ویژگی دارایی و توانایی استقراض شرکت: تجزیه و تحلیل تجربی از شرکت های تولیدی

This paper investigates the importance of asset specificity in explaining differences in firms’ ability to borrow money. With empirical research, we investigated whether there is a relationship between asset specificity and the debt ratio of a Slovene manufacturing firm. The basic idea of the research was to link the sources of finance that define property rights and the attributes of the assets that are the objects of finance. A firm’s capital structure can be viewed as a description of the allocation of risk and control among investors.

Recent developments in transaction cost economics suggest that a firm’s debt ratio may have more to do with strategic and control factors than with purely financial factors (Williamson, 1988 and Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993).1 A firm often invests in firm-specific assets in order to enhance its uniqueness and competitive advantage. The specific asset has greater value when used by that firm than when used for any other purpose. Such assets, however, adversely affect the firm’s ability to borrow because firm-specific assets often cannot be redeployed as collateral for borrowing. Many firm-specific assets are intangible (for example, R&D and advertising) and difficult to measure and evaluate (Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993). Transactions involving such assets will be affected by informational asymmetry between the firm’s insiders and outsiders. For the firm, specialized assets create both a problem and an opportunity (Williamson, 1975 and Williamson, 1985). The firm may have problems financing such assets that are encumbered by debts because of the nature of the assets — their ability to be redeployed (Williamson). Williamson suggested incorporating uncertainty explicitly into the analysis (Choate, 1997). Nevertheless, the firm has an opportunity to create governance structures2 in a way that mitigates this problem. Effective relationships with lenders could become a key source of competitive advantage, which means that every firm theoretically can influence its debt ratio (Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993). The choices of an appropriate source of finance are just as important as are the decisions of production. Investments in the assets that contribute to competitive advantages raise the value of the firm, which in turn favorably impacts on financing such assets (Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993). A distinction among the different sources of funds, the costs and risks associated with the terms of financing, and the relationship between the extent of financing remain significant issues requiring research attention. Some empirical studies have already been carried out, in which the authors tried to identify the determinants of a firm’s capital structure using different samples, variables, and methods. Motivated by the differences in results from these studies, we decided to do a similar empirical study with the aim of detecting if there is a relationship between asset specificity and the debt ratio of Slovene firms. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a brief overview of financing from the transaction cost economics perspective. Section 3 presents the results of two earlier major empirical studies that have great relevance for our empirical study. Section 4 discusses the propositions underlying our research. Section 5 introduces our methodology, sample and model. Our results are revealed in Section 6 and our conclusions are presented in the final section.

We have engaged in investigating the importance of unique, firm-specific factors in explaining the variability of a firm’s debt ratio. According to the results of our investigation, it is apparent that a firm’s ability to borrow and its capital structure are interrelated with the business strategy of the firm and the attributes of its assets. Our empirical research should be added to the previous research of transaction cost economics that deal with the transition from one to another governance mechanism. The message of this study is that it would appear advisable to finance a firm’s specific assets by use of its equity, for its transaction costs would be lower than if the assets were financed with debt. With a properly chosen governance structure, which forestalls or attenuates potential future conflicts, the reduction in transaction costs is warranted in advance. Different governance structures emphasize arrangements that reduce transaction costs. The results confirm that assets impact the choice of a source of finance. Firm-specific effects are important determinants of variability in a firm’s capital structure. If there is an optimal capital structure, it is a consequence of asset specificity, its sources and relationships. It is essential for a firm to develop and preserve strategic competitive advantages by creating unique and special assets, which are crucially conditioned upon selection of appropriate sources of finance (Balakrishnan and Fox, 1993). Choosing a source of finance should not be left to chance, but should be conditioned upon a firm’s strategic determinants.