## 1. Why Do Firms Issue Debt, and When Does It Become a Problem?

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1. Why Do Firms Issue Debt, and When Does It Become a Problem?](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/_wp03214.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/_wp03214.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/_wp03214.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction — context and headline findings
- Aggregate economic growth in Thailand resumed in 1999 and showed particular strength in 2002, but prospects for sustained high growth remain uncertain due in part to unfinished corporate restructuring and a still-high burden of distressed assets "on the order of 35 percent of GDP".
- Main findings:
  - Econometric analysis of Thai data suggests high levels of debt were correlated with poor performance; as leverage increased progressively in the 1990s with debt-financed growth, the rate of return on investment systematically declined.
  - Debt levels, though high, have fallen from post-crisis peaks, while returns and corporation cash flows have stabilized. Profitability and liquidity picked up in 2002 in line with the stronger economy. Interest coverage ratios also improved.
  - The aggregate picture masks significant firm-level variation: half of the firms (mostly small companies) have reduced their debt ratios to below pre-crisis levels; a small number of highly indebted large firms account for a disproportionate share of total listed company liabilities; a significant subset of smaller firms remains highly leveraged.

### II. Background — pattern of borrowing, buildup, and crisis transmission
- Listed companies on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) are used as a proxy for the broader corporate sector; listed companies account for "around 28 percent of domestic private borrowing".
- Investment by firms grew "at an average of about 30 percent per annum" during the early 1990s investment boom (1992–96).
- Leverage dynamics and foreign-currency exposure:
  - Leverage ratio rose from "71 percent at end-1992" to "155 percent by end-1996".
  - About "30 percent of corporate debt was foreign currency denominated at end-1996".
  - The share of foreign-currency debt "jumped to over 40 percent by end-1997", but "has since declined to below 17 percent as of 2002".
- Crisis transmission:
  - The doubling of the baht-dollar exchange rate during 1997 substantially increased the cost of servicing unhedged foreign-currency debt and, together with temporally high interest rates, increased debt service on local-currency liabilities.
  - Leverage shot up and interest coverage ratios for many companies dropped to levels that ultimately drove a large increase in nonperforming loans (NPLs) in the banking system.
- Policy and institutional response:
  - Initial approach favored private sector-led corporate restructuring; legal reforms included a new bankruptcy law and procedures to expedite foreclosure.
  - The voluntary Corporate Debt Restructuring Advisory Committee (CDRAC) process was established; at its peak CDRAC was advising on deals worth "almost 50 percent of GDP".
  - The Thai Asset Management Corporation (TAMC) was established in 2001; TAMC has taken over most of the nonperforming loans from the state-owned banks and some from private banks and was granted special powers to speed up asset resolution.

### III. The problem with leverage — governance, fragility, and measurement
- Governance and agency costs:
  - High leverage can reflect poor corporate governance; insiders (often founding families) exerted control and preferred growth via debt rather than equity, avoiding dilution of ownership and deprioritizing immediate return on investment.
- Financial fragility and debt structure:
  - Level, maturity, and repricing structure of debt are critical determinants of bankruptcy risk and credit-worthiness.
  - Selected Standard and Poor's Required Financial Ratios (three-year medians, 1994–96):
    - Interest coverage ratio (percent): AAAAA 20.3, AAAA 14.9, A 8.5, BBB 6.0, BB 3.6, B 2.3
    - Long-term debt/capital (percent): AAAAA 13.4, AAAA 21.9, A 32.7, BBB 43.4, BB 53.9, B 65.9
    - Total debt/capital (percent): AAAAA 23.6, AAAA 29.7, A 38.7, BBB 46.8, BB 55.8, B 68.9
- Empirical evidence for Thailand:
  - Returns on investment were declining already before the crisis while corporate liquidity was also coming under pressure.
  - Interest coverage ratio defined as "earnings before interest and taxes divided by total interest expenses"; a firm with a coverage ratio less than "1 is unable to fully service all its debts."

### IV. Firm-level heterogeneity and aggregate indicators
- Cross-firm heterogeneity:
  - Half of the listed firms have reduced debt ratios to below pre-crisis levels (mostly small companies).
  - A small number of large, highly indebted firms account for a disproportionate share of total listed company liabilities.
  - A notable subset of smaller firms remains highly leveraged despite aggregate improvements.
- Key aggregate and distributional observations:
  - Leverage, interest coverage, returns, and distressed assets experienced sharp swings through the crisis with partial stabilization by 2002.
  - The burden of distressed assets in the financial sector remains sizable "on the order of 35 percent of GDP".

### V. Policy implications and remaining challenges
- Corporate restructuring remains incomplete; the high stock of distressed assets and firm-level pockets of high leverage imply ongoing vulnerabilities to economic volatility.
- Effective restructuring priorities:
  - Continued resolution of large, highly indebted firms that account for a disproportionate share of liabilities.
  - Strengthening corporate governance to reduce incentive to rely on debt-financed growth that sidelines return on investment.
  - Managing currency mismatch and hedging to limit exposure to exchange-rate shocks.
  - Stronger bank supervision and timely asset resolution mechanisms (legal frameworks, asset management companies with special powers).
- Institutional mechanisms in place:
  - CDRAC facilitated voluntary restructurings and collective negotiations.
  - TAMC provided centralized asset management and has been used to remove NPLs from bank balance sheets to accelerate resolution.

### BOX 1 — Theoretical motivations, Thailand evidence, and stylized facts
- Theoretical motivations and mechanisms:
  - Capital-structure literature emphasizes agency costs, asymmetric information, and risk management (Modigliani and Miller (1958); Jensen and Meckling (1976); Myers (1977); Myers and Majluf (1984); Ross (1977); Harris and Raviv (1990)).
  - Agency-cost implications: firms with high growth opportunities would issue less debt; firms with more tangible assets can support more debt but are more likely to default.
  - Foreign-currency borrowing reduces interest costs but creates exchange-rate exposure.
- Other determinants and governance:
  - Diversification, ownership concentration, and corporate governance affect performance; concentrated ownership can improve control but enable expropriation by majority shareholders.
  - Solutions: investor protection mechanisms, minority shareholder rights, legal and regulatory frameworks, disclosure standards.
- Thailand-specific stylized facts:
  - Panel regressions (controlling for size) indicate higher debt to asset ratio is associated with lower returns (gross and net ROA); higher input costs reduce performance; larger market share and higher liquidity strengthen performance.
  - Many family-owned conglomerates financed rapid sales growth with bank loans while founder equity contributions remained small.
  - High proportion of unhedged foreign currency borrowing exposed firms to exchange-rate movements and contributed to crisis vulnerability.
- Key corporate-sector statistics and distributions:
  - At end-2002, 4 percent of firms account for almost 57 percent of liabilities and 53 percent of sales.
  - Firms with negative (book value) equity account for almost 14 percent of total liabilities, but only 2 percent of sales.
  - Around 11 percent of listed firms are basically insolvent (most in SET rehabilitation status).
  - A full 25 percent of listed firms still face debt servicing difficulties (interest coverage < 1).
  - CDRAC: completion rate of over 50 percent, leaving troubled debt worth about 22 percent of GDP to be dealt with in the court system.
  - TAMC portfolio: took on B 733 billion in book value; B 535 billion resolved (10 percent of GDP) as of early 2003.
  - TAMC resolution methods: debt restructuring accounted for 43 percent of total book value processed; foreclosure/final receivership accounted for 47 percent.
  - Average debt reduction is approximately 33 percent of the book value; expected recovery rate is around 46 percent.
  - Restructuring modalities: payment deadlines extended for 51 percent of restructured cases; 26 percent involved lowering principal and interest payments or sales/transfer of assets; 17 percent involved turning debt into capital or debentures; 6 percent involved capital increases.
  - Total new equity raised since the crisis by firms reporting to the SEC amounts to about $15½ billion, some 42 percent of average market capitalization.
  - Approximately $10 billion of that new equity has been raised by private commercial banks.
  - Value of mergers approved by the SEC since the crisis has amounted to just above 2 percent of market capitalization.
  - Total listed companies fell from 454 (Jan. 97) to 391 (Apr. 03): Change -63; notable sector exits include Finance and securities down 25, Property development down 15.
  - Distributional patterns: leverage distributions shifted right during the crisis and have since shifted back with modes lower than pre-crisis; fatter tails indicate increased dispersion and more highly leveraged firms. Returns on assets distribution shifted left during the crisis with a fattening negative tail; recovered mode similar to pre-crisis but negative tail remains fatter.

### Econometric evidence — specification and selected coefficients
- Regression specification (Annex I):
  - Return on assets = α + β1 * log(sales) + β2 * debt/assets + β3 * short-term liabilities/total liabilities + β4 * firm’s market share + β5 * current ratio + β6 * cost of goods sold/sales + β7 * ownership concentration.
  - Data: over 350 companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, quarterly from 1992Q1 to 2002Q2; dependent variables: gross ROA (EBIT/total assets) and net ROA (net income/total assets).
- Main empirical findings:
  - Returns are negatively associated with measures of debt and input costs, and positively associated with liquidity measures and market power.
  - Ownership concentration was not found to be significant.
  - Fixed effects specification favored over random effects (Hausman tests reported with p-values 0.00).
- Selected coefficient estimates (Table A-1, Fixed-Effect Panel Model Results):
  - (1) Dependent variable Net ROA:
    - Log(sales): 0.007 (3.16)
    - Debt/assets: -0.026 (-17.05)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: -0.017 (-2.27)
    - Market share: 0.114 (4.6)
    - Current ratio: 0.002 (2.35)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-4.01)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.04
  - (2) Dependent variable Net ROA (with time effects and corrections):
    - Log(sales): 0.006 (3.68)
    - Debt/assets: -0.03 (-3.25)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: 0.0001 (0.02)
    - Market share: -0.0002 (-0.02)
    - Current ratio: 0.002 (2.29)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.005 (-3.05)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.05
  - (3) Dependent variable Gross ROA:
    - Log(sales): 0.014 (8.09)
    - Debt/assets: -0.012 (-10.38)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: 0.016 (2.88)
    - Market share: 0.094 (4.90)
    - Current ratio: 0.0007 (1.35)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.003 (-3.88)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.03
  - (4) Dependent variable Gross ROA (alternative corrections):
    - Log(sales): 0.008 (5.81)
    - Debt/assets: -0.018 (-1.98)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: 0.018 (3.43)
    - Market share: -0.002 (-0.20)
    - Current ratio: 0.001 (1.87)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.005 (-2.79)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.04
- Selected coefficient estimates (Table A-2, smaller subset; quick ratio used):
  - (1) Dependent variable Net ROA:
    - Log(sales): -0.003 (-1.63)
    - Debt/assets: -0.067 (-33.45)
    - Market share: 0.092 (4.08)
    - Quick ratio: 0.002 (2.54)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-4.46)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.11
  - (2) Dependent variable Net ROA (alternative):
    - Log(sales): 0.004 (3.1)
    - Debt/assets: -0.064 (-9.53)
    - Market share: -0.0007 (-0.08)
    - Quick ratio: 0.001 (0.92)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-2.81)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.12
  - (3) Dependent variable Gross ROA:
    - Log(sales): 0.004 (2.9)
    - Debt/assets: -0.05 (-36.35)
    - Market share: 0.078 (4.99)
    - Quick ratio: 0.0004 (0.72)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.003 (-4.76)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.145
  - (4) Dependent variable Gross ROA (alternative):
    - Log(sales): 0.006 (6.47)
    - Debt/assets: -0.051 (-9.80)
    - Market share: -0.003 (-0.39)
    - Quick ratio: -0.00007 (-0.39)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-2.43)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.15

### Policy-relevant implications and conclusions
- Debt levels and corporate fragility:
  - High leverage and weak governance exacerbate the contractionary impact of currency crises and hamper new investment.
  - A substantial subset of firms remains highly leveraged; a targeted debt-restructuring strategy could have large payoffs given many smaller firms have recovered while a few large firms retain most liabilities.
- Observations on restructuring:
  - Much restructuring has involved rescheduling rather than principal reduction; slow foreclosure and adversarial bankruptcy proceedings have limited conversion of debt into equity.
  - Sustainability of past restructuring (e.g., CDRAC) remains uncertain; re-entry of previously restructured NPLs is a concern.
- Recommended institutional focus:
  - Market-based processes and an institutional framework to facilitate price discovery of assets and efficient sharing of restructuring costs (losses at banks, ownership changes, exits from real sector) are essential to resolve remaining debt overhang and excess capacity.
- Vulnerabilities going forward:
  - Many firms remain vulnerable to demand slowdowns, higher interest rates, and exchange rate weakening, with adverse implications for macroeconomic and financial stability.

*Source: _wp03214 - 1. Why Do Firms Issue Debt, and When Does It Become a Problem? (IMF working paper excerpt provided).*

### 1. Why Do Firms Issue Debt, and When Does It Become a Problem?............................. 8

### 1. Why Do Firms Issue Debt, and When Does It Become a Problem?

### I. Introduction — context and headline findings
- Aggregate economic growth in Thailand resumed in 1999 and showed particular strength in 2002, but prospects for sustained high growth remain uncertain due in part to unfinished corporate restructuring and a still-high burden of distressed assets "on the order of 35 percent of GDP".
- Main findings:
  - Econometric analysis of Thai data suggests high levels of debt were correlated with poor performance; as leverage increased progressively in the 1990s with debt-financed growth, the rate of return on investment systematically declined.
  - Debt levels, though high, have fallen from post-crisis peaks, while returns and corporation cash flows have stabilized. Profitability and liquidity picked up in 2002 in line with the stronger economy. Interest coverage ratios also improved.
  - The aggregate picture masks significant firm-level variation: half of the firms (mostly small companies) have reduced their debt ratios to below pre-crisis levels; a small number of highly indebted large firms account for a disproportionate share of total listed company liabilities; a significant subset of smaller firms remains highly leveraged.

### II. Background — pattern of borrowing, buildup, and crisis transmission
- Listed companies on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) are used as a proxy for the broader corporate sector; listed companies account for "around 28 percent of domestic private borrowing".
- Investment by firms grew "at an average of about 30 percent per annum" during the early 1990s investment boom (1992–96).
- Leverage dynamics and foreign-currency exposure:
  - Leverage ratio rose from "71 percent at end-1992" to "155 percent by end-1996".
  - About "30 percent of corporate debt was foreign currency denominated at end-1996".
  - The share of foreign-currency debt "jumped to over 40 percent by end-1997" reflecting the devaluation, but "has since declined to below 17 percent as of 2002".
- Transmission mechanism in the crisis:
  - The doubling of the baht-dollar exchange rate during 1997 substantially increased the cost of servicing unhedged foreign-currency debt and, together with temporally high interest rates, increased debt service on local-currency liabilities.
  - Leverage shot up and interest coverage ratios for many companies dropped to levels that ultimately drove a large increase in nonperforming loans (NPLs) in the banking system.
- Policy and institutional response:
  - Initial approach favored private sector-led corporate restructuring; legal reforms included a new bankruptcy law and procedures to expedite foreclosure.
  - The voluntary Corporate Debt Restructuring Advisory Committee (CDRAC) process was established; at its peak CDRAC was advising on deals worth "almost 50 percent of GDP".
  - The Thai Asset Management Corporation (TAMC) was established in 2001; TAMC has taken over most of the nonperforming loans from the state-owned banks and some from private banks and was granted special powers to speed up asset resolution.

### III. The problem with leverage — governance, fragility, and measurement
- Governance and agency costs:
  - High leverage can reflect poor corporate governance; insiders (often founding families) exerted control and preferred growth via debt rather than equity, avoiding dilution of ownership and deprioritizing immediate return on investment.
- Financial fragility and debt structure:
  - Theoretical literature and credit-risk practice emphasize the level, maturity, and repricing structure of debt as critical determinants of bankruptcy risk and credit-worthiness.
  - Ratings agencies apply standard financial ratio criteria; Table 1 (Standard and Poor's Required Financial Ratios) provides illustrative ratio thresholds by rating level (ratios calculated as three-year medians, 1994–96). Selected ratios from Table 1:
    - Interest coverage ratio (percent): AAAAA 20.3, AAAA 14.9, A 8.5, BBB 6.0, BB 3.6, B 2.3
    - Long-term debt/capital (percent): AAAAA 13.4, AAAA 21.9, A 32.7, BBB 43.4, BB 53.9, B 65.9
    - Total debt/capital (percent): AAAAA 23.6, AAAA 29.7, A 38.7, BBB 46.8, BB 55.8, B 68.9
- Empirical evidence for Thailand:
  - Returns on investment were declining already before the crisis while corporate liquidity was also coming under pressure (Figures show declines in return on assets and interest coverage ratios in 1992–96).
  - Interest coverage ratio definition: "earnings before interest and taxes divided by total interest expenses"; a firm with a coverage ratio less than "1 is unable to fully service all its debts."

### IV. Firm-level heterogeneity and aggregate indicators
- Aggregate averages conceal substantial cross-firm heterogeneity:
  - Half of the listed firms have reduced debt ratios to below pre-crisis levels (mostly small companies).
  - A small number of large, highly indebted firms account for a disproportionate share of total listed company liabilities.
  - A notable subset of smaller firms remains highly leveraged despite aggregate improvements.
- Observed macro-financial indicators and trends (as reported in figures and text):
  - Leverage, interest coverage, returns, and distressed assets experienced sharp swings through the crisis with partial stabilization by 2002.
  - The burden of distressed assets in the financial sector remains sizable "on the order of 35 percent of GDP".

### V. Policy implications and remaining challenges
- Corporate restructuring remains incomplete; the high stock of distressed assets and firm-level pockets of high leverage imply ongoing vulnerabilities to economic volatility.
- Effective restructuring requires:
  - Continued resolution of large, highly indebted firms that account for a disproportionate share of liabilities.
  - Strengthening corporate governance to reduce incentive to rely on debt-financed growth that sidelines return on investment.
  - Managing currency mismatch and hedging to limit exposure to exchange-rate shocks.
  - Stronger bank supervision and timely asset resolution mechanisms (legal frameworks, asset management companies with special powers).
- Institutional mechanisms in place:
  - CDRAC facilitated voluntary restructurings and collective negotiations.
  - TAMC provided centralized asset management and has been used to remove NPLs from bank balance sheets to accelerate resolution.

*Source: _wp03214 - 1. Why Do Firms Issue Debt, and When Does It Become a Problem? (IMF working paper excerpt provided).*

### BOX 1. WHY DO FIRMS ISSUE DEBT, AND WHEN DOES IT BECOME A PROBLEM?

### BOX 1. WHY DO FIRMS ISSUE DEBT, AND WHEN DOES IT BECOME A PROBLEM?

### Theoretical motivations and mechanisms
- Capital-structure literature builds on Modigliani and Miller (1958) and emphasizes agency costs, asymmetric information, and risk management as main strands.
- Agency costs:
  - Manager–shareholder conflict suggests issuing debt can align managers with shareholders (Jensen and Meckling (1976)).
  - Agency costs of debt create conflict between debt-holders and equity-holders, producing the underinvestment problem and debt overhang (Myers (1977)).
  - Implications: firms with high growth opportunities would issue less debt, firms with well-established cash flow would have higher debt (Jensen (1986)). Firms with more tangible assets can support more debt and have higher market value, but would be more likely to default (Harris and Raviv (1990)).
- Asymmetric information:
  - Managers know private information; debt can be a signaling device (Ross (1977)).
  - Pecking-order theory (Myers and Majluf (1984)): firms prefer retained earnings, then debt, then equity; implies a negative relationship between debt and firm value.
- Risk management and debt structure:
  - Maturity structure choices can mitigate agency problems (short-term debt can reduce underinvestment by giving creditors control at short intervals (Myers (1977))).
  - Signaling hypotheses imply high-quality firms will issue more short-term debt.
  - Literature largely silent on currency composition; foreign-currency borrowing can reduce interest costs but create exchange-rate exposure (noted as a key factor in some Asian crisis countries).

### Other firm-level determinants and governance
- Diversification, ownership concentration, and corporate governance affect performance:
  - Diversification can help or harm depending on context.
  - Concentrated ownership can improve control but enable expropriation by majority shareholders (Grossman and Hart (1988)).
  - Solutions include investor protection mechanisms, minority shareholder rights, legal and regulatory frameworks, and disclosure standards.
- Empirical patterns cited:
  - Leverage often enters regressions and estimated coefficients on leverage are consistently negative (studies referenced).
  - Allayanis and others (2001) find level of debt, but not currency composition, is inversely correlated with performance.

### Thailand: empirical evidence and stylized facts
- Panel regression results (Annex I) — controlling for size — indicate the following factors influence listed firms’ performance in Thailand:
  - A higher debt to asset ratio is associated with lower returns (both gross and net returns on assets).
  - Higher input costs adversely affect firm performance.
  - Larger market share and higher liquidity are associated with stronger performance.
- Interpretation:
  - Progressive leverage increase in the 1990s accompanied a systematic decline in rate of return on investment among Thai corporates.
  - Many family-owned conglomerates financed rapid sales growth with bank loans while founder equity contributions remained small.
  - High proportion of unhedged foreign currency borrowing exposed firms to exchange-rate movements and contributed to crisis vulnerability.
  - If debt levels are not reduced, debt overhang and underinvestment problems will persist with macroeconomic implications.

### Key Thailand corporate-sector statistics and distributions
- Aggregate vs median dynamics:
  - More than half of firms (mostly smaller firms) reduced debt ratios to below pre-crisis levels; aggregate figures mask a substantial subset of still highly leveraged firms.
  - At end-2002, 4 percent of firms account for almost 57 percent of liabilities and 53 percent of sales (Table 2, columns for high debt firms).
  - Firms with negative (book value) equity account for almost 14 percent of total liabilities, but only 2 percent of sales.
  - Around 11 percent of listed firms are basically insolvent (most in SET rehabilitation status).
- Distress and coverage metrics:
  - A full 25 percent of listed firms still face debt servicing difficulties (interest coverage < 1).
  - Figure 16 observation: liabilities with coverage < 1x remain high and above the NPL ratio; distressed assets and headline NPLs shown historically (figures not reproduced here).
- Debt restructuring and resolution:
  - CDRAC: completion rate of over 50 percent, leaving troubled debt worth about 22 percent of GDP to be dealt with in the court system.
  - TAMC portfolio: took on B 733 billion in book value; B 535 billion resolved (10 percent of GDP) as of early 2003.
  - TAMC resolution methods: debt restructuring accounted for 43 percent of total book value processed; foreclosure/final receivership of properties accounted for 47 percent.
  - Average debt reduction is approximately 33 percent of the book value; expected recovery rate is around 46 percent.
  - Many restructurings were rescheduling: payment deadlines extended for 51 percent of restructured cases; 26 percent involved lowering principal and interest payments or sales/transfer of assets; 17 percent involved turning debt into capital or debentures; 6 percent involved capital increases (Figures 18, 19).
- Equity and exit:
  - Total new equity raised since the crisis by firms reporting to the SEC amounts to about $15½ billion, some 42 percent of average market capitalization.
  - Approximately $10 billion of that new equity has been raised by private commercial banks.
  - Value of mergers approved by the SEC since the crisis has amounted to just above 2 percent of market capitalization.
  - Table 3: total listed companies fell from 454 (Jan. 97) to 391 (Apr. 03): Change -63; main sector exits highlighted (e.g., Finance and securities down 25, Property development down 15).
- Sectoral and firm-size heterogeneity:
  - Distribution analyses (kernel density estimates) show:
    - Leverage distributions shifted right during the crisis and have since shifted back with modes lower than pre-crisis; fatter tails indicate increased dispersion and more highly leveraged firms.
    - Returns on assets distribution shifted left during the crisis with a fattening negative tail; recovered mode similar to pre-crisis but negative tail remains fatter.
  - Small percentage of large, highly indebted firms account for a disproportionately large share of liabilities and sales; many smaller firms have reduced leverage faster than aggregates suggest.

### Econometric estimation results (high-level summary with key coefficient values)
- Regression model (Annex I) specification:
  - Return on assets = α + β1 * log(sales) + β2 * debt/assets + β3 * short-term liabilities/total liabilities + β4 * firm’s market share + β5 * current ratio + β6 * cost of goods sold/sales + β7 * ownership concentration.
  - Data: over 350 companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, quarterly from 1992Q1 to 2002Q2; both gross ROA (EBIT/total assets) and net ROA (net income/total assets) used as dependent variables.
- Main empirical findings:
  - Returns are negatively associated with measures of debt and input costs, and positively associated with liquidity measures and market power.
  - Ownership concentration (share of company held by top 5 or top 10 shareholders) was not found to be significant.
  - Fixed effects specification favored over random effects (Hausman tests reported with p-values 0.00).
- Selected coefficient estimates from Table A-1 (Fixed-Effect Panel Model Results):
  - (1) Dependent variable Net ROA:
    - Log(sales): 0.007 (3.16)
    - Debt/assets: -0.026 (-17.05)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: -0.017 (-2.27)
    - Market share: 0.114 (4.6)
    - Current ratio: 0.002 (2.35)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-4.01)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.04
  - (2) Dependent variable Net ROA (with time effects and corrections):
    - Log(sales): 0.006 (3.68)
    - Debt/assets: -0.03 (-3.25)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: 0.0001 (0.02)
    - Market share: -0.0002 (-0.02)
    - Current ratio: 0.002 (2.29)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.005 (-3.05)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.05
  - (3) Dependent variable Gross ROA:
    - Log(sales): 0.014 (8.09)
    - Debt/assets: -0.012 (-10.38)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: 0.016 (2.88)
    - Market share: 0.094 (4.90)
    - Current ratio: 0.0007 (1.35)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.003 (-3.88)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.03
  - (4) Dependent variable Gross ROA (alternative corrections):
    - Log(sales): 0.008 (5.81)
    - Debt/assets: -0.018 (-1.98)
    - ST liab./Total liab.: 0.018 (3.43)
    - Market share: -0.002 (-0.20)
    - Current ratio: 0.001 (1.87)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.005 (-2.79)
    - Number of firms: 362; Total obs.: 13,720; R-squared: 0.04
- Selected coefficient estimates from Table A-2 (smaller subset; quick ratio used):
  - (1) Dependent variable Net ROA:
    - Log(sales): -0.003 (-1.63)
    - Debt/assets: -0.067 (-33.45)
    - Market share: 0.092 (4.08)
    - Quick ratio: 0.002 (2.54)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-4.46)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.11
  - (2) Dependent variable Net ROA (alternative):
    - Log(sales): 0.004 (3.1)
    - Debt/assets: -0.064 (-9.53)
    - Market share: -0.0007 (-0.08)
    - Quick ratio: 0.001 (0.92)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-2.81)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.12
  - (3) Dependent variable Gross ROA:
    - Log(sales): 0.004 (2.9)
    - Debt/assets: -0.05 (-36.35)
    - Market share: 0.078 (4.99)
    - Quick ratio: 0.0004 (0.72)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.003 (-4.76)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.145
  - (4) Dependent variable Gross ROA (alternative):
    - Log(sales): 0.006 (6.47)
    - Debt/assets: -0.051 (-9.80)
    - Market share: -0.003 (-0.39)
    - Quick ratio: -0.00007 (-0.39)
    - Input cost ratio: -0.004 (-2.43)
    - Number of firms: 354; Total obs.: 13,159; R-squared: 0.15

### Policy-relevant implications and conclusions
- Debt levels and corporate fragility:
  - High leverage and weak governance exacerbate the contractionary impact of currency crises and hamper new investment (studies cited; Thaicharoen and Kiatikomol (2002) on Thailand).
  - A substantial subset of firms remains highly leveraged; a targeted debt-restructuring strategy could have large payoffs given many smaller firms have recovered while a few large firms retain most liabilities.
- Debt restructuring observations:
  - Much restructuring has involved rescheduling rather than principal reduction; slow foreclosure and adversarial bankruptcy proceedings have limited conversion of debt into equity.
  - Sustainability of past restructuring (e.g., CDRAC) remains uncertain; re-entry of previously restructured NPLs is a concern.
- Recommended institutional focus:
  - Market-based processes and an institutional framework to facilitate price discovery of assets and efficient sharing of restructuring costs (losses at banks, ownership changes, exits from real sector) are essential to resolve remaining debt overhang and excess capacity.
- Vulnerabilities going forward:
  - Many firms remain vulnerable to demand slowdowns, higher interest rates, and exchange rate weakening, with adverse implications for macroeconomic and financial stability.

*Source: _wp03214 - BOX 1. WHY DO FIRMS ISSUE DEBT, AND WHEN DOES IT BECOME A PROBLEM?_ (PDF chapter).*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### Corporate finance and capital structure
- Altman, Edward I., 1993, Corporate Financial Distress Bankruptcy, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
- ______________, 1977, The Z-Score Bankruptcy Model: Past, Present, and Future (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
- Harris, Milton, and Arthur Raviv, 1990, “Capital Structure and the Informational Role of Debt,” Journal of Finance, 45, 321-350.
- ___________________________, 1991, “The Theory of Capital Structure,” Journal of Finance, 46, 297-355.
- Myers, Stuart, 1977, “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing,” Journal of Financial Economics, 5, 147-175.
- ___________, and Nicholas Majluf, 1984, “Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have,” Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 187-221.
- Modigliani, Franco, and Merton Miller, 1958, “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance, and the Theory of Investment,” American Economic Review, 48, 261-297.
- Lee, Jong-Wha, Young Soo Lee, and Byung Sun Lee, 2000, “The Determination of Corporate Debt in Korea,” Asian Economic Journal, 14, 333-355.
- Wiwattanakantang, Yupana, 1999, “An Empirical Study on the Determinants of the Capital Structure of Thai Firms,” Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 7, 371-403.
- Allayannis, George, Gregory W. Brown, and Leora F. Klapper, 2002, “Capital Structure and Financial Risk: Evidence from Foreign Debt Use in East Asia,” mimeograph.
- Ross, Stephen, 1977, “The determination of financial structure: The incentive signaling approach,” Bell Journal of Economics, 8, 23-40.

### Corporate governance, control, and ownership
- Becht, Marco, Patrick Bolton, and Alisa Roell, 2002, “Corporate Governance and Control,” NBER Working Paper, No. 9371.
- Grossman, Sanford, and Oliver Hart, 1988, “One Share-One Vote and the Market for Corporate Control,” Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 175-202.
- Jensen, Michael, 1986, “Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance and Takeovers,” American Economic Review, 76, 323-329.
- ____________, and William Meckling, 1976, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
- Shleifer, Andrei, and Robert W. Vishny, 1997, “A Survey of Corporate Governance,” Journal of Finance, 52, 737-783.
- Suehiro, Akira, 2001, “Family Business Gone Wrong? Ownership Patterns and Corporate Performance in Thailand,” ADB Institute Working Paper No. 19.
- Alba, Pedro, Stijn Claessens, and Simeon Djankov, 1998, “Thailand’s Corporate Financing and Governance Structures: Impact on Firms’ Competitiveness,” presented at a Conference on Thailand’s Dynamic Economic Recovery and Competitiveness.

### Crisis, structural vulnerabilities, and country studies (Thailand, East Asia, China)
- Dollar, David, and Mary Hallward-Driemeier, 2000, “Crisis, Adjustment and Reform in Thailand’s Industrial Firms,” The World Bank Research Observer, 15, 1-22.
- Pomerleano, Michael, 2001, “The East Asia Crisis and Corporate Finances, The Untold Micro Story,” unpublished paper.
- Ghosh, Swati, and Atish Ghosh, 2002, “Structural Vulnerabilities and Currency Crisis,” IMF Working Paper, WP/02/9.
- Mulder, Christian, Roberto Perrelli, and Manuel Rocha, 2002, “The Role of Corporate, Legal and Macroeconomic Balance Sheet Indicators in Crisis Detection and Prevention,” IMF Working Paper, WP/02/59.
- Heytens, Paul, and Cem Karacadag, 2001, “An Attempt to Profile the Finances of China’s Enterprise Sector,” IMF Working Paper, WP/01/182.
- Thaicharoen, Yunyong, and Prapan Kiatikomol, 2002, “Corporate Balance Sheet Adjustment and Restructuring in Thailand.” mimeograph.
- International Monetary Fund, 2000, Thailand: Selected Issues. Country Report No. 00/21.
- _______________________, 2001, Thailand: Selected Issues. Country Report No. 01/147.

### Empirical methods and econometrics
- Matyas, Laszlo, and Patrick Sevestre, eds., 1996. The Econometrics of Panel Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
- Silverman, R.W., 1986, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, Chapman and Hall, London.

*Source: _wp03214 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2003/_wp03214.pdf_