文档介绍：本科毕业论文(设计)
外文翻译
原文:
Capital Structure and Debt Structure
In this study, we provide a number of new insights into capital structure decisions by recognizing that firms simultaneously use different types, sources, and priorities of debt. These insights are based on a novel data set that records the type, source, and priority of every balance sheet debt instrument for a large sample of rated public firms. The data are collected directly from financial footnotes in firms’ annual 10-K filings and supplemented with information on pricing and covenants from three origination based datasets: Reuters LPC’s Dealscan, Mergent’s Fixed e Securities Database, and Thomson’s SDC Platinum. To our knowledge, this data set is one of the prehensive sources of information on the debt structure of a sample of public firms: It contains the position of the stock of corporate debt on the balance sheet, which goes far beyond what is available from origination-based datasets alone.
We begin by showing the importance of recognizing debt heterogeneity in capital structure studies. We classify debt into bank debt, straight bond debt, convertible bond debt, program debt (such mercial paper), mortgage debt, and all other debt. For almost 70% of firm-year observations in our sample, balance sheet prises significant amounts of at least two of these types. Even more striking is the fact that 25% of the observations in our sample experience no significant one-year change in their total debt but significantly adjust the position of their debt. Studies that treat corporate debt as uniform have ignored this heterogeneity, presumably in the interest of building more tractable theory models or due to a previous lack of data.
In this section, we motivate our empirical analysis of the relation between debt structure and credit quality by examining hypotheses from the theoretical literature on position and priority.
The first group of theories hypothesizes that firms should move from bank debt to non-b