Liquidity and capital structure: The case of Thailand
Introduction
Traditional capital structure theories have identified several determinants of capital structure choices such as size, growth opportunities, and profitability. Only until recently does liquidity receive attention from researchers as a potential determinant of capital structure decisions. The liquidity of a firm's equity is related to the ease with which a firm can raise external capital through a stock offering; less liquid stocks tend to have higher issuance costs and thus a higher cost of equity (Weston et al., 2005, Hennessy and Whited, 2005). Therefore, firms with more liquid equity are more motivated to issue equity than those with less liquid equity. As a result, capital structure choices are likely influenced by liquidity.
Consistent with this notion, two recent studies by Lipson and Mortal (2009) and Frieder and Martell (2006) document that firms with more liquid equity are significantly less leveraged. The results of both studies, however, are exclusively based on U.S. firms. It is not obvious whether or not these results can be extended to other countries where capital markets are less developed, corporate ownership much more concentrated and information asymmetry more severe. Our study is the first to investigate this issue in a non-U.S. economy.
As an emerging market, Thailand constitutes a distinctive setting for studying this issue. Due to the prevalence of bank loans, Thai firms rely less on capital market financing, potentially making liquidity less relevant in capital structure decisions. Public capital markets in Thailand are relatively young and not as developed as those in the U.S. In addition, several large Thai firms are part of a conglomerate that has its own commercial banks (Wiwattanakantang, 1999), which provide funding for firms in their business group. These characteristics make capital market financing less prevalent among Thai firms and may make the effect of liquidity on capital structure much less pronounced, if not disappear entirely. On the contrary, the corporate bond markets in Thailand are even less developed than the equity markets. Thai firms were not allowed to issue bonds until 1992. The less sophisticated bond markets may make issuing equity relatively more attractive and hence enhance the role of liquidity in capital structure decisions. Finally, corporate ownership is much more concentrated in Thailand than in the U.S. High ownership concentration has been shown to significantly affect liquidity.2 For these reasons, it is not clear whether the results based on U.S. firms can be readily extended to firms outside the U.S. We fill this gap in the literature by investigating the impact of liquidity on capital structure choices in Thailand.3
Our empirical evidence reveals a significant association between liquidity and capital structure choices. In particular, we find that firms with more liquid equity hold less leverage. This is in agreement with the hypothesis that high liquidity lowers the cost of equity, hence providing incentives for firms to issue equity over debt. The association survives even after accounting for other determinants of leverage such as size, growth opportunities, non-debt tax shields, profitability, and industry and year effects. This evidence is in agreement with Lipson and Mortal (2009) and Frieder and Martell (2006). For robustness, we employ three alternative definitions of liquidity, namely Amihud's (2002) illiquidity, the modified turnover, and the modified liquidity ratio. All of these liquidity measures yield consistent results. The impact of liquidity on leverage is not only statistically significant, but also appears to be economically meaningful. For instance, when using Amihud's (2002) illiquidity to sort firms into quintiles, we find that the difference in leverage between the most liquid quintile and the least liquid quintile is 10% or more.
The results of our study contribute to the finance literature in several ways. First, we add to the literature in capital structure by showing that liquidity is a significant determinant of capital structure decisions. Extending Lipson and Mortal (2009), our study is the first to examine this issue using non-U.S. data. Second, the literature in market microstructure has examined the impact of liquidity on a number of variables. However, liquidity has hardly been investigated in the context of corporate finance. Our study is among the first to fuse market microstructure and corporate finance together. Third, the literature in emerging markets also benefits from our study. Emerging markets are typically characterized by severe information asymmetry, more acute agency costs, more corruption, and less developed financial markets. Our results show that, even in one such emerging market, the impact of liquidity on capital structure is significant. Finally, we contribute to the literature that examines capital structure decisions in foreign countries (Wiwattanakantang, 1999, Fan et al., 2008). Although capital structure choices in foreign countries may be motivated by factors that are different from those in the U.S., we show that liquidity remains a significant determinant of leverage in an emerging economy. This is especially interesting, considering that financial markets are much less liquid outside the U.S.
The remainder of this study proceeds as follows. Section 2 discusses the theoretical background and prior research. Section 3 presents the sample selection and describes the data. Section 4 displays and discusses the empirical results. Finally, Section 5 offers the concluding remarks.
Section snippets
Liquidity and capital structure
Liquidity has been extensively studied, particularly in the market microstructure literature. For instance, Stoll and Whaley (1983) note that stock transaction costs need to be considered when valuing equity investments and suggest that this explanation may be responsible for the higher required rate of return on small stocks, which are relatively illiquid. Amihud and Mendelson (1986) offer a formal model in which transaction costs like a tax, raise the required rates of return for equity
Sample construction
Our sample includes all Thai firms that are listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) for the period 2002–2008. We follow the custom in the literature and exclude financial institutions because they have distinctive capital structure. The financial and accounting data are from Data Stream and SET SMART. We include firms in the sample only when they have all the required financial and accounting data. Our final sample encompasses a total of 707 firms.
Liquidity measures
Most prior research on liquidity
Summary statistics
Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for the entire sample. A few findings are worth noting. First, the average book leverage is 42.09%, whereas the average market leverage is 37.71%. These two ratios are remarkably comparable to those in Lipson and Mortal (2009), although they use only American firms in their studies. Second, the concentration of ownership averages 57.19%, indicating that the five largest shareholders control a substantial portion of ownership. This is in sharp contrast
Concluding remarks
We explore how liquidity influences capital structure decisions. Increased liquidity lowers the costs of equity, making equity more attractive relative to debt. Thus, firms that enjoy more liquidity are expected to have less leverage in their capital structure. Our empirical evidence supports this hypothesis. Our results, however, are especially interesting because we examine firms in Thailand, where the financial environment is substantially different from that in the U.S. In particular, as an
References (34)
Illiquidity and stock returns: cross section and time-series effects
Journal of Financial Markets
(2002)- et al.
Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread
Journal of Financial Economics
(1986) - et al.
Market microstructure and securities values: evidence from the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
Journal of Financial Economics
(1997) - et al.
The costs of entrenched boards
Journal of Financial Economics
(2005) Board size and the variability of corporate performance
Journal of Financial Economics
(2008)- et al.
Determinants of target capital structure: the case of dual debt and equity issues
Journal of Financial Economics
(2004) The effects of equity issues on ownership structure and stock liquidity: a comparison of rights and public offerings
Journal of Financial Economics
(1997)- et al.
Liquidity and capital structure
Journal of Financial Markets
(2009) Ownership level, ownership concentration and liquidity
Journal of Financial Markets
(2007)- et al.
Number of shareholders and stock prices: evidence from Japan
Journal of Finance
(1999)
Market timing and capital structure
Journal of Finance
Accounting methods, information asymmetry and liquidity: theory and evidence
The Accounting Review
Short-term traders and liquidity: a test using Bombay Stock Exchange data
Journal of Financial Economics
Insider holdings and perceptions of information asymmetry: a note
Journal of Finance
The determinants of capital structure: evidence from the Asia Pacific Region
Journal of Multinational Financial Management
Liquidity, volatility, and equity trading costs across countries and over time
International Finance
Cited by (52)
Extreme illiquidity and stock returns: Evidence from Thailand market
2023, Pacific Basin Finance JournalGreen finance sources in Iberian listed firms: A socially responsible investment approach
2023, Journal of Cleaner ProductionRelative bond-stock liquidity and capital structure choices
2021, Journal of Corporate FinanceCorporate tax policy, Shariah compliance and financial decisions: evidence from Malaysia
2024, Managerial FinanceThe mediating role of common stock's liquidity between ownership structure characteristics and corporation's value: Evidence from emerging markets
2023, International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting
- 1
Most of the empirical work was done while the first author was part of the Master in Finance program at Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.