（節(jié)選）外文翻譯---高成長型企業(yè)在選擇融資方式時(shí)對(duì)優(yōu)序融資理論和負(fù)債能力的考慮(英文）

1、Pecking order and debt capacity considerations for high-growth companies seeking financingTom R. Vanacker Æ Sophie ManigartAccepted: 24 June 2008 / Published online: 28 October 2008 ? Springer Science+Business Media

2、, LLC. 2008Abstract This paper examines incremental financ- ing decisions within high-growth businesses. A large longitudinal dataset, free of survivorship bias, to cover financing events of high-growth businesses for up

3、 to 8 years is analyzed. The empirical evidence shows that profitable businesses prefer to finance investments with retained earnings, even if they have unused debt capacity. External equity is particularly important for

4、 unprofitable businesses with high debt levels, limited cash flows, high risk of failure or significant investments in intangible assets. These findings are consistent with the extended pecking order theory controlling f

5、or constraints imposed by debt capacity. It suggests that new equity issues are particularly important to allow high-growth busi- nesses to grow beyond their debt capacity.Keywords Financing decisions ? Pecking order the

6、ory ? Debt capacity ? GrowthJEL Classifications G32 ? L261 IntroductionAlthough few in number, high-growth businesses contribute disproportionately to employment and wealth creation in an economy (Storey 1994). This make

7、s organizational growth a central area of research in entrepreneurship and a major policy concern. Proper financial management, including raising suitable financing, is one of the key factors shaping high-growth companie

8、s (Nicholls-Nixon2005). The purpose of this paper is to offer an insight into the discrete financing decisions taken within high-growth businesses. Information asymmetries are thought to be particularly severe in this se

9、tting (Frank and Goyal 2003), causing a substantial wedge between the costs of internal and external (debt and equity) financing (Carpenter and Petersen 2002a). We therefore focus on the pecking order theory to explain t

10、he financing choices of high-growth companies. The pecking order theory predicts the existence of a financing hierarchy, where business managers avoid the cost of external financing if possible. As a result, they will fi

11、rst prefer to use internal funds, then debt and finally outside equity as a last resort to finance investments (Myers 1984; Myers and Majluf 1984). The impact of company characteristics on financial decision-making may v

12、ary according to the research setting (Harris and Raviv 1991). It is therefore important to test financial theories in settings where our knowledge is limited to determine the general- izability of the theories across di

13、fferent settingsT. R. Vanacker ( Carpenter and Petersen 2002a; Berger and Udell 1998). Asym- metric information is probably one of the most important reasons why outside funds are thought to be substantially more costly

14、compared to internal funds (Berger and Udell 1998).1 Informational asymmetry entails that while business managers have private information about the value of assets in place and future growth options, outside investors c

15、an merely estimate these values. Faced with the risk of adverse selection, outside investors will demand a ‘‘lemons’’ premium for the securities offered by the business (Akerlof 1970). The more risky the security, the hi

16、gher the premium will be, as risk exacerbates the effects of information asymmetry (Myers 1984). As a result, companies prefer to finance new investments with retained earnings, which are not subject to asymmetric infor-

17、 mation problems. When internal funds are insufficient to meet the financing needs, managers will turn to more costly outside funds. In this situation companies are expected to issue the safest securities first as thesew

18、ill suffer less from information asymmetries and hence be subject to lower premiums (Myers 1984; Myers and Majluf 1984). This implies managers will first raise debt financing and only consider new equity as a last resort

19、. The resulting financing hierarchy is often referred to as a pecking order and is one of the most influential theories in the financial literature (Frank and Goyal 2003). In this paper the focus is on the pecking order

20、theory as a framework to understand incremental financing decisions. Consequently, this research is in line with prior studies, such as Helwege and Liang (1996); Shyam-Sunder and Myers (1999) and Frank and Goyal (2003),

21、which focus on the financing choices of quoted American companies. Their direct tests of the two main tenets of the pecking order model—i.e., (1) companies prefer to finance new investments with retained earnings and (2)

22、 external equity is only issued as a last resort if outside funds are needed—have offered inconclusive and even contradictory results, however. Helwege and Liang (1996), studying a panel of US companies that conducted an

23、 IPO in 1983, find that the probability of obtaining outside funds is not related to a shortfall in internally generated funds, which is in contrast with predictions of the pecking order theory. However, consistent with

24、pecking order predictions, they find that firms with a cash surplus avoid outside financing. Finally, firms accessing the capital market do not follow a pecking order when choosing the type of security to offer. Shyam-Su

25、nder and Myers (1999), however, draw a different picture of the predictive power of the pecking order model. Based on a sample of 157 US firms that traded continuously between 1971 and 1989, they conclude that ‘‘the peck

26、ing order theory is an excellent first-order descriptor of corporate financing behavior, at least in our sample of mature corporations’’ (Shyam-Sunder and Myers 1999, p. 242). Frank and Goyal (2003) show that for a more

27、elaborate sample of publicly quoted US companies, the greatest support for the pecking order theory is found among large firms. Smaller firms, which are expected to be more likely to be subject to information asymmetries

28、, do not seem to follow a pecking order. Additionally, the pecking order theory prediction that high-growth companies will end up with high debt ratios because of their large financing needs is questioned (Fama and Frenc

29、h 2005). Barclay et al. (2006) demonstrate that high-growth ventures1 We acknowledge that information asymmetries do not necessarily lead to a financing hierarchy (Halov and Heider 2004), and the existence of asymmetric

30、information may not be the only reason why a financing hierarchy exists. First, transaction costs may also contribute to the wedge between the costs of internal and outside financing (Myers 1984). Second, there is a pote

31、ntial cost of losing control over the business when resorting to outside financing. These factors may further inhibit business managers from issuing outside financing and even constrain company growth (Manigart and Struy

32、f 1997). Finally, the existence of a knowledge gap from the entrepreneur’s perspective may cause a financing hierarchy, as business owners are typically most familiar with traditional sources of funding, such as inside f