Monthly Archive for February, 2011

The Capital Structure Decisions of New Firms

This paper finds that startups rely heavily on external debt sources such as bank financing, and less extensively on friends and family-based funding sources. I’m curious whether the latter includes loans collateralized by real estate.

NBER Digest:

In The Capital Structure Decisions of New Firms (NBER Working Paper No. 16272), co-authors Alicia Robb and David Robinson investigate the capitalization choices that firms make in their initial year of operation. Using a novel dataset that tracks firms’ funding decisions through their early years of operation, they find that these firms rely heavily on external debt sources such as bank financing and less extensively on friends and family-based funding sources.

There is a widely held view that frictions in capital markets prevent startup firms from achieving their optimal size, or indeed, from starting up at all. That view implies that startups are likely to pursue financing from informal channels. But Robb and Robinson find that funding through the use of formal debt dwarfs funding from friends and family: the average amount of bank financing is seven times greater than the average amount of insider-financed debt. Moreover, three times as many firms rely on outside debt as inside debt. This reliance on formal credit channels as opposed to personal credit cards and informal lending even holds true for the smallest firms in the sample at the earliest stages of their founding.

These findings are robust to controls for credit quality, industry, and characteristics of the business owner. Nonetheless, the authors do find that women are somewhat less likely to acquire outside debt. Also, black-owned businesses have a lower ratio of outside-to-inside financing. Businesses started by individuals without a high school degree also rely more on inside financing than others.

Extending their analysis, the authors find that a capital structure that is more heavily tilted towards formal credit channels is associated with a greater likelihood of success for the new firm. Firms that ceased operations within three years not only began smaller but also had considerably smaller proportions of outside debt-to-total capital. Moreover, capital structure decisions are especially important in the initial years: firms that accessed more external debt in the initial stages were nearly 10 percent more likely to be in the top revenue group. Even if credit conditions in 2004 — the first year of the data set — were unique, credit market access appears to have had an important impact on firm success.

The authors conclude that the heavy reliance on external debt underscores the importance of well functioning credit markets for the success of nascent business activity. Because startups rely so extensively on outside debt as a source of startup capital, they are especially sensitive to changes in bank lending conditions.

Who Creates Jobs?

This is a research area I’ve been keenly interested in for a while. Despite what passes for conventional wisdom, new businesses (which are usually small), not small businesses per se, are the key to net job creation. Although new businesses create disproportionately more jobs, they also destroy disproportionately more jobs.

Still, large mature businesses employ the plurality of U.S. workers and tend to be more cyclically sensitive (e.g., new work [no link] by Fort, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda and recent work by Moscarini and Postel-Vinay).

NBER Digest:

The popular perception that small businesses create most of America’s jobs has been the focus of heated debate for three decades. However, the more telling characteristic for predicting job creation is the age of the firm, not its size, according to a new study by John Haltiwanger, Ron Jarmin, and Javier Miranda. In “Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large vs. Young,” the researchers conclude that the younger companies are, the more jobs they create, regardless of their size.

Of course, all startup firms operate in a volatile “up or out” environment. After five years, many of these young companies are “out” — they fail and, as a result, destroy nearly half of the jobs created by all new companies. Nevertheless, the surviving firms continue to ramp “up,” growing faster than more mature companies, and creating a disproportionate share of jobs relative to their size.

“Firm startups account for only 3 percent of employment but almost 20 percent of gross job creation,” the authors write. “[T]he fastest growing continuing firms are young firms under the age of five,” the authors conclude.

In this study, which relies on data from the Census Bureau, the authors confirm that smaller companies created more jobs than larger companies during 1992-2005. But the importance of firm size depends very much on the assumptions one makes about the base year of the analysis, the number of employees used to define “small”, and other factors. The real driver of disproportionate job growth, they find, is not small companies, but young companies. It is the startup firms that generate the surge of jobs that earlier research attributed to small companies.

Indeed, grouped in traditional ways, businesses tend to create jobs in proportion to their importance in the economy. Thus, large mature firms — those more than ten years old and with more than 500 workers — employed about 45 percent of all private-sector workers and accounted for almost 40 percent of job creation and destruction in this study.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/W16300