Growth Opportunities and Corporate Debt Policy: The Case of the U.S. Defense Industry

By Vidhan K. Goyal, K. Lehn, Stanko Racic. 2002

218 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Testing the Pecking Order Theory of Capital Structure (2003, unknown): “Goyal et al. (2002) find that when growth opportunities of defense firms decline, these firms increase their use of debt financing.”
The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies (2005, result): “This argument is supported by the empirical findings by Smith and Watts (1992), Titman and Wessels (1988), and Goyal et al. (2002) .”
Deviation from the Target Capital Structure and Acquisition Choices (2011, unknown): “17 payment in acquisitions including asymmetric information (Hansen (1987); Travlos (1987); Eckbo et al.”
Can Growth Options Explain the Trend in Idiosyncratic Risk (2008, background): “However, the relationship between capital expenditures and the value of the investment options may not be linear (see Goyal, Lehn, and Racic 2002).”
Do liquidity constraints matter in explaining firm size and growth? Some evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry (2006, background): “15See however Galeotti, Schiantarelli, and Jaramillo (1994), Goyal, Lehn, and Racic (2002) and Albuquerque and Hopenhayn (2004) for alternative approaches employing debt-related variables as measures of liquidity constraints.”
The Investment Opportunity Set And Its Proxy Variables (2008, unknown): “See Table 1 for details.”
Trade-Off and Pecking Order Theories of Debt (2007, background): “Goyal et al. (2002) examine the U.S. defense industry during the 1980-1995 period.”