Free Porn
xbporn
Free Porn





manotobet

takbet
betcart




betboro

megapari
mahbet
betforward


1xbet
teen sex
porn
djav
best porn 2025
porn 2026
brunette banged
Ankara Escort
1xbet
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com

1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com

1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
1xbet-1xir.com
betforward
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co

betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co

betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
betforward.com.co
deneme bonusu veren bahis siteleri
deneme bonusu
casino slot siteleri/a>
Deneme bonusu veren siteler
Deneme bonusu veren siteler
Deneme bonusu veren siteler
Deneme bonusu veren siteler
Cialis
Cialis Fiyat
deneme bonusu
padişahbet
padişahbet
padişahbet
deneme bonusu 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet 1xbet untertitelporno porno 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet وان ایکس بت 1xbet 1xbet سایت شرط بندی معتبر 1xbet وان ایکس بت pov leccata di figa
best porn 2025
homemade porn 2026
mi masturbo guardando una ragazza
estimare cost apartament precisă online
blonde babe fucked - bigassmonster

+92 348 677 5142

professionalwriter778@gmail.com

Sample Literature Review

Ch 2: Literature Review

2.1: Chapter Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to give the review of existing literature to build the current research. It critically evaluates the existing studies about the relationship between capital structure (CS) and firm performance (FP). On the basis of review of the existing literature it identifies the gap in the literature and develop hypotheses for this study.

2.2: Firm Performance

Firm performance is one of the most critical areas of any business irrespective of the nature of organization and business (Zhao, Teng and Wu, 2018). There are different kinds of measures which are used by different organizations to evaluate the performance such as profitability, revenue, growth, and value. Different ratios and indicators are used by business organizations to measure their performance such as return on assets (ROA), return on capital employed (ROCE), return on equity (ROE), stock price, market value etc. (Taouab and Issor, 2019). Profit is the difference between cost and price of the product or services so it is one of the widely used measure of performance because the higher the profitability, the higher will be the returns for the owners. So, profitability ratios are widely used by the companies to measure performance in terms of profitability such as ROE, ROI, ROA, net profit and gross profit margin (Bhatt and Bhatt, 2017). Different ratios are used to provide different insights about the business operations. One of the drawbacks of using these ratios is that these are not meaningful alone there is a need of comparison either with the competitors, industry average or past performance of the company (Galant and Cadez, 2017). These ratios are used to measure the accounting profitability but for measuring the overall performance of a business is it very important to understand the market performance of the business as well (Ayuba et al., 2019).  Mohammed and Al Ani (2020) suggested that accounting profitability is not enough to properly gauge the performance of a business rather it also need the measurement of market performance. The long run survival of any business entity is reliant on the market and accounting performance simultaneously. In this regard, Tobin Q is a useful measure for the market performance.

It is evident from the existing literature that most of the previous studies have either used accounting profitability (ROE, ROEC, ROI, ROA etc.) (Al-Tamimi & Obeidat, 2013, Ishaq, Islam, and Ghouse, 2021) or market performance (EPS, Tobin Q etc.) (Alajlani, 2019 Ishaq et al., 2021) so there is a gap in the literature in terms of effectively measuring the overall performance of a business. Therefore, this study is intended to bridge this gap by using both accounting and market performance indicators. This study used ROA, ROEC and Tobin Q (“The ratio of the book value of total assets”) to measure firm performance. Tobin Q helps the corporations to measure the performance in the perspective of long-term market conditions.

2.3: Capital Structure

Weston and Brigham (1979) defined capital structure as financing of the corporation characterized by preferred stock, net worth, and long-term debt. Capital structure is a combination of a permanent long-term financing of an organization characterized by common stock, equity, debt, and preferred stock (Van Horne and Wachowicz, 1995). Suhaila and Mahmood (2008) defined the concept of capital structure as a mixture of finance and debt encompassing equity, preferred stock, and long-term financing mixture of any organization. It has been a widely debated area in the literature for past few years. One of the most significant models was given by Modigliani and Miller theorem grounded on several assumptions such as customers and investors can be equal, using the same interest rate, no taxation, no default risk, absence of transaction costs, perfect markets and frictionless markets (Kumar, Colombage and Rao, 2017).

Another significant model is Trade-Off Theory regarding capital structure modeling. There is a need for the corporations to decide on a set of investments which are better than others for the shareholders particularly. Under this model marginal benefits and marginal costs are compared based on solutions (Sardo and Serrasqueiro, 2017). Moreover, it is suggested by Pecking order theory that the internal sources of funds will be less concerned with the share price and finance. This model is supported by the organizations which suffered with adverse challenges (Hirdinis, 2019).

Agency cost is also one of the major issues in the context of capital structure decisions as it is significant for employees, creditors, shareholders, and management. Agency problem is due to the conflict of interests such as of the stakeholders, shareholders, employees, and managers. There is a significant role of capital structure decisions in impacting the overall performance of the organization that is a significantly discussed in the literature (Putri and Rahyuda, 2020). The literature shows different impacts of capital structure decisions on the firm performance some studies indicated positive association between capital structure and performance some has defined the negative a relationship while the other studies have indicated that there is no impact of capital structure on firm performance (Gunardi et al., 2020; Vatavu, 2015). This requires further analysis in order to understand the relationship between capital structure and performance of the organizations. Therefore, this study is intended to bridge this gap. Moreover, it is evident from the literature that different researchers have used different factors of capital structure as a determinant for capital structure so this study is also intended to understand the most significant factors of capital structure in impacting the firm performance.

2.4: Relationship between Capital structure and Firm Performance

2.4.1: Impact of Capital Structure on Firm Value

Aggarwal and Padhan (2017) conducted a research study with the aim of understanding the impact of capital structure on the firm value by collecting data from the hospitality firms of India. The time frame of data collection was 2001 to 2015. They used liquidity, group tangibility, profitability, size, leverage, and Altman Z score to measure the quality of firm value. The analysis of OLS indicated that there Modigliani Miller theorem of capital structure irrelevance is not true for the hospitality industry of India rather capital structure can be used by the organizations to improve their overall market performance and firm quality. Vo and Ellis (2017) conducted a research to investigate the association between capital structure and shareholder value by collecting data from Vietnam fraud the period of 2007 to 2013. The analysis indicated that there is a negative association between financial leverage and shareholder value. The analysis also indicated that the higher cost to debt financing then benefiting the organizations. It also indicated that the organizations with low leverage are beneficial for creating value for the business and shareholders.

Hirdinis, (2019) also led a research study to investigate the influence of capital structure on firm value by collecting data from mining industry. The results of multiple linear regression indicated that capital structure is significantly and positively associated with the firm value. Detthamrong, Chancharat and Vithessonthi (2017) examined the association between capital structure and firm value by collecting data from 493 companies in Thailand. The findings of the study suggested that financial leverage has no significant impact on the firm value. The findings of the study also suggested that capital structure has a positive impact on performance of the companies and this association is moderated with the corporate governance.

Putri and Rahyuda (2020) conducted a research study to investigate the relationship between capital structure in terms of debt-to-equity ratio on firm value and profitability. Secondary data was used by the researchers from annual reports of 51 companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The sample was collected through purposive sampling technique and the results of the study suggested that there is a substantial negative influence of capital structure on the firm performance end firm value. Moreover, Maneerattanarungrot and Donkwa (2018) also led an exploration to investigate the way capital structure impacts the firm value. The data was collected from the Stock Exchange of Thailand for the period of 2012 to 2014 of 315 companies. The result of structural equation modeling suggested that capital structure decisions significantly and positively impact the firm value. They suggested that financial managers should be very careful while making the capital structure decisions because these are directly linked with the business value and firm performance.

The above discussion of the existing empirical studies suggested mixed views about the influence of capital structure decisions on from value some indicated a positive link, some suggested negative and for some researchers these are not associated at all. Therefore, following relationship can be proposed:

H1: there is a direct positive sociation between capital structure decisions and firm value.

2.4.2: Impact of Capital Structure on Profitability

According to the Pecking order theory, corporations will employ less debt due to the availability of more retained earnings to finance their projects. On the contrary, static tradeoff theory suggests that the increasing profitability of the companies result in increased debt due to better debt ratings and low probability of bankruptcy (Yapa Abeywardhana, 2015).  Moreover, agency theory suggests that to safeguard the cash flows of the organizations it is necessary for the managers to obtain more debt which implies that increased profitability leads to higher levels of debt (Musah, 2017). According to trade off theory there is a linear association between leverage and profitability. The companies with more profits tend to take more debt in order to shield from tax due to the availability of higher cash flows (Chavali and Rosario, 2018).

Yapa Abeywardhana (2015) conducted a study to investigate the association between capital structure and profitability of the organization by selecting data from the SMEs operating in UK. The data was collected for the period of 1998 to 2008. The results of two stage least square suggested that there is a significant negative association between capital structure and profitability of the corporations. It is evident from the results of this study that capital structure decisions have a significant impact on the profitability of the companies operating in UK with relatively smaller size. The findings of the research also suggested that SMEs use more equity financing being feared of losing the control. Mahdaleta, Muda and Nasir (2016) led an exploration to investigate the impact of capital structure on profitability of corporations listed on Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period of 2012 to 2014. This study used secondary data or 46 manufacturing companies and the results of multiple linear regressions indicated that there is a substantial impact of debt to equity ratio in impacting the profitability of the firm in terms of return on assets and corporate value. The findings of the study suggested that this significant association is in negative direction.

Musah (2017) examined the impact of capital structure on profitability the capital structure was measured in terms of total debt ratio, long term debt ratio, and short-term debt ratio while profitability was measured in terms of return on equity and return on assets. The data was collected from 23 the commercial banks in Ghana for the period of 2010 to 2015. The results of regression analysis indicated that long term and short-term debt ratios are negatively associated with the profitability while total debt ratio has a positive influence on profitability. The findings of the study suggested that the dependence on short term financing decreases the profitability requiring the banks to shift to other modes of financing. Chavali and Rosario (2018) investigated the impact of capital structure on profitability of the firm operating in the non-financial sector of India. The findings suggested a positive association between capital structure and profitability of the company terms of return on asset, return on equity and interest coverage ratio.

Singh and Bagga (2019) also conducted a study by collecting data from Indian companies for the period of 2008 to 2017 and the findings of their study indicated a significant positive association between capital structure and profitability of the companies. Hajisaaid (2020) Carried research study to examine the association between profitability and capital structure by collecting data from eight companies in the material sector of Saudi Arabia for the period of 2009 to 2018. The results of multiple regression analysis suggested that there is a negative association between short term debt to total asset ratio and profitability. The study also suggested the negative association between long term debt and profitability of the companies while positive association between total debt and profitability was observed. Abdi and Bayu (2021) conducted a study to understand the association between capital structure and profitability of the companies in Ethiopia and the results indicated that capital structure has a positive influence on profitability of the construction firms in Ethiopia.

The above discussion of the existing empirical studies suggested mixed views about the influence of capital structure on profitability some indicated a positive link, others negative and for some researchers these are not associated at all. therefore, following relationship can be proposed:

H2: There is a direct positive sociation between capital structure and profitability.

2.4.3: Relationship of Capital Structure and Firm Size

The size of the firm is one of the critical factors in measuring the performance of corporations (Hirdinis, 2019). There is a positive influence of debt-to-equity ratio on the size of companies i.e. the larger companies are better compared to smaller ones due to flexibility and larger economies of scales which in turn helps them to improve their accounting profit and market return (Setiadharma and Machali, 2017). The big companies are more diversified which have less risk of default and it will also be easier for these companies to access capital markets with lower bankruptcy costs and agency costs.  This positive association between capital structure and firm size is consistent with the tradeoff theory. Pecking order theory suggests that there is low information asymmetry between capital markets and insiders in the firm in case of larger organizations which poses a negative association between debt and firm size (Kurshev and Strebulaev, 2015).

Kurshev and Strebulaev (2015) conducted a research to investigate the relationship between capital structure and firm size and the findings of their study indicated a strong positive association between firm size and capital structure. This suggested the existence of fixed costs of external financing results into infrequent restructuring. Vu, Le and Nguyen (2020) conducted a research by collecting data from Vietnam from 59 construction companies. The results of the research indicated that capital structure in terms of long term debt, total equity ratio negatively influences the firm performance and ultimately negatively impacts the size of the company.

Furthermore, Setiadharma and Machali (2017) conducted a research aimed at understanding the direct and indirect influence of capital structure on firm size and business value. They collected data from 34 real estate and property firms in Indonesia. The findings of the study suggested there is no indirect influence of firm size on the capital structure and firm value. The further suggested that capital structure mediate the association between firm size and asset structure of the company.  Dang et al. (2019) carried out a study by collecting data from 214 companies listed on the stock market of Vietnam. The aim of the study was to understand the association between capital structure decisions and firm size. The result implied that profitability and size of the company are positively associated with the firm value but there is a negative association between capital structure and firm size.

Moreover, Gunardi et al. (2020) carried out a study by collecting data from six European countries to understand the relationship between capital structure and firm size. The findings of the study indicated a positive association between size and capital structure. The findings of the study were consistent with the efficiency risk hypothesis and Agency Cost Theory. Similarly, Fatima and Bashir (2021) also undertaken a study to understand the impact capital structure in impacting firm size by collecting data from the emerging market. The data was collected for the period of 2010 to 2017 and the results of regression analysis indicated that in the textile industry of Pakistan capital structure negatively influences the firm value.

The above discussion of the existing empirical studies suggested mixed views about the relationship of capital structure decisions and firm size, some indicated a positive link, some negative and for others these are not associated at all. Hence, following relationship can be proposed:

H3: There is a direct positive sociation between capital structure and firm size.

2.4.4: Impact of Capital Structure on Risk

Risk is the representation of chances of financial distress associated with capital structure or leverage (D’Amato, 2020). It can be signified that the companies which are at their growth stage can have sufficient internal funds to finance their projects, but it can also be implied that such companies might be at more risk so preferring the less debt. There are research studies which signified a positive association between the capital structure and risk (Vatavu, 2015).

Vatavu (2015) conducted a study to understand association with capital structure and financial performance including the risk. The results of their study indicated that there is a positive association between total debt, total equity, short term and long-term debt and inflation, liquidity, risk, tax and tangibility of the manufacturing firms in Romania. Likewise, Nenu, Vintila and Gherghina (2018) also lead a research study to understand the association between capital structure and its influence on credit risk and corporate performance. They suggested that capital structure is a dynamic procedure which fluctuates overtime and is reliant on the variables that influence the overall economy company or a sector. They further added that capital structure is actually a risk return compromise. They analyzed the data from 2000 to 2016 and their results indicated that leverage is positively associated with the risk in terms of share price volatility.

Furthermore, Li, Niskanen and Niskanen (2019) also conducted a study to understand association between capital structure, firm performance and credit risk by collecting data from SMEs in Austria and their findings suggested that debt ratio is negatively associated with the firm performance but there is no association between capital structure and risk. Roziq et al. (2019) conducted a study aimed at understanding the influence of capital structure on of financing risk and its impact on financial performance by collecting data from the Islamic banks in Indonesia. The data was collected from 11 Islamic banks selected through purposive sampling. The result of a structural equation model suggested that capital structure has a significant impact on the financing risk and it has also a strong influence on the financial performance.

Nguyen and Nguyen (2020) collected data from 488 non-financial companies listed on Vietnam stock market for the period of 2013 to 2018 to understand the influence of capital structure on firm performance in terms of financial risk. The findings of their study suggested that capital structure has a significant negative influence on financial risk and firm performance. Li et al. (2021) also found that capital structure in terms of debt-to-equity ratio is positively associated with firm risk.

Due to the mixed results about the influence of capital structure on firm risk, following relationship can be proposed.

H4: There is a direct positive association between capital structure and firm risk.

2.4.5: Impact of Capital Structure on Tangibility

Most of the studies found in the literature suggest positive correlation between leverage and tangibility. companies can use the assets to get debt (Harc, 2015). The high tangibility decreases the agency cost associated with debt and vice versa. So, the high debt to equity ratio signifies the low tangibility of the assets of an organization.

Mota and Moreira (2017) conducted a study aimed at identification of determinants of capital structure by collecting data from put the Portuguese firms. The results of their study suggested that capital structure policy is directly and significantly associated with tangibility of the assets of the company. Similarly, Moradi and Paulet (2019) led a research study to empirically investigate the factors impacting capital structure decisions of SMEs in India by collecting data from 174 non- financial companies and their findings indicated that tangibility and leverage are positively associated. Furthermore, Rao, Kumar and Madhavan (2019) also conducted a study to understand the impacts of firm specific characteristics on capital structure. The findings of the study indicated that that tax shields, tangibility, size and earning volatility are positively and significantly associated with the leverage. They further added that asset tangibility is positively associated with debt-to-equity ratio and there is a negative association between tangibility and net equity.

Moreover, Sohrabi and Movaghari (2020) conducted a research to understand the determinants of capital structure along with presenting the significance of reliable factors by collecting data from the companies in Iran. Their study suggested that leverage and profitability are two most stable components of book-based leverage and market-based leverage. Additionally, asset tangibility is also one of the most significant components of capital structure. The findings suggested that asset tangibility is positively associated with capital structure. Arif and Mai  (2020) conducted a research by collecting data from the Indonesian Shariah and non Shariah based companies in the manufacturing sector and the results of their study indicated that capital structure has a positive and significant influence on tangibility, size, gross domestic product and profitability of the companies. Likewise, Chandra et al. (2021) led a research study aimed at determining the factors impacting capital structure by collecting data from manufacturing companies of Indonesia for the period of 2010 to 2016. The sample was comprised of 144 companies selected using purposive sampling.

Based on the discussion of existing literature about the impact of capital structure on tangibility following relationship can be proposed.

H5: Capital structures and tangibility are significantly and negatively associated.

2.4.6: Impact of capital structure on Growth

Myers (1977) suggested that the companies with high future growth opportunities use more equity financing. This is due to the reason that higher growth rates require more resources. Most of the research that is found in literature indicated a negative association between leverage and firm growth. Nwude and Anyalechi (2018) performed a study by collecting data from commercial banks to understand influence of capital structure on firm performance in Nigeria. The findings of their study suggested that there is a negative and significant impact of debt financing on firm performance. They further added that capital structure is negatively associated with growth of the firms. Akomeah, Bentil and Musah (2018) also carried out a study to investigate the impact of different dimensions of capital structure on firm performance by collecting data from 20 companies in Ghana. The results of regression analysis suggested that there is an inverse relationship between capital structure variables and firm performance. The results suggested that capital structure negatively influences the firm growth.

Moreover, Ramli, Latan and Solovida (2019) conducted a study by collecting data from Vietnam firms to investigate the relationship between leverage and firm growth. The results of multi group analysis using PLS suggested that capital structure and firm financial performance in terms of growth is significantly and positively associated. Likewise, Jaworski and Czerwonka (2018) also carried out a study to understand the influence of capital structure on the profitability of the company in terms of growth. The results of panel analysis suggested that long term debt and firm profitability in terms of growth are positively associated.  Similarly, Vu, Le and Nguyen (2020) also led a study to understand the factors of capital structure and their influence on performance of the companies by collecting data from the construction companies of Vietnam. The findings of their study suggested that there is no impact of capital structure on growth of the companies.

It is evident from the above discussion there is no consensus about the influence of capital structure on firm growth which requires the further exploration of the relationship to get better insights. Thus, following relationship can be proposed:

H6: There is a direct negative association between capital structure and firm growth.

Moreover, there will be control variables as well such as age of firm, size, rate of growth, and control mechanism. 

2.5: Chapter Conclusion

This chapter provided the critical review of existing literature about the influence of capital structure on firm performance. The review suggested that there is no consensus about the influence of capital structure on firm performance which motivated the researcher to led this research study. This section of the dissertation proposed the relationships between capital structure and different dimensions of firm performance including risk, size, growth, firm value and profitability.

2.6: References

Abdi, M.D. and Bayu, K.B., (2021). The Impact of Capital Structure On Profitability Of Ethiopian Construction Companies: Evidence From Large Tax Pay Organizations. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal25(2), pp.1-28.

Aggarwal, D. and Padhan, P.C., (2017). Impact of capital structure on firm value: Evidence from Indian hospitality industry. Theoretical Economics Letters7(4), pp.982-1000.

Akomeah, E., Bentil, P. and Musah, A., (2018). The Impact of capital structure decisions on firm performance: The case of Listed non-financial institutions in Ghana. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences8(4), pp.1-15.

Alajlani, S.E., (2019). Establishing the Relation Between Market-Based Performance Measure and Accounting Performance Measure, 13(2), pp.12-24.

Arif, I.A.I. and Mai, M.U., (2020). The Determinants of Capital Structure: A Comparative Study between Sharia and Non-Sharia Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX). International Journal of Applied Business Research2(01), pp.73-85.

Ayuba, H., Bambale, A.J.A., Ibrahim, M.A. and Sulaiman, S.A., (2019). Effects of Financial Performance, Capital Structure and Firm Size on Firms’ Value of Insurance Companies in Nigeria. Journal of Finance, Accounting & Management10(1), pp.15-26.

Bhatt, P.R. and Bhatt, R.R., (2017). Corporate governance and firm performance in Malaysia. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society21(1), pp.32-45.

Chandra, T., Junaedi, A.T., Wijaya, E. and Ng, M., (2021). The impact of co-structure of capital, profitability and corporate growth opportunities on stock exchange in Indonesia. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences17(1), pp.61-84.

Chavali, K. and Rosario, S., (2018). Relationship between Capital Structure and Profitability: A Study of Non Banking Finance Companies in India. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal22(1), pp.1-8.

D’Amato, A., (2020). Capital structure, debt maturity, and financial crisis: empirical evidence from SMEs. Small Business Economics55(4), pp.919-941.

Dang, H.N., Vu, V.T.T., Ngo, X.T. and Hoang, H.T.V., (2019). Study the impact of growth, firm size, capital structure, and profitability on enterprise value: Evidence of enterprises in Vietnam. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance30(1), pp.144-160.

Detthamrong, U., Chancharat, N. and Vithessonthi, C., (2017). Corporate governance, capital structure and firm performance: Evidence from Thailand. Research in International Business and Finance42(1), pp.689-709.

Fatima, U. and Bashir, U., (2021). The Moderating Role of Firm Size to Capital Structure-Financial Performance Relationship: A Panel Data Approach. In New Horizons in Management, Leadership and Sustainability (pp. 41-56). Springer, Cham.

Galant, A. and Cadez, S., (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: a review of measurement approaches. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja30(1), pp.676-693.

Gunardi, A., Firmansyah, E.A., Widyaningsih, I.U. and Rossi, M., (2020). Capital Structure Determinants of Construction Firms: Does Firm Size Moderate the Results?. Montenegrin Journal of Economics16(2), pp.93-100.

Hajisaaid, A.M.S.A., (2020). The Effect of Capital Structure on Profitability of Basic Materials Saudi Arabia Firms. Journal of Mathematical Finance10(4), pp.631-647.

Harc, M., (2015). The relationship between tangible assets and capital structure of small and medium-sized companies in Croatia. Ekonomski Vjesnik/Econviews: Review Of Contemporary Business, Entrepreneurship And Economic Issues28(1), pp.213-224.

Hirdinis, M., (2019). Capital structure and firm size on firm value moderated by profitability, 41(1), pp.12-27.

Ishaq, M., Islam, Y. and Ghouse, G., (2021). Tobin’s Q as an Indicator of Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Sector Firms of Pakistan. International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (1), pp.425-441.

Jaworski, J. and Czerwonka, L., (2018). Impact of capital structure on enterprise? S profitability: evidence from Warsaw stock exchange. In Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences (No. 7109137). International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, 2 1(11), pp.26-38.

Kumar, S., Colombage, S. and Rao, P., (2017). Research on capital structure determinants: a review and future directions. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2(1), pp.14-31.

Kurshev, A. and Strebulaev, I.A., (2015). Firm size and capital structure. Quarterly Journal of Finance5(03), p.1550008.

Li, K., Niskanen, J. and Niskanen, M., (2019). Capital structure and firm performance in European SMEs: Does credit risk make a difference?. Managerial Finance13(1), pp.11-29.

Li, X., Chen, K., Yuan, G.X. and Wang, H., (2021). The decision‐making of optimal equity and capital structure based on dynamical risk profiles: A Langevin system framework for SME growth. International Journal of Intelligent Systems51(1), pp.1-13.

Mahdaleta, E., Muda, I. and Nasir, G.M., (2016). Effects of capital structure and profitability on corporate value with company size as the moderating variable of manufacturing companies listed on Indonesia Stock Exchange. Academic Journal of Economic Studies2(3), pp.30-43.

Maneerattanarungrot, C. and Donkwa, K., (2018). Capital structure affecting firm value in Thailand. ABAC Journal38(2), pp.133-146.

Mohammed, Z.O. and Al Ani, M.K., (2020). The Effect of Intangible Assets, Financial Performance and Financial Policies on the Firm Value: Evidence from Omani Industrial Sector. Contemporary Economics14(3), pp.379-392.

Moradi, A. and Paulet, E., (2019). The firm-specific determinants of capital structure–An empirical analysis of firms before and during the Euro Crisis. Research in International Business and Finance47(1), pp.150-161.

Mota, J.H. and Moreira, A.C., (2017). Determinants of the capital structure of Portuguese firms with investments in Angola. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences20(1), pp.1-11.

Musah, A., (2017). The impact of capital structure on profitability of commercial banks in Ghana. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling6(1), pp.21-36.

Myers, S.C., (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics5(2), pp.147-175.

Nenu, E.A., Vintila, G. and Gherghina, Ş.C., 2018. The impact of capital structure on risk and firm performance: Empirical evidence for the Bucharest Stock Exchange listed companies. International Journal of Financial Studies6(2), pp.41-56.

Nguyen, H.T. and Nguyen, A.H., (2020). The impact of capital structure on firm performance: Evidence from Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business7(4), pp.97-105.

Nwude, E.C. and Anyalechi, K.C., (2018). Impact of capital structure on performance of commercial banks in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues8(2), pp.298-315.

Otekunrin, A.O., Nwanji, T.I., Eluyela, D., Olowookere, J.K. and Fagboro, D.G., (2020). Capital structure and profitability: the case of Nigerian deposit money banks. Banks and Bank Systems15(4), pp.221-234.

Putri, I.G.A.P.T. and Rahyuda, H., 2020. Effect of capital structure and sales growth on firm value with profitability as mediation. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences7(1), pp.145-155.

Ramli, N.A., Latan, H. and Solovida, G.T., (2019). Determinants of capital structure and firm financial performance—A PLS-SEM approach: Evidence from Malaysia and Indonesia. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance71(1), pp.148-160.

Rao, P., Kumar, S. and Madhavan, V., (2019). A study on factors driving the capital structure decisions of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in India. IIMB Management Review31(1), pp.37-50.

Roziq, A., Sulistiyo, A.B., Hisamuddin, N. and Mawardi, A.A.K., (2019). Intermediary Function, Capital Structure, Risk and Financial, Performance of Islamic Bank in Indonesia, 21(4), pp.14-29.

Sardo, F. and Serrasqueiro, Z., (2017). Does dynamic trade-off theory explain Portuguese SME capital structure decisions?. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development16(11), pp.18-31.

Setiadharma, S. and Machali, M., (2017). The effect of asset structure and firm size on firm value with capital structure as intervening variable. Journal of Business & Financial Affairs6(4), pp.1-5.

Suhaila, M.K. and Wan Mahmood, W.M., (2008). Capital structure and firm characteristics: Some evidence from Malaysian companies, 24(5), pp.22-35.

Singh, N.P. and Bagga, M., (2019). The effect of capital structure on profitability: An empirical panel data study. Jindal Journal of Business Research8(1), pp.65-77.

Sohrabi, N. and Movaghari, H., (2020). Reliable factors of Capital structure: Stability selection approach. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance77(1), pp.296-310.

Taouab, O. and Issor, Z., (2019). Firm performance: Definition and measurement models. European Scientific Journal15(1), pp.93-106.

Vatavu, S., (2015). The impact of capital structure on financial performance in Romanian listed companies. Procedia Economics and Finance32(1), pp.1314-1322.

Vo, X.V. and Ellis, C., (2017). An empirical investigation of capital structure and firm value in Vietnam. Finance Research Letters22(1), pp.90-94.

Vu, T., Le, T. and Nguyen, T., (2020). The impact of capital structure on the performance of construction companies: A study from Vietnam stock exchanges. Accounting6(2), pp.169-176.

Weston, J. F., and Brigham, E. F. (1979). Managerial finance. Capital structure and corporate performance: Evidence from Jordan. The Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 1(4), pp.40–61.

Yapa Abeywardhana, D., (2015). Capital structure and profitability: An empirical analysis of SMEs in the UK. Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)4(2), pp.1661-1675.

Zhao, H., Teng, H. and Wu, Q., (2018). The effect of corporate culture on firm performance: Evidence from China. China Journal of Accounting Research11(1), pp.1-11

More from the blog

This question paper consists of 2 printed pages, each is identified by the Code Number LUBS2405  © UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS (Semester 2, 2020/2021)   Assessed...

MGT5173,MGT5293,MGT5292,MGT5291

Nilay BalkanMGT5173,MGT5293,MGT5292,MGT5291DCoursework Briefing 2020/21(individual, written)Coursework information Course CodeMGT5173,MGT5293,MGT5292,MGT5291Course TitleMarketing ManagementCourse CoordinatorNilay BalkanCoursework formatWritten assignment, including essayWeighting60%Word limitCourse Coordinator to populate2,500 words (+/- 10%) Refer to...

Managing Information and Knowledge Strategically

Nottingham Business School EXAMINATION PAPER(UNDERGRADUATE ONLINE OPEN BOOK)Module Name: Managing Information and Knowledge StrategicallyModule Code: BUSI30508Examination Period: Half Year 2Time: Start time: 10:00 a.m....

Managing People Module Handbook – Term 2 Module Code: 20/21-BS2542, 2567, 2583 2020-2021 Assessment Details The Managing People module is assessed as follow: term 1 (40%), term 2 (60%)....