자본조달순서이론과 상충이론 간의 검정력 비교

In this paper, we compare empirically the testing power between pecking order theory and tradeoff theory of firms listed on Korea Exchange. Because the pecking order theory is a potential competitor to the tradeoff theory, it is necessary to compare the relative testing powers between the two theories. Sample firms are classified into the high debt capacity firms and the low debt capacity ones, and the small and medium firms and the large ones, and they are also classified into the Chaebol firms. The main results of this study can be summarized as follows. If the pecking order theory variables such as the financing deficit and the square of the financing deficit are the key drivers, they should wipe out the effects of tradeoff theory variables such as tangibility, profitability, market-to-book assets ratio, and firm size. But it does not do so. Adding the pecking order variables to the tradeoff theory variables does not have much effects on the magnitudes and significances of the coefficients on the tradeoff theory variables. In the nested model that includes the pecking order variables and the tradeoff theory variables, the financing deficit and the square of the financing deficit add a small amount of extra explanatory power, but they do not change the role of the tradeoff theory variables. Hence, the informations in the financing deficit and the square of the financing deficit appear to be factored in along with many other tradeoff theory variables that firms take into account. This is true across debt capacity, firm size, and Chaebol firms. If the financing deficit and the square of the financing deficit are simply a few part among many other tradeoff theory variables, then what is left is a generalized version of the tradeoff theory.