Corporate governance, capital structure, and firm performance: a panel VAR approach

This study aims to examine the interrelationships and interdependencies between corporate governance (CG), capital structure (CS), and firm performance (FP) of companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius from 2009 to 2019 along with a comparison between financial and non-financial firms. A panel vector autoregression (PVAR) approach is used in this study to determine the relationship dynamics between CG, CS and FP. The findings reveal a positive and significant bidirectional association between CS and FP, supporting the trade-off theory. The results also show that CG and FP jointly help to increase CS while CG and CS jointly boost the profitability of firms. A strong bidirectional relationship with varied signs between CG and CS is found only for financial firms. The results of the forecast error variance decomposition analysis support the selection of FP as the most endogenous variable. Robustness tests also support the findings. This study is the first to examine the dynamic and interdependent relationships using a PVAR model between CG, CS and FP that presents new contributions to the existing CG and CS literature with insights from an emerging economy.

Examining the Relationship Between Product Market Competition and Chinese Firms Performance: The Mediating Impact of Capital Structure and Moderating Influence of Firm Size

This study emphasized the relationship between the Chinese companies' product market competition and organizational performance. This article explored the mediating effect of capital structure and the moderating impact of firm size in achieving better performance of Chinese companies. This study employed a sample of 2,502 Chinese firm observations and identified that market competition positively influenced firm performance. Additionally, capital structure partly mediated the relationship between product market competition and firm performance. Similarly, the present study also tested the moderating effect of firm size (both small and large) on the association between product market competition and firm performance. The results showed that moderating large businesses affects the nexus between product market competition and firm performance. Conversely, small firms' moderating role revealed a substantial adverse impact on the association between product market competition and firm performance. These findings contribute to the literature on the complex implications of market competition on business firms' performance. The results provide insightful and practical implications for future research directions.

Corporate governance, law, culture, environmental performance and CSR disclosure: A global perspective☆

This paper investigates the impact of corporate governance and culture background on firms’ environmental performance and CSR disclosure from a global perspective. It provides evidence of a positive relationship between environmental performance and CSR disclosure, supporting the voluntary disclosure theory. We find that common internal corporate governance best practices (such as CEO non-duality, ESG committees and gender diversified boards) are associated with better environmental performance and more disclosure of CSR related information. Debt is an effective internal governance vehicle and positively affects firms’ environmental performance and CSR disclosure. Cross-listed firms perform better environmentally and disclose more CSR information. Firms residing in countries with stronger legal systems have less voluntary CSR disclosure, implying that external governance is functional and may partially serve as a substitute for internal governance. In terms of culture influence, we find that firms in countries with low power distance, individualism, femininity, high uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation perform better environmentally. Firms in low power distance, collectivistic, feminine, long-term oriented, high uncertainty avoidance and restrained countries disclose more CSR information.

Taxes, bankruptcy costs, and capital structure in for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals

About 60% of the US hospitals are not-for-profit and it is not clear how traditional theories of capital structure should be adapted to understand the borrowing behavior of not-for-profit hospitals. This paper identifies important determinants of capital structure taken from theories describing for-profit firms as well as prior literature on not-for-profit hospitals. We examine the differential effects these factors have on the capital structure of for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Specifically, we use a difference-in-differences regression framework to study how differences in leverage between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals change in response to key explanatory variables (i.e. tax rates and bankruptcy costs). The sample in this study includes most US short-term general acute hospitals from 2000 to 2012. We find that personal and corporate income taxes and bankruptcy costs have significant and distinct effects on the capital structure of for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Specifically, relative to not-for-profit hospitals: (1) higher corporate income tax encourages for-profit hospitals to increase their debt usage; (2) higher personal income tax discourages for-profit hospitals to use debt; and (3) higher expected bankruptcy costs lead for-profit hospitals to use less debt. Over the past decade, the capital structure of for-profit hospitals has been more flexible as compared to that of not-for-profit hospitals. This may suggest that not-for-profit hospitals are more constrained by external financing resources. Particularly, our analysis suggests that not-for-profit hospitals operating in states with high corporate taxes but low personal income taxes may face particular challenges of borrowing funds relative to their for-profit competitors.

A Decomposition of Hospital Profitability: An Application of DuPont Analysis to the US Market

Objectives:

This paper evaluates the drivers of profitability for a large sample of U.S. hospitals. Following a methodology frequently used by financial analysts, we use a DuPont analysis as a framework to evaluate the quality of earnings. By decomposing returns on equity (ROE) into profit margin, total asset turnover, and capital structure, the DuPont analysis reveals what drives overall profitability.

Methods:

Profit margin, the efficiency with which services are rendered (total asset turnover), and capital structure is calculated for 3,255 U.S. hospitals between 2007 and 2012 using data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Healthcare Cost Report Information System (CMS Form 2552). The sample is then stratified by ownership, size, system affiliation, teaching status, critical access designation, and urban or non-urban location. Those hospital characteristics and interaction terms are then regressed (OLS) against the ROE and the respective DuPont components. Sensitivity to regression methodology is also investigated using a seemingly unrelated regression.

Results:

When the sample is stratified by hospital characteristics, the results indicate investor-owned hospitals have higher profit margins, higher efficiency, and are substantially more leveraged. Hospitals in systems are found to have higher ROE, margins, and efficiency but are associated with less leverage. In addition, a number of important and significant interactions between teaching status, ownership, location, critical access designation, and inclusion in a system are documented. Many of the significant relationships, most notably not-for-profit ownership, lose significance or are predominately associated with one interaction effect when interaction terms are introduced as explanatory variables. Results are not sensitive to the alternative methodology.

Conclusion:

The results of the DuPont analysis suggest that although there appears to be convergence in the behavior of NFP and IO hospitals, significant financial differences remain depending on their respective hospital characteristics. Those differences are tempered or exacerbated by location, size, teaching status, system affiliation, and critical access designation. With the exception of cost-based reimbursement for critical access hospitals, emerging payment systems are placing additional financial pressures on hospitals. The financial pressures being applied treat hospitals as a monolithic category and, given the delicate and often negative ROE for many hospitals, the long-term stability of the healthcare facility infrastructure may be negatively impacted.