臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

By analyzing the correlation coefficient Pearson (r) between the independent variables of the sample from 42 enterprises in the construction industry listed, we can see that most of the independent variables representing the initial identified factors were linearly related to debt ratio with the different directions and extent of impact. The impact factors are: firm scale (revenue), capital structure (fixed assets ratio), business performance (ROA), growth (growth of assets), and liquidity (current ratio), business risk (coefficient of ROA).
Result of linear regression analysis by Backward method with the support of SPSS software is the model:
Debt ratio = -0499 + 0.110Sales - 0.333CS - 0.703CR + 0.068Risk
From the model, we can conclude that there are four variables having linear relationship with the debt ratio. They are sales, capital structure, the current liquidity ratio, risk. The model can explain 73.6% the changes in debt ratio with the significance level α = 5%. Four variables respectively represent four elements: firm scale, asset structure, liquidity, business risks. In particular, based on the standardized coefficient beta, the most influential factor is the liquidity, followed by asset structure, company’s size and finally business risks.
Current ratio has opposite effect to the debt ratio means that in terms of other factors constant, the current ratio increases by 1 unit, the debt ratio will decrease 0.703 units.
Assets structure is measured by the proportion of fixed assets. When other factors do not change, the structure of assets increased by 1 unit, the debt ratio will reduce 0.333 units. This conclusion contrasts to the assumptions given in section 3.1.2 which is higher proportion of fixed assets, higher debt. This can be clarified by tighten lending policies of many banks to minimize bad debts. Banks should not focus only on fixed assets but also specially attention on the performance because it is the source of debt repayment.

By analyzing the correlation coefficient Pearson (r) between the independent variables of the sample from 42 enterprises in the construction industry listed, we can see that most of the independent variables representing the initial identified factors were linearly related to debt ratio with the different directions and extent of impact. The impact factors are: firm scale (revenue), capital structure (fixed assets ratio), business performance (ROA), growth (growth of assets), and liquidity (current ratio), business risk (coefficient of ROA).
Result of linear regression analysis by Backward method with the support of SPSS software is the model:
Debt ratio = -0499 + 0.110Sales - 0.333CS - 0.703CR + 0.068Risk
From the model, we can conclude that there are four variables having linear relationship with the debt ratio. They are sales, capital structure, the current liquidity ratio, risk. The model can explain 73.6% the changes in debt ratio with the significance level α = 5%. Four variables respectively represent four elements: firm scale, asset structure, liquidity, business risks. In particular, based on the standardized coefficient beta, the most influential factor is the liquidity, followed by asset structure, company’s size and finally business risks.
Current ratio has opposite effect to the debt ratio means that in terms of other factors constant, the current ratio increases by 1 unit, the debt ratio will decrease 0.703 units.
Assets structure is measured by the proportion of fixed assets. When other factors do not change, the structure of assets increased by 1 unit, the debt ratio will reduce 0.333 units. This conclusion contrasts to the assumptions given in section 3.1.2 which is higher proportion of fixed assets, higher debt. This can be clarified by tighten lending policies of many banks to minimize bad debts. Banks should not focus only on fixed assets but also specially attention on the performance because it is the source of debt repayment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I
ABSTRACT II
Contents III
Tables V
Chapter1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research rationale 1
1.2 Research aim and objectives 2
1.3 Research Contribution and Limitation 2
1.4 Structure of the study 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Overview of the corporate finance structure 4
2.1.1 The concept finance structure. 4
2.1.2 The theory of capital structure.. 5
2.2 Factors affecting the structure of corporate finance 11
2.2.1 The scale of enterprises. 11
2.2.2 Asset structure. 12
2.2.3 Efficient business operations. 12
2.2.4 The growth rate. 13
2.2.5 Solvency. 14
2.2.6 Business risks. 14
2.3 Introduction of Vietnam Securities Exchange and the Construction Materials industry 14
2.3.1 Securities Exchange. 14
2.3.2 The reality of the Construction Materials industry. 15
2.4 Previous researches of this issue in Vietnam. 16
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 19
3.1 Object and scope of the study 19
3.2 Background information of financial structure in the construction materials industry 19
3.2.1 Characteristics of financial structure in term of company size. 19
3.2.2 Characteristics of financial structure in term of assets allocation. 20
3.2.3 Characteristics of financial structure in term of business performance. 20
3.2.4 Characteristics of financial structure according to the growth. 20
3.2.5 Characteristics of financial structure according to liquidity ratio. 21
3.2.6 Characteristics of financial structure according to business risk. 21
3.3 Research Method and Model 21
Chapter 4 Results 25
4.1 Characteristics of the financial structure of enterprises in the Construction Materials sector 25
4.1.1 The general situation of the business performance. 25
4.1.2 Reality of financial structure. 26
4.2 Test data 28
4.3 Analysis of partial correlation coefficients 30
4.4 Analysis of single regression model 31
4.5 Analysis of multiple regression models 32
4.5.1 The choice of variables included in the model. 32
4.5.2 The analysis of multiples regression between the debt ratio and other influenced factors. 33
Chapter 5 Conclusion 37
5.1 Findings 37
5.2 Creating financial structure target 38
5.3 Recommendations 39
5.3.1 Increasing solvency. 40
5.3.2 Structural properties improvement. 40
5.3.3 Strengthen the management of risk. 41
5.3.4 Manage costs. 41
References 43
Attachment 46

1. Bauer, P. (1986) “Determinants of capital structure: Empirical evidence from the Czech Republic”, Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 54, pp.1-2, Available from: http://journal.fsv.cuni.cz/storage/958_s_2-21.pdf [Accessed: 19/02/2015].
2. Berger, A. N. & Gregory, F. U. (1994) “Small business credit availability and relationship lending: The importance of Bank Organizational Structure”, Economic Journal, Available from:
3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2001/200136/200136pap.pdf [Accessed: 15/02/2015].
4. Chen, S. & Martin, R. (2004) “Understanding China’s (uneven) progress against poverty”, Finance and Development, Available from:
5. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2004/12/pdf/ravallio.pdf [Accessed: 02/03/2015].
6. Son, N.H. (2001) "Financial structure and factors affecting the financial structure of travel businesses in Hue".
7. Sorensen, E.H. & Kim, W.S. (1986) “Evidence on the Impact of the Agency cost of Debt on Corporate debt policy”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative analysis, 21(2), Available from:
8. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2330733?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106698284833 [Accessed: 02/03/2015].
9. Jensen, M.C. (1986) “Agency costs of free cash flow, Corporate Finance and Takeovers”, American Economic Review, 76(2), pp.323-329, Available from: https://www2.bc.edu/~chemmanu/fincorp/JensenFCF.pdf [Accessed: 28/02/2015].
10. Jensen, M.C. & Meckling, W.H. (1976) “Theory of the Firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp.305-360, Available from:
11. http://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/Econ400/jensen-meckling.pdf [Accessed: 22/02/2015].
12. Huang, S. & Song, F. M. (2002) “The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from China”, Available from:
13. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=320088 [Accessed: 06/03/2015].
14. March, P. (1982) “The choice between equity and debt: an empirical study”, The Journal of Finance, Available from:
15. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2327121?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106697734453 [Accessed: 01/03/2015].
16. Myers, S.C. & Majluf, N.S. (1984) “Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have”, Journal of Financial Economics, 13, pp.187-221, Available from:
17. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.334.7154&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed: 25/02/2015]
18. Myers, S.C. (1977) “Determinants of corporate borrowing”, Journal of Financial Economics, 5, pp.147-175, Available from:
19. https://www2.bc.edu/~chemmanu/phdfincorp/MF891%20papers/Myers%201977.pdf [Accessed: 26/02/2015]
20. Nha, K.B. (2012) "Study of factors affecting the financial structure of firms in manufacturing industry listed on HOSE”.
21. Ngoc, P.A. (2010) "Factors affecting the financial structure and financial performance: main access by path method”.
22. Nguyen, N.V. (2003) “Analysis of factors affecting the financial structures and solutions to improve the funding structure of companies listed on Ho Chi Minh Securities Exchange”.
23. Phuong, L.M. (2012) "Analysis of factors affecting the capital structure of the construction joint- stock sectors listed on the Hanoi stock market”.
24. Trinh, N.T. (2008) "Analysis of factors affecting the financial structure to find out the perfect solution for funding structure of the joint-stock companies listed on Ho Chi Minh Securities Exchange”.
25. Wessel, R. & Titman, S. (1988) “The determinants of capital structure choice”, The Journal of Finance, 1, Available from:
26. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2328319?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106698284833 [Accessed: 03/03/2015].
27. Wiwattnakantang, Y. (1999) “The Equity Ownership Structure of Thai firms”, Available from:
https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/bitstream/10086/13952/1/wp2001-8a.pdf [Accessed: 05/03/2015].