재무요인이 현금보유비율에 미치는 영향 : 기업수명주기와의 관계 : 기업의 현금 보유비율과 기업수명주기와의 관계를 중심으로
4, 40 p.
현금보유비율 재무요인 기업수명주기;
- 원문 URL
In this study, the question of 'Why did and do corporations in the past and present try to possess cash?' was examined, along with whether there is an appropriate cash holding for a corporation and, if there is, what cash holding and financial factors of a corporation are. The significance was examined and corporate life cycle was defined. The aim was to find the relationship of corporate life cycle with cash holding ratio. First after setting up a hypothesis based on preceding studies, sample corporations for empirical analysis were primarily selected as 400 corporations among 775 corporations listed on the stock market between 2008 and 2012 by excluding non-manufacturing corporations, corporations with lack of documents, and corporations for which settlement date is not in December. Secondary sampling was done for 284 corporations by excluding those that belong to the two groups on the borderline of life cycle based on corporate life cycle. The results of empirical analysis on the hypothesis performed through significance test using descriptive statistics are as follows. As a result of test on the difference in study variables for each corporate life cycle, size of total asset was found in the order of maturity period > growth period > decline period, and financial factors as independent variables did not show significance with corporate life cycle. ROA and total asset turnover ratio was also found to have no significance. In addition, cash holding ratio as dependent variable did not show significance except for 2012. As a result of test on the difference in study variables excluding corporate life cycle, current ratio was found to have significance. Corporations with high ROA also had high cash holding ratio, showing significance. Corporations with high debt ratio showed low cash holding ratio. In case of total asset, the measurement results were insignificant with mixture of + and – values. As a result of test on the different in study variables including corporate life cycle, current ratio had significance throughout the entire analysis period. ROA exhibited 1% significance in 2010 and 2011. Although debt ratio was insignificance, there were more negative effects overall. Looking at the dummy variables of corporate life cycle, dummy 1 and dummy 2 were significance for cash holding ratio of 2008 and cash holding ratio of 2012, respectively. As a result of the difference in study variables of sample corporations for each corporate life cycle, significance with cash holding ratio of corporations in growth period were shown in current ratio and ROA. Corporations in maturity period also showed significance of current ratio with cash holding ratio. Corporations in decline period had significance of current ratio with cash holding ratio as well. Based on the measurement results presented above, the greatest correlation with cash holding ratio except for corporate life cycle was found as current ratio (current ratio is a concept that includes cash asset). ROA showed 1% significance (high ROA refers to high rate of return compared to asset, indicating high cash holding ratio). As debt ratio has significance at 5% level with a negative relationship, corporations with high debt ratio have low cash holding. On the contrary, total asset was insignificant and showed mixture of + and – values. In the significance test including corporate life cycle, current ratio showed significance with growth, maturity and decline periods. Current ratio and ROA had significant relationship with cash holding ratio in growth period, and debt ratio had negative relationship with cash holding ratio in decline period. Lastly in the relationship between corporate life cycle and cash holding, significance with current ratio is a natural result as set forth in the hypothesis. As the results of significance test on other independent variables were not consistent, further study needs to be continued using diverse methods.