Given that the companies in real scenarios rarely start from nowhere, it is not unexpected that the theories about capital structure got its own tailored versions. The argument contains the name of the theory and the theory of pecking order.
21.2 A the Pecking Order
Every firm prefers funding where there are senior claims.
- The value of the company drops when they declare to fund with lesser high claims.
The pecking order theory is two connected experimental implications:
- The value of the Firms declines more when they handle issuances with junior security.
- Businesses are usually reluctant in issuing junior securities.
Managers always want to enhance the value of their firm. So, they must not issue those securities which will reduce the worth.
But why this name? This name “pecking order” highlights the insight of a firm which funds new projects.
Deeper Causes for Pecking Orders
In scenarios like where the issuing of junior security is comparatively much expensive than the issuing of senior safety; the pecking orders are applied. Now if the company has an adequate amount of equity than its optimal range- issuing much more equities will damage the value of the firm.
In previous chapters, you have already learned that every force which pulls a business toward its stable structure of capital- in those cases having debt more than equity is better. Eventually, you realize the fact; the forces which favor deficits over equities can actually pull a company for the following pecking orders. Following are few examples assuming there are no forces:
- The information of Inside: When the firm wants to enhance the financing, it should be in your command to convince the investors to whom your manager along with owner is confident for the growth of the future of the firm.
If the business is to issue equities, the investors may infer about the worst, which leads to falling in substantial value. So, the manager must not intend to issue equities.
- Considerations of Agency: The manager controls the future. But, it is your sole motive to convince the investors that they are not wasting their money and they should invest; if you want to enhance financing.
So, if the security is much junior who you intend to issue, the cash flow will be freer and you if you waste their money there will be no penalty. Thus, for more profitable investments, you have to go with more stringent demands which come along with issuing new senior most securities. The effects are;1: Firm value will surely drop if you issue equities. So, the managers avoid issuing equities.
- Issuing of costs: It is more expensive issuing junior claims that senior ones. Also, it is costlier to issue equity than debts. Practically this is a fact, and it is because of legal liabilities, its regulation, difficulty, etc.Although, many theories do provide explanations why senior security help in adding values to the firm. And to apply pecking orders for a specific business, the total of the factors which favors in issuing of debts must prove heavier to the total of the elements to issue equity.
If not, then the firm will experience positive responses when more equity is issued. The company itself must be intending to perform, so that pecking orders are not applied.
Gradations of Seniority
We are well aware that more small-scale security can be paid off during bankruptcy only if larger-scale securities are already paid entirely. Equity is one of the junior most securities. Debt is comparatively more for seniors than the former. But there lie differences in seniority when it comes to financing bonds of firms.
Let us check few examples:
- . Bonds which are weaker covenants are not much safer than those with stronger contracts.
- . Bonds with Short-run periods are much safer than those of long-run time period. This is because the investors in prior cases tend to get back their money before the company may get into more troubles shortly.
- . Ordinary bonds are not so safer than Collateralized bonds.
The accounts that are received when they are sold; often seen are of short time or terms and are much safer than its debts. Thus, when a company is taken out of its repayment processes, receivables tend to be safe.
Claims of most seniors:
If a company has retained earnings, there is no need of issuing new claims. So, you can easily re-establish the pecking orders along with various gradations of seniority. Thus the theory of procedure varies with classes.
According to the theory; the firm should fund newer projects by its cash at the beginning; until the source of the real funding gets empty. After that, it must consider issuing senior most and debts of short-run, until that finance is also exhausted. And this carries on.
In total, the managers are more reluctant when the funding initiates with a more junior. If these managers intend to conduct with more junior funding’s, the value of the company will drop.
But what about the corporate taxes? The former chapters taught us one significant concept; that if a force which is pulling the firms toward its debt it is the due the involvement of corporate taxes.
But, if this company is taxed highly, issuing of bonds other than equities will dimes the burden of tax for the firm. These companies with high-tax are most likely to experience the worst response in stock-price. So, these types of firms are considerably reluctant in issuing more equities. Therefore corporate taxes are able to explain the pecking orders between debts and investments.
21.2 B Alternative Non-Pecking-Order Financing Arrangements
Pecking order methodology for fund accumulation varies from business to business. Mostly small high-technology firms start off by issuing debt securities, so it is better suited for these companies to issue more equity securities to their advantage. Utility companies can also walk on the same path of issuing more equity to raise capital as their capital costs are calculated by governmental regulation.
Private equity firms also don’t follow the pecking methodology although it might seem odd. As an example, the Leveraged buyout Company in order to keep its confidence steady in the business should issue more equity thereby maintaining a strong foothold. But, the inherent principle of LBO firms is to purchase a multiple of different companies whose books are separate from one another. So, if one of the portfolios fails the other remains completely impervious which keeps the collection of others completely insulated.(This process of mitigating risk provides a good cushion to the managers of individual portfolios, but a blunder by the management of the portfolios can have devastating consequences!)
If management of one portfolio is to have a disastrous performance the lenders cannot issue claim to the other portfolios. Moreover, the banks also are aware that this Lob firm
Has not pledged the securities of other companies from the very beginning. So, the lenders in lieu of compensation charge high rates of interest than normal thereby causing the firm to pay an escalated cost for the capital than in normal circumstances. LBO firms adhere to this strategy of insulation as they believe it to be profitable not to follow pecking order methodology.
21.2 C the Financing Pyramid
A portfolio strategy for capital accumulation where an allocation of assets is according to the safety of investments. The majority of funding lies at the base of the pyramid containing short term collateral securities. The middle of the pyramid includes junior debt. The least funding would be those equities which sit at the top of the pyramid.
The pecking order and financing pyramid have a natural semblance as firms would obviously want to issue securities lying at the base of the pyramid. Although the relationship between this two changes over the lifetime of the enterprise. With the passage of time firms can pay its junior debt and start publicly trading its shares.
This allows the companies to follow a near perfected pecking order by accumulating funds mostly internally yet need to be financed primarily by equity. (Alternatively, it can be said that many companies follow the pecking order not only because they have issued debt but due to all the liabilities incurred along its life cycle). Historically only a few companies capital formation looks like a pyramid while most do not.
The following chapters will actually teach that the capital structure depends on factors such as industry and past activity and performance rather than previous policies.
21.2 D the Influence of Stock Returns on Opportunistic Issuing
Stock returns are directly related to the capital structure as evident from IBM instance in the 15th chapter. We can call this phenomenon the “direct” influence on stock returns. The firm financed by equal debt and security and which loses one-half of the value will make its debt to equity ratio will increase from 1 is to 1 to 4 is to 1. (Managers can nullify this new valuation by issuing equity to counteract with increasing debt).
Stock value fluctuations can follow an entirely different path by which they affect capital structure. Though past returns have an influence but they don’t show any direct correlation. Thereby, how managers react and respond to the present market landscape becomes of primary importance. CFO’s of some corporations believe that they can easily predict the nature of the finance markets. Many of them speculate that their firm’s valuation is dependent on internals rather than the current financial market status.
So if the marked has presently seen a gain, they believe they can increase equity at cheaper rates as their ideology is based on the firm’s internals. The exact reverse mechanism would apply for a company which is trying to establish a past debt to equity ratio. If the business wants to keep a certain debt to equity ratio, it will have to buy more security after its valuation is on the rise and let go of ownership after its cost has come down. If a firm however wants to do predict the future market price movements known as timing, it will do the exact opposite.
There is also substantial evidence which suggests that managers time the ongoing interest rates as well as the Treasury curve. When, the yield is high firms follow short-term borrowing and avoid long-term bonds. There are no risks in timing at a strong financial market. You should perceive timing like any other investment harmless yet can be profitable.
Past evidence shows that managers have not only predicted their own valuations accurately but have also predicted the entire market level, a humongous task to achieve. There is speculation as to where it is luck or genuine timing ability. (So, why take the hassle of being a manager if you possess this knowledge!)Companies that fared miserably at timing aptly disappeared after a while which supports the reasoning that timing is necessary for surviving.
Another way of viewing at it is that the times the markets are up, more companies raise funds which inadvertently don’t let the markets slide. When, economists study that how a firm raises funds, they check that they have done so before the fall. These two sets contradicting theories may explain the ability of timing where it seems there is none. Maybe by the upcoming versions of this book, we can understand corporate timing strategy in a more batter way than we do now.