Why Might A Firm Use A Local Capital Structure At A Partic

Why Might A Firm Use a "Local" Capital Structure at a Particular Subsidiary that Differs Substantially from Its "Global" Capital Structure?

Multinational corporations (MNCs) often operate through multiple subsidiaries across different countries, each facing unique economic, regulatory, and financial environments. A critical financial decision for these firms involves establishing a capital structure — the mix of debt and equity used to finance operations. While a firm may maintain a global or corporate-wide capital structure strategy, it is common for individual subsidiaries to adopt a "local" capital structure that diverges substantially from the overall corporate policy. Understanding why such discrepancies occur requires examining various factors including differences in local market conditions, regulatory environments, tax considerations, and risk management strategies.

Factors Influencing the Use of a Local Capital Structure

One primary reason a firm utilizes a localized capital structure is to optimize financial performance and mitigate risks in specific markets. Each country presents unique conditions that influence the cost and availability of capital. For example, a subsidiary operating in a country with high inflation rates or volatile currency can benefit from a different debt-to-equity ratio compared to the parent company's standard structure. Suppose the global capital structure for the firm is 60% debt and 40% equity, reflecting the company's overall risk appetite. However, in a high-risk emerging market where currency fluctuations are rampant, the subsidiary might opt for a lower debt ratio (e.g., 30% debt, 70% equity). This adjustment reduces leverage and its associated risk, such as insolvency or financial distress, which are more likely in unstable environments (Graham & Harvey, 2001).

Tax considerations further influence local capital structuring decisions. Countries differ dramatically in their corporate tax regimes, especially concerning the deductibility of interest. Countries with generous interest deductibility policies incentivize subsidiaries to use more debt, which can result in a substantially different local capital structure from the global target. For instance, a subsidiary in a country offering high interest deductibility might leverage heavily to benefit from tax shields, even if the overall firm prefers a more conservative, lower debt ratio (DeAngelo & Masulis, 1980). Conversely, countries with restrictions on interest deductibility or high withholding taxes on debt payments could lead subsidiaries to favor equity financing, diverging from the firm's global structure.

Regulatory environments also play a pivotal role. Local laws might impose restrictions on leverage or the type of financial instruments that can be used. For example, in some countries, regulations might limit the debt-to-equity ratio to safeguard against financial crises, prompting subsidiaries to adopt a more conservative capital structure. Similarly, foreign subsidiaries may face currency control laws, which restrict the repatriation of profits or the borrowing of foreign currency, forcing adjustments in local financing strategies. Such legal considerations can prevent a subsidiary from aligning with the global capital structure, which might be more aggressive in terms of leverage.

Furthermore, operational considerations, including the maturity and expected cash flows of individual subsidiaries, influence capital structure decisions. A subsidiary with stable, predictable cash flows might sustain higher debt levels, benefiting from the tax shield and lower cost of debt. Conversely, a startup or a subsidiary operating in a volatile sector like technology may prefer to rely more on equity to reduce financial risk. This flexibility allows subsidiaries to customize financial leverage to match their operational risk profile while the parent aims for a more balanced or diversified approach.

Examples and Quantitative Considerations

Let us consider an example involving a multinational manufacturing company, GlobalManufacture Inc., with subsidiaries in the United States and Brazil. Globally, the firm maintains a 60% debt to 40% equity structure, with an enzymatic formula to determine its weighted average cost of capital (WACC):

WACC = (E / V) Re + (D / V) Rd * (1 - Tc)

where E is equity, D is debt, V is total firm value, Re is cost of equity, Rd is cost of debt, and Tc is corporate tax rate.

In the US, with stable interest rates, the subsidiary might follow the parent’s target leverage. However, in Brazil, where inflation and currency volatility are higher, the local subsidiary might reduce debt from 60% to 30% and increase equity to mitigate financial distress risk associated with economic fluctuations. Consider that borrowing in Brazil might be more expensive due to higher interest rates (Rd = 12%) versus the US (Rd = 5%), and currency risk adds an additional layer of complexity. These local factors directly influence the achievable and optimal capital structure, reinforcing the argument for local adaptations.

Accordingly, adjusting capital structure to local conditions aligns with the trade-off theory, which balances the tax benefits of debt against the costs of financial distress. The Modigliani-Miller theorem (without taxes) suggests capital structure irrelevance, but in real-world scenarios, taxes and bankruptcy costs make local adjustments necessary for optimizing firm value (Modigliani & Miller, 1958).

Conclusion

In conclusion, firms frequently adopt a "local" capital structure at subsidiaries that diverges substantially from their "global" structure due to a combination of economic, regulatory, tax, operational, and risk considerations. Tailoring capital structure allows subsidiaries to optimize cost of capital, minimize risk, and comply with local legal requirements. Such flexibility enhances overall firm value by aligning financial strategies with the specific circumstances of each market, ultimately enabling multinational corporations to operate efficiently across diverse environments.

References

  • DeAngelo, H., & Masulis, R. W. (1980). Optimal capital structure under corporate and personal taxation. Journal of Financial Economics, 8(1), 3-29.
  • Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of Financial Economics, 60(2-3), 187-243.
  • Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261-297.
  • DeAngelo, H., & Masulis, R. W. (1980). Optimal capital structure under corporate and personal taxation. Journal of Financial Economics, 8(1), 3-29.
  • Chamberlain, G. (2008). Multinational financial management: Opportunities and risks. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(7), 1148-1163.
  • Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2020). Principles of Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Rondeau, T., & Alam, M. (2018). Currency risk and capital structure decisions in multinational corporations. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 29(3), 205-225.
  • Aleksandrowicz, M., & Olszewski, P. (2020). Legal Framework and Capital Structure: Cross-country Evidence. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 25(2), 235-253.
  • Frank, M. Z., & Goyal, V. K. (2009). Capital structure decisions: Which factors are reliably important? Financial Management, 38(1), 1-37.
  • Myers, S. C. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39(3), 575-592.

Related Assignments