The present study tests the pecking order of firms at varying debt levels. The findings indicate that deficit firms at low debt levels raise significant amounts of debt, thus indicating the adherence to the pecking order theory. Deficit firms (from both countries) at exceptionally high debt levels do not adjust their capital structure by issuing less debt. In a surplus situation, Chinese firms at very high level redeem the substantial debt because of the dominance of short-term debt in their capital structure. In contrast, Indian surplus firms hesitate to redeem more debt if their existing debt levels are extremely high.
AcharyaA. (2011). Corporate bond market in India: Issues and challenges. RBI Occasional Papers, 32(3), 67–106.
2.
AllenF., QianJ., ShanS. C., & ZhuJ. L. (2014). The best performing economy with the worst performing market. Paper presented at China International Finance Conference. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/490c/3fbec16879f7010fed16b6f0bb37ffc34ec0.pdf?_ga=2.185366442.269357571.1564046439-1486134228.1564046439
3.
AngJ. S., & JungM. (1993). An alternate test of Myers’ pecking order theory of capital structure: The case of South Korean firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 1(1), 31–46.
4.
BhabraH. S., LiuT., & TirtirogluD. (2008). Capital structure choice in a nascent market: Evidence from listed firms in China. Financial Management, 37(2), 341–364.
5.
BhayaniS. J. (2005). Determinants of capital structure: An empirical analysis of Indian private corporate sector. Asia Pacific Business Review, 1(2), 13–23.
6.
BusabaW., GuoL., SunZ. & YuT. (2012). Dressing up for premium: A new perspective on cross-listing (University of Western Ontario Working Paper). Retrieved from https://www.tl.ntu.edu.tw/2012/asianfa2012/fullpaper/10346.pdf
7.
ByounS. (2008). How and when do firms adjust their capital structure toward targets?The Journal of Finance, 63(6), 3069–3096.
8.
ChakrabortyI. (2010). Capital structure in an emerging stock market: The case of India. Research in International Business and Finance, 24(3), 295–314.
9.
ChaudhariK., RajeM., & SinghC. (2014). Corporate bond markets in India: A study and policy recommendations (IIM Bangalore Working Paper No. 450). Retrieved form https://www.iimb.ac.in/node/1752
10.
ChenJ. J. (2004). Determinants of capital structure of Chinese listed companies. Journal of Business Research, 57(12), 1341–1351.
11.
CoteiC., & FarhatJ. (2011). An application of the two-stage Bivariate Probit–Tobit model to corporate financing decisions. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 37(3), 363–380.
12.
DawarV. (2014). Agency theory, capital structure and firm performance: Some Indian evidence. Managerial Finance, 40(12), 1190–1206.
13.
DidierT., & SchmuklerS. L. (2013). The financing and growth of firms in China and India: Evidence from capital markets. Journal of International Money and Finance, 39, 111–137.
14.
DuttaA. (2013). Lemon problem and pecking order theory: An investigation on Indian corporate sector. Vilakshan—XIMB Journal, 10(2), 73–82.
15.
ElsasR., FlanneryM. J., & GarfinkelJ. A. (2013). Financing major investments: Information about capital structure decisions. Review of Finance, 18(4), 1341–1386.
16.
FanJ. P. H., RuiO. M., & ZhaoM. (2008). Public governance and corporate finance: Evidence from corruption cases. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36(3), 343–364.
17.
FanJ. P. H., TitmanS., & TwiteG. (2012). An international comparison of capital structure and debt maturity choice. Journal of Quantitative Analysis, 47(1), 23–56.
18.
FaulkenderM., & PetersenM. A. (2006). Does the source of capital affect capital structure?Review of Financial Studies, 19(1), 45–79.
19.
FengY. U., & CuiM. M. (2007). On dynamic partial adjustment of corporate capital structure: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Conference paper on International Conference on Management Science and Engineering in Harbin, China (pp. 1861–1866).
20.
FlanneryM. J., & RanganK. P. (2006). Partial adjustment toward target capital structures. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(3), 469–506.
21.
GanguliS. K. (2013). Capital structure: Does ownership structure matter? Theory and Indian evidence. Studies in Economics and Finance, 30(1), 56–72.
22.
HovakimianA., HovakimianG., & TehranianH. (2004). Determinants of target capital structure: The case of dual debt and equity issues. Journal of Financial Economics, 71(3), 517–540.
23.
HovakimianA., OplerT., & TitmanS. (2001). The debt-equity choice: An analysis of issuing firms. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36(1), 1–24.
24.
JainP. K., & YadavS. S. (2005). Financial management practices: A study of public sector enterprises in India. New Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation.
25.
JainP. K., SinghS., & YadavS. S. (2013). Financial management practices: An empirical study of Indian corporates. India Studies in Business and Economics, Springer.
26.
JiangZ., & KimA K. (2013). Financial management in China. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 23(3), 125–133.
27.
JongA. D., VerbeekM., & VerwijmerenP. (2010). The impact of financing surpluses and large financing deficits on tests of the pecking order theory. Financial Management, 39(2), 733–756.
28.
JongA. D., VerbeekM., & VerwijmerenP. (2011). Firms’ debt–equity decisions when the static trade off theory and the pecking order theory disagree. Journal of Banking and Finance, 35(5), 1303–1314.
29.
JuN., ParrinoR., PoteshmanA. M., & WeisbachM. S. (2003). Horse and rabbits? Optimal dynamic capital structure from shareholder and manager perspectives (Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research). Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9327.html
30.
KomeraS., & LukoseJ.P.J. (2014). Capital structure choice, information asymmetry, and debt capacity: Evidence from India. Journal of Economics and Finance. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12197-014-9285-3
31.
LearyM. T., & RobertsM. R. (2010). The pecking order, debt capacity, and information asymmetry. Journal of Financial Economics, 95(3), 332–355.
32.
LiangH. U., & BathalaC. (2009). Trade off or pecking order: Capital structure policy suitable for financially distressed firms. The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, 15(10), 5–18.
33.
MahakudJ. (2006). Testing the pecking order theory of capital structure: Evidence from the Indian corporate sector. The ICFAI Journal of Applied Finance, 12(11), 16–26.
34.
MajumdarR. (2010). The determinants of corporate debt maturity: A study of Indian firms. The IUP Journal of Applied Finance, 16(2), 70–80.
35.
MyersS. C. (2001). Capital structure. Journal of Economic Perspective, 15(2), 81–102.
36.
PessarossiP., & WeillL. (2013). Choice of corporate debt in China: The role of state ownership. China Economic Review, 26, 1–16.
37.
SaggarS. (2005). Financing and investment patterns of Indian firms. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(3), 231–239.
38.
Shyam-SunderL., & MyersS. C. (1999). Testing static trade off against pecking order models of capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(2), 219–244.
39.
YueH. Y. (2011). Determinants of corporate capital structure under different debt maturities. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 66, 99–106.
40.
ZouH., & XiaoJ. Z. (2006). The financing behaviour of listed Chinese firms. The British Accounting Review, 38(3), 239–258.
