American Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, Vol. 1, No. 5, October 2015 Publish Date: Jun. 24, 2015 Pages: 369-376

Capital Structure and Profitability: A Critical Analysis of Quoted Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria

Aransiola Solomon Yinka*, Aransiola Oluwadetan

Department of Accounting and Finance, Crawford University, Faith City, Igbesa, Ogun State, Nigeria

Abstract

Capital structure decision is a vital one in any organisation that is striving to achieve profitability. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to examine the effect of capital structure on performance of quoted manufacturing companies in Nigeria. In achieving this, Secondary data source was employed; data was collected from the Nigerian stock exchange factbook and the annual report of the selected companies. Due to the nature of the study, Panel data analysis was used. Both descriptive and inferential methods were used to analyse the data collected. Correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship between the variables while regression analysis was used to determine how the independent variable affects the dependent variable. The study established that there is a negative relationship between capital structure and profitability performance of quoted manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Recommendations were made that: Performance standards should be established and communicated to the investors (members of the companies), the optimal capital structure which lowers cost of capital and reduce risk associated with debt finance should be pursued, and inadequate capital to achieve firm’s financial performance might also pose a challenge. Therefore, banks, other financial institutions and government should promote facilities to increase companies’ profitability performance.

Keywords

Capital Structure, Profitability, Performance, Quoted, and Manufacturing Companies


1. Introduction

The capital structure decision is the vital one since the profitability of an enterprise is directly affected by such decision. Hence, proper care and attention need to be given while determining the capital structure decision. In the statement of affairs of an enterprise, the overall position of the enterprise regarding all kinds of assets, liabilities are shown. Capital is a vital part of that statement (hereafter called comprehensive financial statement).

Firms can use either debt or equity capital to finance their assets. The best choice is a mix of debt and equity. In the case where interest was not tax deductible, firms’ owners would be indifferent as to whether they used debt or equity, and where interest was tax deductible, they would maximize the value of their firms by using 100% debt financing (Azhagaiah and Gavoury, 2011). The use of debt in capital structure of the firm leads to agency costs. Agency costs arise as a result of the relationships between shareholders and managers, and those between debt- holders and shareholders (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).

The pecking order hypothesis suggests that firms are willing to sell equity when the market overvalues it (Myers, 1984; Chittenden et al., 1996). This is based on the assumption that managers act in favor of the interest of existing shareholders. Consequently, they refuse to issue undervalued shares unless the value transfer from "old" to new shareholders is more than offset by the net present value of the growth opportunity. It can be concluded that new shares are only issued at a higher price than that imposed by the real market value of the firm. Therefore, investors interpret the issuance of equity by a firm as signal of overpricing. If external financing is unavoidable, the firm will opt for secured debt as opposed to risky debt and firms will only issue common stocks as a last resort (Abor, 2005).  

Hence, the higher the debt ratio, the greater the risk, and thus higher the interest rate will be. At the same time, rising interest rates overwhelm the tax advantages of debt. If the firm falls on hard times and if it’s operating income is insufficient to cover interest charges, then stockholders will have to make up the short fall, and if they can’t, the firm may be forced into bankruptcy. Good times may be just around the corner. But too much debt can keep the company wipe out shareholders in the process (Azhagaiah and Gavoury, 2011). 

The relationship between capital structure decisions and firm value has been extensively investigated in the past few decades. Capital structure could have two effects; according to Desai (2007) firms of the same risk class could possibly have higher cost of capital with higher leverage. Second, capital structure may affect the valuation of the firm, with more leveraged firms, being riskier and consequently valued lower than the less leveraged firms. Ogebe, Patrick; Ogebe, Joseph and Alewi, Kemi (2013).

If capital structure is not irrelevant, then there is also another thing to consider: the interaction between financing and investment. In order to try to distinguish the effects of various determinants on capital structure, it is assumed that the investment decision is held constant. The choice of capital structure of a firm is determined by a number of factors which include the market forces, type of industry, internal policies of the firm, size of the firm, profitability, corporate tax and bankruptcy costs. Ogebe et al

Capital structure decision is the mix of debt and equity that a company uses to finance its business (Damodaran, 2001). Capital structure may affect the valuation of the firm, with more leveraged firms, being riskier and consequently valued lower than the less leveraged firms. If the manager of a firm has the shareholders' wealth maximization as his objective, then capital structure is an important decision, for it could lead to an optimal financing mix which maximizes the market price per share of the firm.

Of all the aspects of capital investment decision, capital structure decision is the vital one. Since the profitability of an enterprise is directly affected by such decision. There could be hundreds of options but to decide which option is best in firms interest in a particular scenario needs to have deep insight in the field of finance as use of more proportion of debt in the capital structure can be effective as its less costly than equity but it also has some limitations because after a certain limit it affects company’s leverage. Therefore a balance needs to be maintained.

In Nigeria, most corporate decisions are dictated by managers. Equity issues are often favoured over debt in spite of debt being a cheaper source of fund; even where debts are employed, it is usually on the short term basis. This could be as a result of the manager’s tendency to protect his human capital and avoid the performance pressure associated with debt commitment. More often, when debts are issued voluntarily, particularly long term debt, it is used as an ant- take- over device against the challenge of potential corporate rider. The corporate sector in the country is characterized by a large number of firms operating in a largely deregulated and increasingly competitive environment.

According to Bierman and Smidt and Guthman and Donglalls capital structure is the relative proportion of the various kinds of securities a company has used. The opinions of Taylor and Venhorne regarding capital structure is that is the total sum of outstanding long-term securities, both equity and debt. Weston and Bringham(1978) define it as the permanent financing of the firm represented by long-term debt plus preferred stock and net worth. Though there are different views about the total nature of ‘capital structure’ it is obvious  that  majority agreed about the common items, i.e. total of equity and long- term debt which represent the permanent source of financing of a company. Therefore, capital structure may be defined as the permanent source of capital in the form of long- term debt, preference shares, ordinary shares, reserve and surplus.

Most studies found a negative relationship between profitability and leverage. Within this framework, Titman& Wessels (1988) contend that firms with high profit levels, all things being equal, would maintain relatively lower debt levels since they can realize such funds from internal sources.

There have been various schools of thoughts on the relevance of capital structure to a firm’s performance in the developed countries, In Nigeria also studies have been conducted on this particular subjec matter but it is yet to be established the actual effect that capital structure has on the ability of quoted companies to achieve its profitability performance objective.

2. Methodology

Out of the forty- six (46) Quoted manufacturing companies according to the classification of companies in Nigeria by the stock exchange commission, ten (10) companies were purposively selected. Therefore, secondary annual data coverage of ten years (2008 – 2013) has been collected from the ten (10) different quoted manufacturing companies selected for the empirical analysis in this study. The two main methods of analysis were used in the course of this study.

a.   Descriptive Analysis: - This is the collection of large data with the aim of analysing them.

b.   The second approach which is quantitative techniques include tables and test for the hypotheses, inferential statistics specifically regression analysis method was used in order to determine the effect of capital structure on profitability performance of selected quoted companies in Nigeria. To do this, a software package E-views was used to perform the regression.

For the purpose of this study, two set of variables are considered namely the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is capital structure and the dependent variable is profitability performance. The profitability performance is measured using profit before tax, profit, and profit after tax. The independent variable is measured by the total asset, equity, total asset over equity.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Data Presentation

Table 1. Presentation of the data of selected manufacturing companies.

SN ID Company YEAR Profit before tax Profit after tax Total asset Debt Capital_ structure Return On Asset Debt On Total Asset
294 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2003 9901668 6636335 39394825 36817858 2.42 0.17 0.934586
295 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2004 11687494 7913503 49000996 38797605 2.29 0.16 0.791772
296 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2005 6276167 4859019 49966616 35788885 1.96 0.1 0.716256
297 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2006 11436771 7440102 59850189 44416419 2.12 0.12 0.742127
298 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2007 14884450 10691060 71809427 51583586 1.63 0.15 0.71834
299 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2008 17092950 11860880 74655667 54799830 1.49 0.16 0.734034
300 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2009 18991762 13541189 73868737 72324791 2.29 0.18 0.979099
301 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2010 19988735 13736359 78396876 63454388 1.86 0.18 0.809399
302 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2011 26176966 17927934 92227824 72527700 1.8 0.19 0.786397
303 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2012 21074950 14671195 1.03E+08 82707359 2.05 0.14 0.806632
304 72 GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC 2013 17008875 11863726 1.21E+08 95525469 3.74 0.1 0.789071
362 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2003 10992047 7352287 85097508 52338364 2 0.09 0.61504
363 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2004 9148139 5086403 82543977 45131412 1.6 0.06 0.546756
365 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2005 12897746 8254557 73507983 33624088 1.17 0.11 0.457421
366 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2006 16436255 10900524 75657062 24364942 0.67 0.14 0.322045
367 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2007 27876336 18942856 90548282 29896777 0.69 0.21 0.330175
368 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2008 37519114 25700593 1.04E+08 55237436 1.71 0.25 0.52903
369 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2009 41399796 27910091 1.07E+08 42778082 0.92 0.26 0.39984
370 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2010 44880248 30332118 1.14E+08 45328091 0.9 0.27 0.396261
371 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2011 56397878 38050756 2.36E+08 91557391 0.64 0.16 0.388447
372 75 NIGERIAN BREWERIES PLC 2012 55624366 38042714 2.54E+08 87265764 0.34 0.15 0.344062
575 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2003 -18313 -22990 278435 276674 14.62 -0.08 0.993675
576 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2004 -63725 -63986 376514 285891 2.66 -0.17 0.75931
577 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2005 -66689 -66939 330817 289028 6.54 -0.2 0.873679
578 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2006 -22040 -22299 319725 44577 1.82 -0.07 0.139423
579 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2007 -49587 -16189 292711 296950 36.63 -0.06 1.014482
580 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2008 -61505 -61807 375990 342173 6.92 -0.16 0.910059
581 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2009 -31144 -31622 377692 310487 3.75 -0.08 0.822064
582 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2010 -13999 -14389 357122 304306 4.45 -0.04 0.852107
583 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2011 -49850 -50248 347539 344862 18.96 -0.14 0.992297
584 87 AFRICAN PAINTS (NIG). PLC 2011 -49850 -50248 347539 344850 18.96 -0.14 0.992263
1292 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2003 3792506 2684927 14730532 6487443 0.79 0.18 0.440408
1293 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2004 3849273 2812623 20872012 11412285 1.21 0.13 0.546775
1294 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2005 3853094 2710921 32065142 14862387 1.37 0.08 0.463506
1295 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2006 -5762809 -4665459 0 0
1296 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2007 -4197948 -726978 24282617 24247795 696.34 -0.03 0.998566
1297 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2008 -2847703 -2752268 23901206 26913976 -9.12 -0.12 1.126051
1298 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2009 -2379440 -1235917 25246926 12581691 0.99 -0.05 0.498345
1299 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2010 1952559 1168167 28325844 15381563 1.18 0.04 0.543022
1300 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2011 5082637 3700170 33711121 17067181 1.03 0.11 0.506277
1301 130 CADBURY NIGERIA PLC 2012 5511518 3454991 40156508 23328880 1.39 0.09 0.580949
1303 131 DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS PLC 2006 721983 721983 33224851 19071331 1.35 0.02 0.574008
1304 131 DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS PLC 2007 675703 561559 58119789 35974655 1.64 0.01 0.618974
1305 131 DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS PLC 2008 3167625 2989559 68750589 44120786 1.81 0.04 0.641751
1306 131 DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS PLC 2009 5374056 5561080 64103643 35401974 1.24 0.09 0.552261
1307 131 DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS PLC 2010 4911885 2722575 70225348 43078473 1.6 0.04 0.613432
1308 131 DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS PLC 2011 396709 115704 83453596 56608156 2.14 0 0.678319
1309 131 DANGOTE FLOUR MILLS PLC 2012 -4000351 -4000351 77449018 66927275 6.36 -0.05 0.864146
1311 132 DANGOTE SUGAR REFINERY PLC 2006 16657066 16657066 38999540 11021950 0.39 0.43 0.282617
1312 132 DANGOTE SUGAR REFINERY PLC 2007 30660730 9478561 50124116 24167965 0.93 0.19 0.482162
1313 132 DANGOTE SUGAR REFINERY PLC 2008 30151378 21871047 58173389 25546191 0.78 0.38 0.439139
1314 132 DANGOTE SUGAR REFINERY PLC 2009 19586932 13185599 78707221 37094424 0.89 0.17 0.471296
1315 132 DANGOTE SUGAR REFINERY PLC 2010 16146930 11282240 62293982 21398945 0.52 0.18 0.343515
1316 132 DANGOTE SUGAR REFINERY PLC 2011 10553872 7111318 69106905 29615390 0.75 0.1 0.428545
1317 132 DANGOTE SUGAR REFINERY PLC 2012 16331679 10796416 83051450 36782291 0.44 0.13 0.442886
1352 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2006 776881 722557 17555810 0 0.04 0
1353 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2007 697709 636343 16979215 0 0.04 0
1354 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2008 889950 816452 32872124 0 0.02 0
1355 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2009 1227304 217115 23533049 15173159 1.81 0.01 0.64476
1356 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2010 2330273 1175922 30007660 14119919 1.05 0.04 0.470544
1357 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2011 3515785 2492397 29137607 12675241 0.84 0.09 0.435013
1358 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2012 3663134 2702431 44940080 21894024 1.3 0.06 0.487183
1359 136 HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC 2013 3814599 2843520 55437478 31311345 1.3 0.05 0.564805
1402 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2003 5846923 3804114 0 0
1403 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2004 6100281 3935495 0 0
1404 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2005 7907848 5303128 23058408 15122272 8.63 0.23 0.655825
1405 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2006 8197897 5660329 26244230 12547723 1.97 0.22 0.478114
1406 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2007 8463788 5441899 31688272 15015799 2.41 0.17 0.47386
1407 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2008 11862213 8331599 42976900 20128312 2.23 0.19 0.468352
1408 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2009 13783244 9783578 69654988 33706437 3.2 0.14 0.483906
1409 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2010 18244454 12602109 1.01E+08 45481709 3.06 0.13 0.452155
1410 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2011 18539669 16808764 1.32E+08 53452906 2.28 0.13 0.40514
1411 139 NESTLE NIGERIA PLC (FOOD SPECIALTIES NIG. LTD) 2012 25050172 21217204 88963218 54777656 1.6 0.24 0.615734
1724 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2003 134489 79167 1275338 635941 0.99 0.06 0.498645
1725 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2004 126158 91139 1342468 627322 0.88 0.07 0.46729
1726 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2005 154621 101759 1946135 1194384 1.59 0.05 0.613721
1727 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2006 266191 211470 3964572 1347226 0.51 0.05 0.339816
1728 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2007 398078 208318 4454791 1839127 0.7 0.05 0.412842
1729 162 MAY &BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2007 398078 209000 4454791 1839127 0.7 0.05 0.412842
1730 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2008 708312 417962 5730109 2976483 1.08 0.07 0.519446
1731 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2009 344162 232081 6153848 3448141 1.27 0.04 0.560323
1732 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2010 307790 192977 6816916 3933532 1.36 0.03 0.577025
1733 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2011 339474 255472 7045658 3906802 1.24 0.04 0.554498
1734 162 MAY & BAKER NIGERIA PLC 2012 44522 13101 8069406 4937110 0.61 0 0.611831
2015 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2003 485659 306859 2564268 1867873 2.68 0.12 0.728423
2016 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2004 402234 272234 2062632 1290563 1.67 0.13 0.625687
2017 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2005 173492 111647 1938818 1153382 1.47 0.06 0.594889
2018 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2006 302564 275118 2414614 1452340 1.51 0.11 0.601479
2019 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2006 302564 275118 2414614 1452340 1.51 0.11 0.601479
2020 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2007 652284 439314 3422555 2020967 1.44 0.13 0.590485
2021 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2008 1013719 698296 4627969 2732835 1.44 0.15 0.590504
2022 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2009 780915 510776 5435971 3029432 1.4 0.09 0.557294
2023 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2010 823252 512783 6109452 3641209 1.47 0.08 0.595996
2024 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2011 823566 518850 9292771 6192130 2.22 0.06 0.666338
2025 184 VITAFOAM (NIG). PLC 2012 813250 502115 10423641 7339906 2.36 0.05 0.70416

Source: Author’s computation from Data gotten from Nigeria Stock Exchange Factbook 2013 edition.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistic of Dependent and independent variables.

capital structure return on asset
Mean 10.42 0.08
Standard Error 7.81 0.01
Median 1.51 0.09
Mode 0.70 (0.14)
Standard Deviation 73.70 0.11
Sample Variance 5,432.07 0.01
Kurtosis 88.16 1.06
Skewness 9.37 (0.09)
Range 705.46 0.63
Minimum (9.12) (0.20)
Maximum 696.34 0.43

Source: Author’s computation 2014.

The descriptive statistics show that over the period under study, the financial performance ratios measured by return on assets averaged 8%. The leverage ratio stood at 10.42. This is an indication that approximately 104% of total capital in the listed ten (10) manufacturing firms is represented by debt.

Here, the maximum values for leverage ratio and ROA are 69634%, 43% respectively. On the other side, the minimum values for leverage ratio and ROA are -912%, and -20% respectively confirming presence of loss performance. The standard deviation shows the level of risk involved in choice of financing which is high at 73.70.This also confirms that the portion of debt in the capital structure is high.

The mean of ROA is at 9% this implies that for every N100 worth of asset of the companies under this study, return is N9, pointing out low accounting performance for the firms

Standard deviation measures level of risk and in this case leverage of 73.70 shows debt financing is high resulting in higher level of risk. When compared with ROA of 11% the level of risk indicates other factors aside capital structure plays a part in performance.

3.2. Correlation Analysis

Correlation is describes the strength of relationship between two variables. In this study the correlation co-efficient analysis is under taken to find out the relationship between capital structure and financial performance. It can be said that what relationship exist among variables. Here, dependent variable financial performance is correlated with independent variable capital structure. Correlation analysis is performed to find out the relationship between variables; Capital structure and ROA.

Table 3. Correlation matrix between capital structure and ROA.

Capital structure Return on Asset
Capital structure 1
Return on Asset -0.134339396 1

Source: Author’s computation 2014.

The above table illustrates the relationship among leverage ratio and Return on assets. The correlation value between leverage and Return on Asset is r = (-0.134) this shows that there is negative relationship between capital structure and Return on Asset of the ten companies analyzed in this study.

3.3. Regression Analysis

Regression analysis is carried out to test the impact of capital structure on financial performance. Here capital structure is the independent variable and financial performance is the dependent variable. From these independent and dependent variables, the following relationships are formulated. Financial performance of the manufacturing firms is dependent upon the capital structure. It is represented as follows;

Which shows performance is the function of capital structure.

Where;

FP = Financial performance

CS = Capital Structure

Here, financial performance is measured with the help of two ratios return on equity and return on assets. Capital structure is measured through leverage ratio. Therefore, the regression model will be formulated in the following manner;

ROA = â0 + â1x1                               (1)

Where;

X1 = Leverage ratio

â0 = Constant

ROA = Return on Assets

Table 4. Regression model for capital structure and ROA.

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.127535239
R Square 0.016265237
Adjusted R Square 0.005687444

Source: Author’s computation 2014.

Here, R2 value is computed to identify the impact of leverage ratio on return on assets. The R2 value is 0.016. This means leverage ratio contributed to determine return on assets by 1.6%. The remaining 98.4% is influenced by other factors which are not considered for this study.

3.4. Hypothesis Testing

H0: capital structure has no significant effect on profitability of a manufacturing firm.

H1: capital structure has a significant effect on the profitability of a manufacturing firm

According to the regression analysis, it showed that the r2 value between leverage and ROA is 0.016 with 95% level of confidence. Therefore, leverage has no significance impact on ROA. Here, H0 is accepted and H1 is rejected. H0: capital structure has no significant relationship with profitability of a manufacturing firm.

H1: capital structure has a significant relationship with the profitability of a manufacturing firm

From the study, correlation analysis showed that the correlation between leverage and ROE is (-0.134). Therefore, there is no significance relationship between leverage and ROA. Here, H0 is accepted and H1 rejected.

4. Conclusion

The aim of this study is to examine the effect of capital structure on profitability performance of quoted manufacturing firms. The study shows that there is a negative or inverse relationship between the leverage ratio and the return on asset. This means that an increase in capital structure will cause a decrease in profitability performance and vice versa. The magnitude of the contributory effect of leverage ratio on the change in return on asset is very low with a regressive value of 0.016. This therefore implies that the rate of effect is 1.6% leaving the remaining 98.4% to other contributory factors.

The descriptive statistics show that over the period under study, there is an indication that approximately 104% of total capital in the listed ten (10) manufacturing firms is represented by debt. The standard deviation shows the level of risk involved in choice of financing which is high. It was also confirmed that the portion of debt in the capital structure is high.

The mean of ROA is at 9%, this implies that for every N100 worth of asset of the companies under this study, return is N9, pointing out low accounting performance for the firms.

Two hypotheses were stated and tested in this study, capital structure has no significant effect on profitability of a manufacturing firm and capital structure has a significant effect on profitability of a manufacturing firm. According to the regression analysis and correlation analysis, capital structure has no significant relationship on the profitability of manufacturing firms.

As much as capital structure decision is the vital one since the profitability of an enterprise is directly affected by such decision. There are other factors that form a larger part of the contributory effect to the rise, stability or fall of the profitability of a firm.

Based on the findings of this study, capital structure has effect on the profitability performance of quoted manufacturing companies however, the effect is not significant. The study also showed that there are other contributory factors to the change in the profitability of a firm.

References

  1. Abor. J., (2005)."The effect of capital structure on profitability: empirical analysis of listed firms In Ghana". Journal of Risk Finance, 6(5):438- 445.
  2. Azhagaiah, R., and Candasamy, G., (2011)."The Impact of Capital Structure on Profitability with special Reference to IT Industry in India". Managing Global Transitions 9(4): 371- 392.
  3. Booth, L., Aivazian, V., Demirguc-Kunt, A.E. and Maksimovic, V. (2001). "Capital Structure in developing countries", Journal of Finance, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 87-130.
  4. Chiang, Y.H., Chan, P.C.A., & Hui, C.M.E., (2002). "Capital structure and profitability of the property and construction sectors in Hong Kong". Journal of Property Investment and firms. 20(6), pp. 434-454. 5.
  5. Chittenden, F., Hall, G., & Hutchinson, p., (1996). "Small firm growth, access to capital markets And financial structure: review of issues used and an empirical investigation". Small Business Economics, 8(1): 59- 67.
  6. Ehrhardt, M.C., Brigham, E.F. Corporate Finance: A Focused Approach, (1st ed.), Mason, Thomson, 2003. 8.
  7. Fox, J., (1991). "Regression diagnostics. Thousand oaks, CA: Stage publication", Qualitative applications in the social sciences, pp. 79.
  8. Gemmill, G. Capital Structure and Firm value: A Study of Split-Capital Closed- End funds in the UK, City, 2001. 9.
  9. Gleason, K. C., L. K. Mathur, and I. Mathur, (2000). "The Interrelationship between Cultures, Capital Structure, and Performance: Evidence from European Retailers". Journal of Business Research, 50 (2): 185–191.
  10. Graham, J, (2000). "How Big is the Tax Advantage to Debt?" Journal of Finance,55 (5): 1901–1941.
  11. Guthman, H.G., Dougalls, H.E. Corporate and Financial Policy, 4th ed, Prentice Hall Ic, Englewood Cliffs New Jersey. 10.
  12. Hennessy, C. A., and T. M.Whited. 2005. "Debt Dynamics". Journal of Finance, 60 (3):1129–1165.
  13. Mendell, B.C., Sydor, T., & Mishra, N., (2006). "Capital structure in the united states forest Products industry: The influence of debt and taxes". Forest Science, 52(5): 540- 548.
  14. Mohammed Fawzi Shubita & Jaafer Maroof Alsawalhah "The Relationship between Capital Structure and Profitability". International Journal of Business and Social Science 3 16 [Special Issue- August 2012]
  15. Raheman, A., B. Zulfiqar, and Mustafa. (2007). "Capital Structure and Profitability: A Case of Islamabad Stock Exchange". International Review of Business Research Papers, 3 (5):347–361.
  16. Sarkar, S., and F. Zapatero. (2003). "The Trade-Off Model with Mean Reverting Earnings: Theory and Empirical Tests". The Economic Journal, 113 (490): 834–60.

600 ATLANTIC AVE, BOSTON,
MA 02210, USA
+001-6179630233
AIS is an academia-oriented and non-commercial institute aiming at providing users with a way to quickly and easily get the academic and scientific information.
Copyright © 2014 - 2016 American Institute of Science except certain content provided by third parties.