year 2005 to 2010 and determines its consistency in related to either
static trade-off theory or pecking order theory. It is tested in overall and also
different economic period mainly the crisis period by using change of total debt, long
term-debt, short-term debt and total equity as the proxy corporate financial structure.
Whereas for the measurement of corporate performance will be using Market to
Book Value, Net Profit Margin and Return on Equity. Results show that only change
in total equity had a consistent positive significant relationship with the change of all
corporate performance indicators, whereas a mix relationship was found between all
kinds of change in debts with the change of all corporate performance indicators. In
overall, majority of the relationships between changes in corporate financial
structure with change of corporate performance was found consistent with the Static
Trade-off Theory.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to my thesis's
supervisor, Madam Josephine Yau wholehearted guidance, invaluable help,
encouragement, advises and patience for all aspect from this thesis progress. Her
numerous comments and suggestion during the preparation of this project are
gratefully praised. Especially for her patience and unconditional willingness in help
when encountering problem no matter big or small during the thesis progress is
invaluable and truthfully well appreciated. I attribute the level of my degree to her
encouragement and effort and without her this thesis, too, would not have been
completed. One simply could not wish for a better or friendlier supervisor.
Upon completion of this thesis, I would also want to thanks my mother and
family for their constant support mentally and financially from the beginning of the
thesis progress. Finally, I would like to thanks to my thesis group mates, house mates
that helped and supported me a lot especially Bong Hui Hian and Chua Su Yen who
happily cooperated as thesis group mates in solving all problems that occurred
during the thesis program especially in the process of collecting data. Lastly, I would
like to thank my house mates and friends who helped and supported me throughout
the thesis progress.
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik UNIVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF TABLE xv
LIST OF FIGURE xvi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1-26
1.0 Introduction .............. .... ........... .. ............... ... ................................................ ··················-1
1.1 Theoretical Framework·· ································ ··················································· ···· ········-5
1.1.1 Modigliani and Miller (MM) Theorem (1958)············································-5
1.1.2 Agency Cost Theory (1976)-·· ····················· ································· ·················7
1.1.3 Static Trade-off Theory (1977)· ··························· ·.··· ... ···· ..... ·..·········· ············9
1.1.4 Signalling Theory (1977) ............................. .. ....................... ·······················10
1.1.5 Pecking Order Theory (1984 ) .................... .......................... ... .... ················-12
1.2 Background of Studies·············· ············· ···· ··:········· ····· ················· ······························· -15
1.3 Problem Statement························ ··· ················· · ........................... ........................... ···-21
1.4 Research Objectives··············· ····························· ...................................................... ·· -24
Vlll
1.5 Rational Significance of Research·---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------25
1.6 Scope of Research ------------------------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------------------------26
1.7 Conclusion -- ------ ------------- ---------------------------- --- ---------------------------- ----- ------------------ ------------26
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 27-60
2.0 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27
2.1 Capital Structure Theories------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28
2.1.1 Static Trade-off Theory------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
2.1.1.1 Evidence from developed countries---------------------------------------------29
2.1.1.2 Evidence from emerging countries---------------------------------------------29
2.1.1.3 Evidence from Malaysia--------------------------------------------------------------31
2.1.2 Pecking Order Theory----------------------------------------------------------------------------------33
2.1.2.1 Evidence from developed countries---------------------------------------------33
2.1.2.2 Evidence from emerging countries ---------------------------------------------34
2. ] .2.3 Evidence from Ma1aysia--------------------------------------------------------------35
IX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------~
2.2Capital Structure and Corporate Perfonnance-······························· ·· ··· ·············· ·· ·······-37
2.2.1 Evidence from developed countries···························· ··· ····· ··········· ...... · ...... 37
2.2.2 Evidence from emerging countries······················· ······································-39
2.2.3 Evidence from Malaysia······· ·································· ····· ··············· ·· ········· ·· ···42
2.3 Debt and Corporate Perfonnance ...................................................... ···················· ···-43
2.3.1 Evidence from developed countries················· ···········································44
2.3.2 Evidence from emerging countries················· ····································· ··· ····45
2.3.3 Evidence from Malaysia ................................. ..................... ·······················48
2.4 Equity and Corporate Perfonnance························································· ·············· ·····49
2.4.1 Evidence from developed countries-·····························································49
2.4.2 Evidence from emerging countries······ ························································50
2.4.3 Evidence from Malaysia························································ ·····················-51
2.5 Conclusion ..................................................... ............ ........................................... ······-51
x
61-76CHAPTER THREE: DATA AND METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction.......... ·.. · ...... ·· ..· .... ·.. ··· .... ·... ··· .. ··· ... ·· .... ·· ... ·· .............................................. ·61
3.1 Sample Data··· ..···· ....·..·.. ············ .. ··· .............. ·..·· ..··········· ..············· ..·· .. ····· .... ·· ..···· .... ····61
3.2 Conceptual Framework··· .. · ...... · .. ···· .. ·········· ..·········· .. ------ -- .. · .... --······ ....·.. ·..···· ...... ······· ·62
3.2.1 Change in Corporate Performance ........ · ...... · .................. ----· ........ ----· .......... 63
3.2.2 Change in Debt Financing ..................................................... __ .......... __ .. ____ ..65
3.2.2.1 Change in Total Debt .............. ·.. · .... --· ....------·--· .. -- ............ ·.. · .... -- .. ·66
3.2.2.2 Change in Long-term Debt .... ------ .................... --·-- .. -- .. ·.. ·.. ---- ...... ·{)7
3.2.2.3 Change in Short-term Debt- ........ -- ........ · ...... ·--.... .... --·--................67
3.2.3 Change in Equity Financing .... -- ..·.. -- ............ -- ...... --·-- .. ·.. ----·--.... ...... ·--.. -- ..·--68
3.3 Hypothesis Development .. ······················· -- ... -- ...... -- .............................. --,.'" -- ............. ·69
3.4 Data Analysis ..···· ...... -- ....................... "--""""" -- .... " ---- ..... -- .... -- ...............--.-- ..... ---- ...... ·73
3.4.1 Descriptive Statistic .... · .-- ........... -- ......... .. -- ........... -- .......... -- ............ .... ----.-- ...73
3.4.2 Correlation Coeffi cient········ - ...................... ---- .... --. -- ---- ......... . --. -- --······ ..······74
Xl
3.4.3 Multiple Regression Analysis············································· ········ ···· ·············75
3.5 Conclusion······································· ····· ...................................................... ·················78
CHAPTER FOUR: EMPIRICAL RESULTS 79-108
4.0 Introduction·········································· ................................... .. ................. ···················79
4.1 Preliminary Debt to Equity Employment Patterns····································· ............... 79
4.2 Evolution of Changes in Corporate Financial Structure in Malaysia············· ··········81
4.3 Descriptive Statistic········································· ···· ..... ................................................. ·· ·84
4.4 The Correlation Matrix ........................ .............. ... ............. ································· ······-85
4.5 Multiple Regression Analysis ....... ............................................... ·······························86
4.5.1 Change of Corporate Financial Structure vs. Corporate Performance
(Market to Book Value)····················· ········· ················ ·········· ··············· ·······86
4.5.2 Change of Corporate Financial Structure vs. Corporate Performance (Net
Profit Margin)····································:·························· ·························· ·····90
4.5.2.1 Pre-Crisis Period (2005-2006}············· ·········· ······ ······················· ·93
4.5.2.2 During Crisis Period (2007-2008}············ ·· ································94
Xll
4.5.2.3 Post Crisis Period (2009-201 0) ···················································95
4.5.2.4 Pre-Crisis Period (2005-2006}·····················································96
4.5.2.5 During Crisis Period (2007-2008}··············································97
4.5.2.6 Post Crisis Period (2009-201 0)······························· ·····················98
4.5.3 Change of Corporate Financial Structure vs. Corporate Perfonnance
(Return on Equity)····· ···················································································99
4.5.3.1 Pre-Crisis Period (2005-2006}···················································102
4.5.3.2 During Crisis Period (2007-2008}························· ············ ·······103
4.5.3.3 Post Crisis Period (2009-201 0) ·················································104
4.5.3.4 Pre-Crisis Period (2005-2006}·· ·················································105
4.5.3.5 During Crisis Period (2007-2008}············································1 06
4.5.2.6 Post Crisis Period (2009-2010) ······ ··· ·········································107
4.6 Conclusion .... .... .. .... ............................................... ... ....................................... ..... ·····108
X III
CHAPTER FIVE: EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS 109-122
5.0 Introduction·····------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------109
5_1 Findings from Preliminary Debt to Equity Employment Patterns--------------------------1 09
5.2 Findings from Evolution of Changes in Corporate Financial Structure in
Malaysia--- ------------------ --- -- ---- -.--------------------------- -------- --------------------- ---------------- ------------·11 0
5.3 Findings from Change of Corporate Financial Structure vs. Corporate
Performance---· -·-·------------------------ --------------- --.. ---------------------------------------------------.--.---- III
53.1 Change of Corporate Financial Structure vs_ Market to Book
Value-------- ------------------------------------------------- ..-----.---------- --------------------- .. -.------111
5.3.2 Change of Corporate Financial Structure vs_ Net Profit Margin---- ·--·----113
5.3.3 Change of Corporate Financial Structure vs. Return on Equity·-------------118
5.4 Conclusion ---------------- -- -------------------- ------ ------------- .. -------------------------.------- -- ------------------ ·122
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 123-129
6_0 Introduction------------- -------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------- -------------------------- -----123
6.1 Summary of Discussion and Conclusion of the Research Study and Theoretical
Implications .--- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------124
XIV
6.2 Recommendations--------------- -- ------------------------ --- -- --------------------------------------------------------126
6.3 Future Research Directions----------------- -- ------------------------·--------------------------------------------128
6.4 Conclusion ----- --------------------------------------------- --- --------------------------- .------------------------ ----- -- ·129
APPENDICES
REFERENCES 128-134
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1.1: Components of financial structure in a non-financial firm ----------------------------4
Table 2.1: Summary of Literature Review----------- ----- --------------------- ----- --------------------------- -53
Table 3.1: Variables, proxy measurement and the expected relationship based on the
selected theory and based on this study---------·------------------------------------------ ----72
Table 3.2: Correlation coefficient value and it relationship between the
variables------------------------- ---- ------- -----------:-------- -- ---------------------------------- -- ------------74
Table 4.1: Evolution of Changes in Capital Structure of Malaysian Public Listed
Firms---···-----------------------------··---------------------------------------------------------------------------81
xv
Table 4.2: Summary of Descriptive Analysis·---- -------- ....----- .. ---------------------- .......... -----------84
Table 4.3 : The Correlation Matrix----------- ----------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------85
Table 4.4: The Regression of Market to Book Value as the Dependent Variable -- -----87
Table 4.5: The Regression of Net Profit Margin as the Dependent Variable-----------------91
Table 4.6: The Regression of Return on Equity as the Dependent Variable------ ---------- l 00
Table 5.1: Summary of Hypotheses in the Study-------------------- --- -------------------- -- -------------122
Table 6.1: Summary Result of the Study according to the Theory------------------- ----------- 124
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.1: Summary on Theoretical Framework------------ --- ------------- ------ ------------------------- 14
Figure 1.2: The Total Number of Listed Firms' in Bursa Malaysia since 1990 till
201 0- -------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------------------- --17
Figure 1.3: The Number of Listed Firms in Bursa Malaysia and the Total Debt
Employed from Year 1990 till 201 0------------------------------------- ----- --- ----------------18
XVI
Figure 1.4: Semi Annual FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI Price Index from year 2000 till
20 1 0---------------- ------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------23
Figure 3.1: The Conceptual Framework of the Relationship between the Independent
Variables and the Dependent Variables--------------------------------------------------------63
Figure 4.1: Debt to Equity Ratio in Malaysian Public Listed Firms from year 2005 till
2010------ -- ----------------- ------- ----------------- ---- ------- --- -------------------------- ------------ ------- ----.s 0
Figure 4.2: Changes of total debt, long-term debt, short-term debt and total equity of
Malaysian Public Listed Firms from year 2005 till 2010----------------------------81
XVll
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
Financial structure can be defined as the mixture or the combination of debts
and equity which are used to support and finances the firm's total assets where it
usually determined by the financial manager in an organization. Financial structure is
usually consists of long-term debt, short-term debt and also the total equity of a firm
(Brealey, Myers, & Allen, 2008), and can be found in the right hand side of a firm's
balance sheet to financed the usage oftota[ assets in a firm which can be found in the
left hand side of the balance sheet (Ross, Randolph, & Jeffrey, 1999).
Capital structure, another similar term for financial structure, yet there are
many differences found between both. Actually, capital structure is somehow a
subset of financial structure as it is only the summation of the total long-term sources
of capital, which consist of many different type of long-term debt, and at least two
type of equity(common and preferred stock) and also hybrid(convertible bonds)
(Saad, 2010). Since the term of financial structure and capital structure are more or
less having the same meaning in most research paper, therefore in this research paper
tenns financial structure and capital structure will be assume as the same definition.
Over half of the century, it had been a favourite and popular topic among the
academicians and practitioners in the finance field to discussed and begin their
researches based on the scope of capital structure and corporate performance which
is the fundamental topic of corporate finance ever since the path breaking
1
contribution by Modigliani and Miller (MM) in developing the irrelevance
proposition of the modern capital structure theory (Chou, et.al. 2010; Cheng, Liu, &
Chien, 2010). Modigliani and Miller (1958) popularly known as the MM theorem or
also known as the irrelevance theory of capital structure is the origin theory of
capital structure that is broadly accepted and in used by many researchers which
implies that capital structure or the financing decision of a firm give no effect to
firm's value in a perfect market (Ong & Teh, 2011).
For years in many studies around the world tried to find out an ideal way to
achieved optimal capital structure where firm's weighted average cost of capital is
minimized and maximizing the corporate performance on the other hand (Tian &
Zeitun, 2007). Just like the probability chart, a large scale of distinct securities in
uncountable combination can be issued by the firm's financial manager based on the
principle of a firm's most basic objective, maximizing the corporate profitability
(Brealey, Myers, & Allen, 2008).
Profit alone had no longer a significant meaning to firm albeit it is tried to be
maximized all the time. Many financial managers thought that it is not a well defined
tool for firm objective anymore. Now in modem days, most of the time financial
manager attempt to obtain a particular combin~tion that can contribute to increase
the firm's overall market value (Altan & Arkan, 2011) as increasing the corporate
performance had gradually become the main focus of firms' value. Hence, it is
important for a financial manager to decide how the firm finances its overall
functions and growth by using different source of funds (Ong & Teh, 2011).
2
However, in today's rapidly growing capital market it is difficult for financial
manager to distinguish a perfect ratio of optimal capital structure for a firm. In fact,
there is no definite way or formula in determining optimal firm's capital structure
neither in a perfect market nor imperfect market (Dhankar & Boora, 1996). Since the
market in reality are imperfect, then there is a possibility that capital structure that a
finn used might cause corporate performance to be vary from time to time as capital
structure does has a closed link with corporate performance (Tian & Zeitun, 2007;
Ong & Teh, 2011).
The following table presented the formation of a firm's financial structure in
the balance sheet of a firm. Where on the left hand side, comprise from the type of
long lived assets that a firm should invest, known as capital budget. While on the
right hand side is the method of a firm obtained to raise cash for required capital
expenditures in whole, known as capital structure. This is where many finance
managers are trying to seek for a balance or optimum capital structure between debt
fmancing and equity financing in order to achieve the objective of corporate
performance maximization.
3
Table 1.1: Components of financial structure in a non-fmancial firm
From the table here, it is clearly shown that the total debt and equity of a finn from the left side of the balance sheet are used to finance the total assets of the finn from the right side of the balance sheet.
Firm's Balance Sheet
Assets:
Fixed Assets
Buildings Land Machinery and Equipment
Liabilities and Equity:
Long-Term Liabilities
Long-term notes Long-term bonds Long-term bank loans Debentures Pension Obligation Lease Obligation
Total Fixed Assets 1
Current Assets
Inventories Cash in hand Cash in Bank Account Receivables Prepaid Expenses Marketable Securities
Total Current Assets 2
Other Assets
Patents Copyrights Investments Goodwill
Total Other Assets 3
Total Long term Liabilities· Short-Term Liabilities
Short-term Notes Overdraft Account Payables Accrued Expenses Other Payables Deferred Tax Unearned revenues, Deposits
Total Short Term Liabilities5
Equity:
Common Stock (Par value + Paid in Capital - Treasury Stock) Preferred Stock Capital Reserves Retained Earnings
Total Equity6
SUM: 1+2+3= Total Assets
SUM: 4+5+6= Total Debt and Equity
Source: Above table was an example of balance sheet adapted and modified from the Corporate Finance McGraw-Hill International Edition, pp.2 and also from the Financial Management: Principles and Applications Pearson Prentice Hall International Edition, pp.35
4
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik W\1VERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
1.1 Theoretical Framework
The relationship between financial structure and corporate perfonnance can be
tested based on various theories. Modigliani and Miller's (1958) MM Theorem, the
first modem theory of capital structure which also the elemental theory of capital
structure. Another theory is the static-trade off theory which is use to detennine the
capital structure value by a trade-off between tax shield and bankruptcy cost. While
the Pecking Order Theory by Myers and Majluf (1984) will be the choice of testing
the capital structure of using the internal financing when the finn internal financing
is inadequate. A Signalling theory of capital structure can also be used to explain the
relationship between capital structure and corporate perfonnance. Lastly the theory
can be related in testing the link between the capital structure and finn perfonnance
will be the Agency theory.
1.1.1 Modigliani and Miner (MM) Theorem (1958)
Since 1958, Modigliani and Miller had developed a theory pertaining
the finn capital structure and corporate perfonnance which known as the
Modigliani and Miller theorem, in short MM theorem. MM theorem is
someway been said that it is a foundation of modem corporate finance. The
starting point of the theory for capital structure having the basic concept
where finn which are operate in a well-function market, its financial
decisions do not give any effect to corporate perfonnance (Villamil, 2008).
From the studies had done by Modigliani and Miller, there are four
different outcomes that can found from their papers in 1958, 1961 and 1963
5
where there are four propositions established based on their studies
(Villamil, 2008). The first proposition of the MM theorem was about under
a certain conditions, the pattern of consumption on debt and equity of a firm
does not give an effect to the firm's market value. While the second
proposition of MM Theorem stated that a firm's leverage will not affect the
firm's weighted average cost of capital (Pagano, 2005). The third
proposition of MM Theorem was focused on the firm market value stated
that it will not be affected by its dividend policy. And the fourth proposition
of the MM theorem found that the reaction of the equity-holders is
unresponsive towards the firm's financial policy. MM theorem had been
characterized as one of the first formal theories that use the concept of a no
arbitrage case where the thought of "law of one price" is venerable
(Villamil, 2008).
This theory is function under a perfect market where it is operates
under a few assumptions applied by Modigliani and Miller (1958). The
assumptions are in a perfect market which means there will be neutral taxes,
no capital market frictions, no asymmetric privilege for the investors and
the borrowers, and firm financial policy provides no information where the
market is efficient (Modigliani & Miller, 1958). This is why the MM
theorem is somehow structured a debate on why it had been known as the
capital structure irrelevance theory as the market in the modern days are no
long perfect (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Modigliani & Miller, 1963; Myers,
1984; Myers & Majluf, 1984).
6
top related