The Capital Structure Implications of Pursuing a Strategy of Product Differentiation

學者Chandler(1962)認為公司不同的競爭策略應有不同的投資決策，而不同的投資決策會影響以債權或權益的資金籌措方式(Williamson,1988)，若為如此，公司間選擇不同的資本結構乃是為了最佳化公司策略之決定。本研究焦點在於探究公司以差異化為競爭策略下，如何影響其資本結構。 本研究假定較低財務槓桿對以差異化為競爭策略的公司而言，是相當重要優先的策略。因低財務槓桿可幫助這些公司持續且不間斷的投資於研發或品牌經營；而當研發出新產品時，較充足之自有資金可立即給予該公司所需資金供其上市。此可衍生出公司的資本結構應符合其競爭策略，即公司策略愈強調差異化，其財務槓桿比率愈低，若非如此，本研究預期策略與資本結構未相配合的公司，其績效會有懲罰性影響，即其績效相較其競爭者為差。 本研究有關公司績效的衡量指標有二：其一乃以稅前、息前常續性盈餘所計算的資產報酬率(ROA)之會計數字評估經營績效；其二則以市價帳面價值比(M:B)評估市場對公司價值之評價。 本研究實證結果如下： 一、差異化策略與資本結構之關係：(1)對著重於產品面差異化之公司，產品愈差異化，其財務槓桿比率愈低；(2)對著重於大規模投資製程差異化之公司，製程或資本投資愈差異化，其財務槓桿比率愈高。 二、策略與資本結構不相配適對績效之影響：(1)就會計數字所表達之經營績效(ROA)而言，不論是產品差異化或製程差異化之公司，當其維持較高的財務槓桿對績效(ROA)會有負影響，亦即策略與資本結構不相配合會使績效有負向影響；(2)就市場對於公司價值(M:B)之評價而言，策略與資本結構不相配合對評價無顯著影響。 本研究發現公司資本結構不僅只是考慮外部產業環境、法令規章、與產品市場等因素的結果，公司資本結構亦必須與公司策略與競爭基礎相配合，這顯示資本結構不能再以外生變數或無關於公司策略的地位視之，管理階層應體認不適宜的資本結構可能影響策略有效性，進而降低公司競爭能力，最終將危害公司整體績效表現。The relationship between the capital structure choice and the competitive capabilities of firms has gained more and more importance in recent years as the fierce global competition. There are competing and sometimes dichotomous theories of what constitutes appropriate financing choice. The purpose of this study is to offer theoretical rationale and empirical assessment for an argument that decision concerning the choice of capital structure need to be linked with a firm’s competitive strategy, more specifically to differentiation strategy. An argument based in insights from organizational economics and strategic management is developed which suggests that a firm’s capital structure is an organizational element which must be aligned with the competitive strategy and the alignment has performance implications. The research findings are as follows: I. It indicates that firms which concentrate more on product uniqueness competition, relative to industry peers, induce firms to maintain lower leverage. While firms relatively emphasize on capital intensity differentiation tend to maintain higher leverage. II. For firms pursuing a differentiation strategy, whether in the dimension of product uniqueness or capital intensity, they should maintain a low debt level, or otherwise, a significant performance penalty on its Return on Assets (ROA) will incur. While using Market-to-Book Ratio (M:B) as a performance variable, there is no significant interaction between product competitive strategy and capital structure. The results of this study have not only theoretical but also practical implication. My findings indicate that capital structure is not just only affected by industry, regulatory and markets exogenous factors, but also determined by a firm’s strategy and its basis to compete within an industry. This implies that capital structure cannot be regard as an irrelevant thing to strategy. Managers who fail to align their firms’ capital structure may hamper the effectiveness of strategies and may suffer significant performance consequence.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Foreword 1 1.2 Issue Concerned 2 1.3 Organization of the Thesis 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEWS & HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT 6 2.1 Literature Reviews 6 2.1.1 Product Strategy 6 2.1.2 Agency Theory 8 2.1.3 Transaction Cost Economics 9 2.1.4 Strategic Management and Financial Management 11 2.2 Hypothesis Development 12 2.1.1 Leverage Model 12 2.1.2 Long-term Leverage Model 14 2.1.3 Short-term Leverage Model 15 2.1.4 Performance Model 15 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS 17 3.1 Sample Selection 17 3.1.1 Data Source 17 3.1.2 Sample Selection Criterion 17 3.2 Dependent Variable Definition 18 3.2.1 Measures of Capital Structure 18 3.2.2 Measures of Performance 19 3.3 Independent Variable Definition 21 3.3.1 Measures of Corporate Strategy 21 3.3.2 Measures of Misalignment of Strategy and Capital Structure 25 3.4 Control Variable Definition 25 3.4.1 Measures of Size (Size) 25 3.4.2 Measures of Profitability (Profit) 26 3.4.3 Measures of Growth Opportunity (Growth) 26 3.4.4 Measures of Growth Risk (Risk) 27 3.5 Analysis Method 27 3.5.1 Control of Fixed-Effects (Dummy) 27 3.5.2 Specifying Proper Lag Structure 28 3.5.3 Empirical Regression Model 29 3.6 Data Description 30 CHAPTER 4 EMPIRICAL RESULTS 32 4.1 Leverage Models 32 4.2 Long-term Leverage Models 33 4.3 Short-term Leverage Models 33 4.4 Performance Model 36 4.5 Robust Checks 38 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 41 5.1 Conclusion and Discussion 41 5.2 Limitations of Research 42 5.3 Future Research Direction 42 Reference