Abstract:Since the formulation of the Miller and Modigliani propositions over 60 years ago, financial economists have been debating whether there is such a thing as an optimal capital structure—a proportion of debt to equity that can be expected to maximize long‐run shareholder value. Some finance scholars have followed M&M in arguing that both capital structure and dividend policy are irrelevant in the sense of having no significant, predictable effects on corporate market values. Another school of thought holds that corporate financing choices reflect an attempt by corporate managers to balance the tax shields and disciplinary benefits of more debt against the costs of financial distress. Still another theory says that companies do not have capital structure targets, but instead follow a financial pecking order in which retained earnings are generally preferred to outside financing, and debt is preferred to equity when outside funding is required. In reviewing the evidence that has accumulated since M&M, the authors argue that taxes, bankruptcy and other contracting costs, and information costs all appear to play important roles in corporate financing decisions. While much, if not most, of the evidence is consistent with the idea that companies set target leverage ratios, there is also considerable support for the pecking order theory's contention that managements are willing to deviate widely from their targets for long periods of time. According to the authors, the key to reconciling the different theories—and thus to solving the capital structure puzzle—lies in achieving a better understanding of the relation between corporate financing stocks (that is, total amounts of debt and equity) and flows (which security to issue at a particular time). Even when companies have leverage targets, it can make sense to deviate from those targets depending on the costs associated with moving back toward the target. And as the authors argue in closing, a complete theory of capital structure must take account of these adjustment costs and how they affect expected deviations from the targets.

Do Tests of Capital Structure Theory Mean What They Say?

Testing static and dynamic leverage models: A standardized leverage measure approach

Corporate Investment and Financing Dynamics

Endogenous Bankruptcy, Endogenous Restructuring, and Dynamic Capital Structure

The Theory of Capital Structure

Horses and Rabbits? Trade-Off Theory and Optimal Capital Structure

Capital structure theory and new technology firms: is there a match?

An Empirical Test on Two Main Hypotheses of Capital Structure

The Capital Structure Puzzle: Another Look at the Evidence

Capital Structure and Speed of Adjustment in U.S. Firms. A Comparative Study in Microeconomic and Macroeconomic Conditions - A Quantille Regression Approach

Horses and Rabbits? Optimal Dynamic Capital Structure from Shareholder and Manager Perspectives

An Empirical Investigation of Dynamic Trade-off Theory: Evidence from Sri Lankan non Financial Firms

Equity Financing Regulation and Corporate Capital Structure:A Model and the Simulation

An Ebit-Based Model of Dynamic Capital Structure

A Re-Examination of the Capital Structure Theory: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

Firm Profitability, Inventory Volatility, and Capital Structure

Dynamic Capital Structure Adjustment: An Integrated Analysis of Firm-Specific and Macroeconomic Factors in Korean Firms

Do Firms have Target Leverage Ratios? Evidence from Historical Market-To-Book and Past Returns

Does companies' financial flexibility drive their leverage dynamics? New evidence

Corporate Capital Structure Actions

The Influence of Capital Structure on Product Market Competition:A Theoretical Review